Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

z50rking2 t1_j67kzph wrote

Sucks but only way to get out being under a landlord is buying your own place.

17

DethKnotWurst t1_j689efx wrote

Assuming the bank allows you.

7

z50rking2 t1_j68g7jc wrote

Gotta have all your stuff in order. Money, credit, finding a place. All that stuff is annoying and hard work but it’s worth it. Gotta start somewhere and sometime.

6

DethKnotWurst t1_j6c5yum wrote

It's all a game with bad rules everyone is being forced to play.

1

UNHBuzzard t1_j6fbook wrote

The rules make sense once you understand them. Unfortunately schools don’t do a good job of teaching financial education including budgeting or how the credit system works. In theory it should be a mandatory class but not even in college is real world financials a real class. Once I started wanting to travel using airline miles or hotel points did I find all of the ways to increase your credit score or maintain it. Not that I’m saying that’s the direction to go in but if you need ways to improve yours I’m happy to help.

1

DethKnotWurst t1_j6gj8wi wrote

I sincerely appreciate you wanting to help, but I'm actually doing fine. You're right that most of the rules make sense, but I don't think that necessarily makes them good rules. And I would still rather not play the game, but that's not an option.

0

RoadAdventures t1_j6i3zvi wrote

> I would still rather not play the game

How would housing work if you did not want to play the game?

1

DethKnotWurst t1_j6lcjz7 wrote

I certainly don't have plans drawn up for all the intricacies of what goes into to housing a population, but here's 2 things I'd like to be true. Housing as a human right, I don't think individuals should be paying for a safe place to call home. And a teacher should have easier access to home ownership than a stock broker.

0

baxterstate t1_j6b500v wrote

Assuming the bank allows you. —————————————————————- Incorrect phrasing. The bank wants to lend. You don’t want to use a bank? Pay cash. If the bank doesn’t give you a loan, it’s not because they don’t want you to buy a house. It’s because you don’t qualify.

4

DethKnotWurst t1_j6c7c0c wrote

Paying cash for a house is just about impossible for the average person. Which means most everybody will need to use a bank. The difference between not qualifying for the bank's (arbitrary) standards for a loan and "not being allowed" seems more pedantic than meaningful.

0

baxterstate t1_j6dzijz wrote

>Paying cash for a house is just about impossible for the average person. Which means most everybody will need to use a bank. The difference between not qualifying for the bank's (arbitrary) standards for a loan and "not being allowed" seems more pedantic than meaningful.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Banks are in the business of making loans. Any buyer with a thought in his head will contact a mortgage representative from a bank and get pre-approved or pre-qualified. The rules for qualifying are a little different from lender to lender. They will tell you what they are. I would also advise becoming a member of a local credit union because sometimes their guidelines are more easygoing if you're buying a home in the city or town where they're located.

The days when lenders refused to lend to a to a qualified buyer because of race or ethnicity are long gone. If they refuse you despite your having good credit may be due to some minor rule, like inability to account for the source of your downpayment. If that is the case, the mortgage representative (who is also in the business of bringing in loans) will work with you to create a history for the source of the downpayment. The only time I had a hard time qualifying for a loan was back in 1981, and that was because depositors had withdrawn their money from banks and put it into high interest money market funds like Fidelity. Most banks had no money to lend. Mortgage companies had not yet been created.

1

DethKnotWurst t1_j6gil0r wrote

You're just describing the standards, and actually making some points about how they're arbitrary (different depending on who you ask and where you are). So it doesn't really negate my point.

And I understand that's how banks get money, but I find the whole practice a bit unethical.

1

AnythingToAvoidWork t1_j6fxid6 wrote

It's really hard.

I'm lucky enough to have a mortgage and a house I love. It's around $2500 a month when you include PMI.

I was only able to put 3% down. The 20% rule is another one of those dates guidelines that don't exist anymore.

1

Adventurous_Care_889 t1_j6jhdts wrote

It never did. It was only to avoid PMI and is spread by big real estate companies to discourage home ownership among the uninformed, keeping you out of the market and giving them less competition. The amount of equity you'll miss out on while saving 20% (or getting discouraged and giving up entirely, which they hope you'll do), compared to buying with the long standard of 3% minimum for first time home buyers, will always make PMI worth the price vs saving up for that 20%. First time home buyers should never put down 20% of that's their only barrier of entry. If they need to put down 20% to make the monthly payment affordable, they shouldn't be buying that particular house.

1