81–90 of 180 posts
Misleading label from HN - article is amp from Market Watch, not actually google.com. Ideally, HN would point at the original. Personally, my phone Adblock prevents google from spying on my traffic in general, but these cached amp links get tracked by google.
Submitters: please don't post those! It's important that readers see what domain a story is coming from.
The article title needs punctuation.
Submitters: please don't rewrite titles like that. If an article title is neither misleading nor linkbait, the site guidelines ask you not to change it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure my ancestral home is somewhere on Mayfair. I demand access to an affordable London flat thereabouts! Also if you're talking about the Bay Area, much of the real estate pricing there is driven by the anti-development tendencies of the owners of ancestral homes, either lining their own pockets or pushing some misguided political wheelbarrow (especially in SF). In that sense it's largely self inflicted. In o…
> Pretty sure my ancestral home is somewhere on Mayfair. I demand access to an affordable London flat thereabouts! We’d better get around to ceding Manhattan back to the Lenape, too.
I come from a city in England called Coventry. Family ties are what keep most of the population in place- perhaps “familial” is a better word.
The idea of not being able to live close to family is distressing to many of my fellow city dwellers.
You can argue the semantics of how valuable such a thing is. You can even argue that the entire family unit should probably move somewhere cheaper, or that commuting to see your mum isn’t all that bad. But honestly; it would take a lot for me to revisit the idea that I am not able to live amongst my family. Even if I personally did not choose to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is all true, but the mortgage interest deduction should be $0, particularly in the rich cities that refuse to let enough homes get built and fix things like zoning. It's an awful distortion that's a handout to the wealthy to the penalty of renters (generally less well off)
I'm a homeowner and I think it's an absolute crime my mortgage interest is tax deductible yet rent isn't. If we believe, at a philosophical level, that interest payments should be tax deductible, ok, then make ALL interest paid tax deductible - credit cards, personal loans, auto loans, payday loans, etc. It's shameful. That being said, with the new tax bill, 90+% of both owners and renters will be taking the standard…
You may disagree that that’s a desirable policy goal (and I might agree with you), but comparing it to some other payment that isn’t deductable misses the point entirely. Especially rent. Congress wanted to create an economic dis-incentive to being a renter and push people to own the homes they live in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, flippers aren’t taking conventional housing loans on the properties they are flipping. They are getting short term lines of credit instead because they don’t expect to have the house for more than a few months.
I'm not sure what kind of flippers you are referring, but usually there are no loans. Cash purchases - 100% for the entire value of the property. Source: my parents are prof. flippers.
At some point you hit the cap of what people can possibly spend. Depressed earnings in all but a tiny sector, and incredibly inflated house prices. Perpetual growth is unsustainable in this manner, but is expected by investors. I hope the market corrects. Not for my sake (I live in Sweden and have no US desires) but for those who hope to have a life and family near their ancestral home. I am not preaching to the choi…
> At some point you hit the cap of what people can possibly spend. Local population can be priced out if external buyers (ie, foreign cash) can pick up the slack / drive up demand. Foreign investment is likely why case-shiller is so high since mid-2000s.
Just today (in Austin) I saw a banner by the road outside a bank offering "100% financing" for homebuyers. If banks breathlessly pitching to lend buyers the entirety of a home's price is not a sign of an overheated debt-led housing market, I don't know what is.
It gets worse than that, https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/interest-only-mort...
Welcome to 2007! But don’t worry you’ll be unemployed in another year too!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, 75% of rent can be used. It is called "market rent", according to Fannie Mae. Remaining 25% is used for Vacancies, etc. In California markets, rental properties are not profitable, when you consider 20% downpayment, 75% rent, etc. There are 4 kinds of buyers in this market: 1. First home buyers: renters becoming buyers. 2. Second home buyers: thanks to the appreciation of their primary residence, people have bou…
Things I learned from Donald Trump: In most markets, rental properties are not profitable. Almost all of the profit comes when you sell the building, from appreciation. If you're breaking even on a rental, you're actually ahead of the game.
I probbably should have sold it long ago but $70/month is like internet.
Misleading label from HN - article is amp from Market Watch, not actually google.com. Ideally, HN would point at the original. Personally, my phone Adblock prevents google from spying on my traffic in general, but these cached amp links get tracked by google.
Yes. Url changed from https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/g... . Submitters: please don't post those! It's important that readers see what domain a story is coming from.