CanuckInUSA 0 #1 May 24, 2011 Just curious. Does the ability to deduct the interest you pay for your mortgage on your income taxes serve as a influencing factor for never wanting to actually pay off your mortgage? Up here in the frozen Dominion of obedient servants to the British Crown, we are not allowed to deduct the interest we pay on our mortgages (of course we do get to keep 100% of any capital gains on the home if/when it is sold). If I am not mistaken the ratio of people who have paid off their debts on their homes for those of us who suck up to the Queen is much higher than the ratio of those who's descendants gave the British Monarchy the bird several centuries ago. The USA has many other bigger problems, but wouldn't some problems Americans have be less if they paid off their mortgages and not worry so much about their tax deduction? Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #2 May 24, 2011 Yes, I think it does influence the speed at which people pay off their mortgages. It also encourages home purchases over renting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #3 May 24, 2011 QuoteJust curious. Does the ability to deduct the interest you pay for your mortgage on your income taxes serve as a influencing factor for never wanting to actually pay off your mortgage? Do you not want to pay off your mortgage because you will lose a tax deduction? Up here in the frozen Dominion of obedient servants to the British Crown, we are not allowed to deduct the interest we pay on our mortgages (of course we do get to keep 100% of any capital gains on the home if/when it is sold). If I am not mistaken the ratio of people who have paid off their debts on their homes for those of us who suck up to the Queen is much higher than the ratio of those who's descendants gave the British Monarchy the bird several centuries ago. The USA has many other bigger problems, but wouldn't some problems Americans have be less if they paid off their mortgages and not worry so much about their tax deduction? What % of Canadian taxes go to the monarchy? Or are you just ranting as usual?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #4 May 24, 2011 QuoteWhat % of Canadian taxes go to the monarchy? Not sure of the exact figure, but we Canadians do pay a portion of our taxes to keep the British Royals living the life of luxury they have. Tell you what. I won't bring up the British Monarchy in this thread anymore if you promise to stay on topic and discuss "Does deducting the interest on mortgages not lead to an incentive to pay off the mortgage debt". Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #5 May 24, 2011 Your question is more a test of the finance knowledge of Americans, I think. If you're financially astute, then the answer comes down to cash reserves and how much you can earn elsewhere. Mortgage rates have been under 6% for some time now for a 30 year. Figure on a marginal tax rate of 33%, and this is effectively a 4% loan provided you're over the standard deduction. So if you can make more than 4% in fixed income, or stock market, or savings, then rationally, you shouldn't prepay the mortgage at all, you should be investing it instead. In our current situation, where savings accounts are lucky to get 1%, and the market has been in a long term average of 0-2%, then it makes sense to do at least some prepaying. For the first 5 years of the 30 year, very little goes to principle, so it's easy to make "double" payments and turn the loan into a 25 year. Not sure how it is in Canada, but here most people don't expect to live in their house for the full 30, and have (until recently) just been treating the 30year loan as a leveraging instrument till their next move/upgrade. The other knock against preparing the loan is liquidity. If you pay an extra 1000/month into the loan for 5 years, that's 60k in principle (plus earnings) that you can't easily get to if you needed. Home equity borrowing is not what it once was, and probably for the better that this is true, as that's how people got underwater. I've seen suggestions from some to take that intended excess payments money and put it into a separate account and when the sum of it equals the outstanding balance on the mortgage, consider paying it out. So...looping back around to your question. What would change if the deduction didn't exist, or if people didn't rely on it? In the first situation, prices would drop a bit during a transition period (decade or two?). That 500k house now costs you more to move into. But if it remained, but people choose to use it less, that implies a higher savings rate, which would be a positive, but again could just mean more savings in a less liquid account. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #6 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhat % of Canadian taxes go to the monarchy? Not sure of the exact figure, . So you were ranting as usual. OK.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat % of Canadian taxes go to the monarchy? Not sure of the exact figure, . So you were ranting as usual. OK. and you're "contributing" as usual (for you). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbrown 0 #8 May 24, 2011 QuoteYes, I think it does influence the speed at which people pay off their mortgages. It also encourages home purchases over renting. Something to consider concerning 30 year mortgages is the fact that the banker, who created the money to pay for the house loan out of thin air, will make more money off of that mortgage than all the wages of the people who built the house and all of the proffits of the suppliers who supplied materials to build the house. Oh !! One more thing!!!! We also bailed them out!!!! WTF!!!! Peace, Jim B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #9 May 24, 2011 Why would anyone pay a $1,000 a month for a $100 deduction? Yea, I get it but if given the choice, I would much rather own my home outright."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbrown 0 #10 May 24, 2011 Quote Home equity borrowing is not what it once was, and probably for the better that this is true, as that's how people got underwater. Quote Really? LOL! Do you really believe that it was the home equity borrowing that put people underwater? If you do you have zero credibility in any economics thread. If you do you deserve about as much credibility as those who swear that God sent the tornadoes to Missouri. Peace, Jim B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #11 May 24, 2011 QuoteWhy would anyone pay a $1,000 a month for a $100 deduction? Yea, I get it but if given the choice, I would much rather own my home outright. I would much rather own the home. In fact I do own my home. I was however lucky to buy before my local market took off. But these deductions do not apply to me, I was just thinking about them when others in different thread were talked about estate taxes. So far BillVon and Kelpdiver have given reasons why the deductions exist. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #12 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuote Home equity borrowing is not what it once was, and probably for the better that this is true, as that's how people got underwater. Quote Really? LOL! Do you really believe that it was the home equity borrowing that put people underwater? yes - cash out refi's are a significant portion of the underwater loans. The other are those who bought at the height. It's funny reading you talk about credibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #13 May 24, 2011 QuoteWhy would anyone pay a $1,000 a month for a $100 deduction? Yea, I get it but if given the choice, I would much rather own my home outright. the numbers are a bit different in San Francisco, and for those at the early part of their 30 year loan. It would be paying $1000 to get a $900 deduction, would might translate to $700 if and only if they can actually itemize. Odds are this isn't enough, though, and they end up using the standard deduction or just a bit more, and get the $100 deduction as you suggest. But in SF, it's 4000/month or much more, and then 3000 or much more in deductions. But the deductions rarely get the monthly cost, even ignoring all the other costs of home ownership, down to the price of rent in a rent controlled city. So people do it for investment purposes (shaky theory these days) or because they are willing to pay to have their own home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyMarko 1 #14 May 24, 2011 What's a mortgage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jimbrown 0 #15 May 24, 2011 Quote[ Really? LOL! Do you really believe that it was the home equity borrowing that put people underwater? yes - cash out refi's are a significant portion of the underwater loans. The other are those who bought at the height. It's funny reading you talk about credibility. So in your opinion it has nothing to do with the bankers bundling up the mortgasges , often fraudulently, and selling them as Mortgage Backed Securities? It has nothing to do with the bankers betting on Credit Default Swaps? It was all just just people who took out home equity loans that were approved by.., their banker. It was the American people who caused this crisis and they Rightfully are the ones who should pay for it. Is that the crap you are attempting to pass here as pearls of wisdom? Listen, I know what happened and I know how the People have been fucked. I don't advocate violence but I suggest you and your co workers leave town and go into hiding. It can't be long before the tar is boiled and the chickens are plucked. Hey!!! If you don't mind a few discomforts I have some space you are welcome to under my tarp at Lake Jocassee , SC! I got grub, Kayaks and canoes and a meager income to pay for gas to fuel the bikes where we could blow it out a couple times a week Over these twisty mountain roads. Best of all, South Carolina doesn't require helmets!! Peace, Jim B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #16 May 24, 2011 QuoteWhat's a mortgage? Its something you may have someday when you are all grown up, decide to settle down and marry a nice man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #17 May 24, 2011 Quote Freddie Mac also reported that the percent of cash-out refinances, in which homeowners cashed out some home equity, fell to a record low. Borrowers who increased their mortgage loan balance by at least 5 percent accounted for 16 percent of mortgage refinancing. The cash-out refinance share has averaged 62 percent over the past 25 years. I'm not going to talk any further about it in this thread, which is focused on the subject of mortgage finance, and has little to do with your latest conspiracy whining. If you want to open a new thread for that, I'll say more. You would do well to not read every subject and look for the opportunity to rant, but actually read for subject and participate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jimbrown 0 #18 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuote Freddie Mac also reported that the percent of cash-out refinances, in which homeowners cashed out some home equity, fell to a record low. Borrowers who increased their mortgage loan balance by at least 5 percent accounted for 16 percent of mortgage refinancing. The cash-out refinance share has averaged 62 percent over the past 25 years. I'm not going to talk any further about it in this thread, which is focused on the subject of mortgage finance, and has little to do with your latest conspiracy whining. If you want to open a new thread for that, I'll say more. You would do well to not read every subject and look for the opportunity to rant, but actually read for subject and participate. LOL! You do that !!!! Funny that the quote you attributed to me wasn't anything I've ever written or posted!! But that's the way it goes. You'll get more and more paranoid until you are ready to release the lie or you make the decision to JUMP!!! Peace, Jim B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #19 May 24, 2011 Quote Funny that the quote you attributed to me wasn't anything I've ever written or posted!! nor was it supposed to be. It was a factual note about the prevalence the cash out refi's. I use {reply} when quoting someone's posting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #20 May 24, 2011 Quote Not sure of the exact figure, but we Canadians do pay a portion of our taxes to keep the British Royals living the life of luxury they have. WRONG! When we invite royals over we pay to roll out the red carpet, but that is also true when we invite dignitaries from lower Elbonia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #21 May 24, 2011 Quote But in SF, it's 4000/month or much more, and then 3000 or much more in deductions. But the deductions rarely get the monthly cost, even ignoring all the other costs of home ownership, down to the price of rent in a rent controlled city. Living in the bay area I pay some attention to prices. The least unreasonably priced properties someplace I'd want to live cost about 50% more to rent the money (assuming a 20% down payment and fully deductible interest) to buy than to rent an equivalent property. The most unreasonably priced properties still cost 100% more to rent the money than to rent a similar property. I can't decide whether that's unreasonable (places where people rely on salaries to buy homes the market wouldn't support such prices) or not (perhaps instant IPO millions are what buy the homes here) The property I bought at the peak of the market in 2006 outside Seattle ran 0-20% more to rent the money than to rent a similar property (ignoring opportunity cost on the down payment when CDs still yielded 5%). The property I bought in Boulder, CO circa 1999 cost less to rent the money than to rent a similar property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #22 May 24, 2011 Quote I can't decide whether that's unreasonable (places where people rely on salaries to buy homes the market wouldn't support such prices) or not (perhaps instant IPO millions are what buy the homes here) Lot of DINKs making 2 x 6 figure incomes. I think it's more about that then the IPO types, which are a bit rarer these days. Within SF, there's also a bit of foreign, or at least out of town, investing going on. As a single earner, it's a stretch as a result. So far, the opportunity cost/risk of committing without a second income seems too high, I'd rather keep that money reachable, and me portable. Obviously if one lives close to Vallejo, there are good prices to be had, but anything along the SJ->Marin corridor is nearly as expensive as ever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #23 May 24, 2011 Quote Why would anyone pay a $1,000 a month for a $100 deduction? Yea, I get it but if given the choice, I would much rather own my home outright +1 It is there as a bonus, a "gift" from the gov to make it a better thing to have a house. It is of course not the reason to have one. It should go away and use the moeny to pay down debt...but that wont happenKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #24 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhat % of Canadian taxes go to the monarchy? Not sure of the exact figure, but we Canadians do pay a portion of our taxes to keep the British Royals living the life of luxury they have. more rich parasites living off mummy and daddy's money...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #25 May 24, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote What % of Canadian taxes go to the monarchy? Not sure of the exact figure, . So you were ranting as usual. OK. and you're "contributing" as usual (for you). Dick is as Dick does"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
CanuckInUSA 0 #11 May 24, 2011 QuoteWhy would anyone pay a $1,000 a month for a $100 deduction? Yea, I get it but if given the choice, I would much rather own my home outright. I would much rather own the home. In fact I do own my home. I was however lucky to buy before my local market took off. But these deductions do not apply to me, I was just thinking about them when others in different thread were talked about estate taxes. So far BillVon and Kelpdiver have given reasons why the deductions exist. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuote Home equity borrowing is not what it once was, and probably for the better that this is true, as that's how people got underwater. Quote Really? LOL! Do you really believe that it was the home equity borrowing that put people underwater? yes - cash out refi's are a significant portion of the underwater loans. The other are those who bought at the height. It's funny reading you talk about credibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #13 May 24, 2011 QuoteWhy would anyone pay a $1,000 a month for a $100 deduction? Yea, I get it but if given the choice, I would much rather own my home outright. the numbers are a bit different in San Francisco, and for those at the early part of their 30 year loan. It would be paying $1000 to get a $900 deduction, would might translate to $700 if and only if they can actually itemize. Odds are this isn't enough, though, and they end up using the standard deduction or just a bit more, and get the $100 deduction as you suggest. But in SF, it's 4000/month or much more, and then 3000 or much more in deductions. But the deductions rarely get the monthly cost, even ignoring all the other costs of home ownership, down to the price of rent in a rent controlled city. So people do it for investment purposes (shaky theory these days) or because they are willing to pay to have their own home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyMarko 1 #14 May 24, 2011 What's a mortgage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jimbrown 0 #15 May 24, 2011 Quote[ Really? LOL! Do you really believe that it was the home equity borrowing that put people underwater? yes - cash out refi's are a significant portion of the underwater loans. The other are those who bought at the height. It's funny reading you talk about credibility. So in your opinion it has nothing to do with the bankers bundling up the mortgasges , often fraudulently, and selling them as Mortgage Backed Securities? It has nothing to do with the bankers betting on Credit Default Swaps? It was all just just people who took out home equity loans that were approved by.., their banker. It was the American people who caused this crisis and they Rightfully are the ones who should pay for it. Is that the crap you are attempting to pass here as pearls of wisdom? Listen, I know what happened and I know how the People have been fucked. I don't advocate violence but I suggest you and your co workers leave town and go into hiding. It can't be long before the tar is boiled and the chickens are plucked. Hey!!! If you don't mind a few discomforts I have some space you are welcome to under my tarp at Lake Jocassee , SC! I got grub, Kayaks and canoes and a meager income to pay for gas to fuel the bikes where we could blow it out a couple times a week Over these twisty mountain roads. Best of all, South Carolina doesn't require helmets!! Peace, Jim B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #16 May 24, 2011 QuoteWhat's a mortgage? Its something you may have someday when you are all grown up, decide to settle down and marry a nice man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #17 May 24, 2011 Quote Freddie Mac also reported that the percent of cash-out refinances, in which homeowners cashed out some home equity, fell to a record low. Borrowers who increased their mortgage loan balance by at least 5 percent accounted for 16 percent of mortgage refinancing. The cash-out refinance share has averaged 62 percent over the past 25 years. I'm not going to talk any further about it in this thread, which is focused on the subject of mortgage finance, and has little to do with your latest conspiracy whining. If you want to open a new thread for that, I'll say more. You would do well to not read every subject and look for the opportunity to rant, but actually read for subject and participate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jimbrown 0 #18 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuote Freddie Mac also reported that the percent of cash-out refinances, in which homeowners cashed out some home equity, fell to a record low. Borrowers who increased their mortgage loan balance by at least 5 percent accounted for 16 percent of mortgage refinancing. The cash-out refinance share has averaged 62 percent over the past 25 years. I'm not going to talk any further about it in this thread, which is focused on the subject of mortgage finance, and has little to do with your latest conspiracy whining. If you want to open a new thread for that, I'll say more. You would do well to not read every subject and look for the opportunity to rant, but actually read for subject and participate. LOL! You do that !!!! Funny that the quote you attributed to me wasn't anything I've ever written or posted!! But that's the way it goes. You'll get more and more paranoid until you are ready to release the lie or you make the decision to JUMP!!! Peace, Jim B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #19 May 24, 2011 Quote Funny that the quote you attributed to me wasn't anything I've ever written or posted!! nor was it supposed to be. It was a factual note about the prevalence the cash out refi's. I use {reply} when quoting someone's posting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #20 May 24, 2011 Quote Not sure of the exact figure, but we Canadians do pay a portion of our taxes to keep the British Royals living the life of luxury they have. WRONG! When we invite royals over we pay to roll out the red carpet, but that is also true when we invite dignitaries from lower Elbonia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #21 May 24, 2011 Quote But in SF, it's 4000/month or much more, and then 3000 or much more in deductions. But the deductions rarely get the monthly cost, even ignoring all the other costs of home ownership, down to the price of rent in a rent controlled city. Living in the bay area I pay some attention to prices. The least unreasonably priced properties someplace I'd want to live cost about 50% more to rent the money (assuming a 20% down payment and fully deductible interest) to buy than to rent an equivalent property. The most unreasonably priced properties still cost 100% more to rent the money than to rent a similar property. I can't decide whether that's unreasonable (places where people rely on salaries to buy homes the market wouldn't support such prices) or not (perhaps instant IPO millions are what buy the homes here) The property I bought at the peak of the market in 2006 outside Seattle ran 0-20% more to rent the money than to rent a similar property (ignoring opportunity cost on the down payment when CDs still yielded 5%). The property I bought in Boulder, CO circa 1999 cost less to rent the money than to rent a similar property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #22 May 24, 2011 Quote I can't decide whether that's unreasonable (places where people rely on salaries to buy homes the market wouldn't support such prices) or not (perhaps instant IPO millions are what buy the homes here) Lot of DINKs making 2 x 6 figure incomes. I think it's more about that then the IPO types, which are a bit rarer these days. Within SF, there's also a bit of foreign, or at least out of town, investing going on. As a single earner, it's a stretch as a result. So far, the opportunity cost/risk of committing without a second income seems too high, I'd rather keep that money reachable, and me portable. Obviously if one lives close to Vallejo, there are good prices to be had, but anything along the SJ->Marin corridor is nearly as expensive as ever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #23 May 24, 2011 Quote Why would anyone pay a $1,000 a month for a $100 deduction? Yea, I get it but if given the choice, I would much rather own my home outright +1 It is there as a bonus, a "gift" from the gov to make it a better thing to have a house. It is of course not the reason to have one. It should go away and use the moeny to pay down debt...but that wont happenKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dreamdancer 0 #24 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhat % of Canadian taxes go to the monarchy? Not sure of the exact figure, but we Canadians do pay a portion of our taxes to keep the British Royals living the life of luxury they have. more rich parasites living off mummy and daddy's money...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #25 May 24, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote What % of Canadian taxes go to the monarchy? Not sure of the exact figure, . So you were ranting as usual. OK. and you're "contributing" as usual (for you). Dick is as Dick does"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #13 May 24, 2011 QuoteWhy would anyone pay a $1,000 a month for a $100 deduction? Yea, I get it but if given the choice, I would much rather own my home outright. the numbers are a bit different in San Francisco, and for those at the early part of their 30 year loan. It would be paying $1000 to get a $900 deduction, would might translate to $700 if and only if they can actually itemize. Odds are this isn't enough, though, and they end up using the standard deduction or just a bit more, and get the $100 deduction as you suggest. But in SF, it's 4000/month or much more, and then 3000 or much more in deductions. But the deductions rarely get the monthly cost, even ignoring all the other costs of home ownership, down to the price of rent in a rent controlled city. So people do it for investment purposes (shaky theory these days) or because they are willing to pay to have their own home. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyMarko 1 #14 May 24, 2011 What's a mortgage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbrown 0 #15 May 24, 2011 Quote[ Really? LOL! Do you really believe that it was the home equity borrowing that put people underwater? yes - cash out refi's are a significant portion of the underwater loans. The other are those who bought at the height. It's funny reading you talk about credibility. So in your opinion it has nothing to do with the bankers bundling up the mortgasges , often fraudulently, and selling them as Mortgage Backed Securities? It has nothing to do with the bankers betting on Credit Default Swaps? It was all just just people who took out home equity loans that were approved by.., their banker. It was the American people who caused this crisis and they Rightfully are the ones who should pay for it. Is that the crap you are attempting to pass here as pearls of wisdom? Listen, I know what happened and I know how the People have been fucked. I don't advocate violence but I suggest you and your co workers leave town and go into hiding. It can't be long before the tar is boiled and the chickens are plucked. Hey!!! If you don't mind a few discomforts I have some space you are welcome to under my tarp at Lake Jocassee , SC! I got grub, Kayaks and canoes and a meager income to pay for gas to fuel the bikes where we could blow it out a couple times a week Over these twisty mountain roads. Best of all, South Carolina doesn't require helmets!! Peace, Jim B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #16 May 24, 2011 QuoteWhat's a mortgage? Its something you may have someday when you are all grown up, decide to settle down and marry a nice man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 May 24, 2011 Quote Freddie Mac also reported that the percent of cash-out refinances, in which homeowners cashed out some home equity, fell to a record low. Borrowers who increased their mortgage loan balance by at least 5 percent accounted for 16 percent of mortgage refinancing. The cash-out refinance share has averaged 62 percent over the past 25 years. I'm not going to talk any further about it in this thread, which is focused on the subject of mortgage finance, and has little to do with your latest conspiracy whining. If you want to open a new thread for that, I'll say more. You would do well to not read every subject and look for the opportunity to rant, but actually read for subject and participate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbrown 0 #18 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuote Freddie Mac also reported that the percent of cash-out refinances, in which homeowners cashed out some home equity, fell to a record low. Borrowers who increased their mortgage loan balance by at least 5 percent accounted for 16 percent of mortgage refinancing. The cash-out refinance share has averaged 62 percent over the past 25 years. I'm not going to talk any further about it in this thread, which is focused on the subject of mortgage finance, and has little to do with your latest conspiracy whining. If you want to open a new thread for that, I'll say more. You would do well to not read every subject and look for the opportunity to rant, but actually read for subject and participate. LOL! You do that !!!! Funny that the quote you attributed to me wasn't anything I've ever written or posted!! But that's the way it goes. You'll get more and more paranoid until you are ready to release the lie or you make the decision to JUMP!!! Peace, Jim B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 May 24, 2011 Quote Funny that the quote you attributed to me wasn't anything I've ever written or posted!! nor was it supposed to be. It was a factual note about the prevalence the cash out refi's. I use {reply} when quoting someone's posting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #20 May 24, 2011 Quote Not sure of the exact figure, but we Canadians do pay a portion of our taxes to keep the British Royals living the life of luxury they have. WRONG! When we invite royals over we pay to roll out the red carpet, but that is also true when we invite dignitaries from lower Elbonia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #21 May 24, 2011 Quote But in SF, it's 4000/month or much more, and then 3000 or much more in deductions. But the deductions rarely get the monthly cost, even ignoring all the other costs of home ownership, down to the price of rent in a rent controlled city. Living in the bay area I pay some attention to prices. The least unreasonably priced properties someplace I'd want to live cost about 50% more to rent the money (assuming a 20% down payment and fully deductible interest) to buy than to rent an equivalent property. The most unreasonably priced properties still cost 100% more to rent the money than to rent a similar property. I can't decide whether that's unreasonable (places where people rely on salaries to buy homes the market wouldn't support such prices) or not (perhaps instant IPO millions are what buy the homes here) The property I bought at the peak of the market in 2006 outside Seattle ran 0-20% more to rent the money than to rent a similar property (ignoring opportunity cost on the down payment when CDs still yielded 5%). The property I bought in Boulder, CO circa 1999 cost less to rent the money than to rent a similar property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 May 24, 2011 Quote I can't decide whether that's unreasonable (places where people rely on salaries to buy homes the market wouldn't support such prices) or not (perhaps instant IPO millions are what buy the homes here) Lot of DINKs making 2 x 6 figure incomes. I think it's more about that then the IPO types, which are a bit rarer these days. Within SF, there's also a bit of foreign, or at least out of town, investing going on. As a single earner, it's a stretch as a result. So far, the opportunity cost/risk of committing without a second income seems too high, I'd rather keep that money reachable, and me portable. Obviously if one lives close to Vallejo, there are good prices to be had, but anything along the SJ->Marin corridor is nearly as expensive as ever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #23 May 24, 2011 Quote Why would anyone pay a $1,000 a month for a $100 deduction? Yea, I get it but if given the choice, I would much rather own my home outright +1 It is there as a bonus, a "gift" from the gov to make it a better thing to have a house. It is of course not the reason to have one. It should go away and use the moeny to pay down debt...but that wont happenKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #24 May 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteWhat % of Canadian taxes go to the monarchy? Not sure of the exact figure, but we Canadians do pay a portion of our taxes to keep the British Royals living the life of luxury they have. more rich parasites living off mummy and daddy's money...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #25 May 24, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote What % of Canadian taxes go to the monarchy? Not sure of the exact figure, . So you were ranting as usual. OK. and you're "contributing" as usual (for you). Dick is as Dick does"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
