151–158 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No investors are paying cash for homes. The entire real estate game is about maximizing leverage with the massive home loans you can get.
They absolutely are. I have multiple friends who received cash offers from investment companies when selling their homes. It's fairly common and well known. "We buy houses" companies are everywhere. It's their entire strategy.
This seems temporary, assuming interest rates have topped out. Given the Fed's recent messaging, this seems like the most obvious time in 10+ years to wait out the housing market.
Why? What is going to happen next year, that makes waiting good?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They absolutely are. I have multiple friends who received cash offers from investment companies when selling their homes. It's fairly common and well known. "We buy houses" companies are everywhere. It's their entire strategy.
"cash offer" here means they already have the loans lined up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
California homeowners pay property tax and the rate goes up either with inflation or 2%. I'm guessing you think it should go up with the market value of the home. Thank god it doesn't or I would have had to sell instead of being able to give my kids a stable home for the past 18 years.
>Thank god it doesn't or I would have had to sell instead of being able to give my kids a stable home for the past 18 years. No, you wouldn't. You could have taken out a HELOC for a tiny portion of your appreciation over those years to pay your fair share of taxes, the way people do in literally every other state. Glad you got yours, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
California homeowners pay property tax and the rate goes up either with inflation or 2%. I'm guessing you think it should go up with the market value of the home. Thank god it doesn't or I would have had to sell instead of being able to give my kids a stable home for the past 18 years.
>Thank god it doesn't or I would have had to sell instead of being able to give my kids a stable home for the past 18 years. No, you wouldn't. You could have taken out a HELOC for a tiny portion of your appreciation over those years to pay your fair share of taxes, the way people do in literally every other state. Glad you got yours, though.
I'll pay taxes on the appreciation when I sell so the government will get theirs.
Should I also only carry a variable rate mortgage so that I pay whatever a new home buyer pays?
Should the government spend whatever they take in even if their costs haven't increased with home values?
Sorry home ownership is not affordable. It hasn't been in California since the late 90s. I threw 20 years of savings at mine so I could have a reasonable mortgage. I actually would be better off financially if I had put that money in the stock market.
Now with remote work, you don't have to live near a work center, opening tons of location possibilities. I wish that happened before I bought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The discussion is about real estate. Look at the world map, most of the world is below replacement levels. Exactly what I said. Even countries like India are just at replacement levels and will soon be below as well.
For real estate, it doesn't matter if your birth rate is below replacement levels, when your population keeps growing. Real estate doesn't care how people got into your country, it just cares that they did.
Unless the housing supply increases this will just be a temporary thing. As long as people are able to make their mortgage payments they typically won't sell their homes at a loss (even if their equity is negative). Some people will always be forced to sell due to life events and that's what will set current market comps. Since mortgage rates have recently spiked upwards people who need a mortgage to buy a home can a…
Selling at a loss is dependent on your cost basis, and fortunately most owners didn’t buy within the last few years of dramatically overinflated prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing one more demographic that's a pretty big deal. California homeowners insulated from property tax due to prop 13.
California homeowners pay property tax and the rate goes up either with inflation or 2%. I'm guessing you think it should go up with the market value of the home. Thank god it doesn't or I would have had to sell instead of being able to give my kids a stable home for the past 18 years.
The way California has done property tax is hilariously bad, commercial properties get no cost basis step up forever? until recently People can inherit property with infinite value without a reassessment? come on. Imo prop 13 is at the root of most of the state's problems.
The reason people lobby for prop 13, particularly older property owners who vote, is because of the appreciation you mentioned.
That should not be happening in the first place, because the state should not systemically under-build housing. The government policies which cause that underbuilding are lobbied for by the same demographic that enjoys the benefits of prop 13. If it's for personal preference in lifestyle or a quest for artificially increasing home value it doesn't matter there's no reason to create an aristocracy in California.
We need to change those policies so we can build enough housing supply to meet demand, and treat housing like a commodity good that it is. Instead of this absurd game where we underbuild on purpose and patch over the issues to the best of our ability for the benefit of a relatively small supply of homeowners who bare none of the social costs.