America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich • Hacker News Board

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#431

Post by germandiago » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 9:15 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #84

germandiago wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people who buy a place would like to reasonably be able to pay something that takes 30 years or similar to pay with the rent itself. That is a reason why you invest in the first place.

That's a pretty arbitrary measure though - you're making "free" money either way to pay towards that mortgage while retaining the whole value of the asset while it is gradually purchased. Whether you've got enough to cover mortgage or not doesn't necessarily flip a binary switch making it a good investment or not. Property ownership is a market barred from entry by a high buy in cost to account for some risk - but th…

> That's a pretty arbitrary measure though

It is, but I think I would find reasonable getting a mortgage if it does not impose a load on my finance by having it rented.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#432

Post by MisterBastahrd » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 4:02 AM UTC

giaour wrote: post #396

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't aware that plenty of people rent houses? By renting instead of buying, you don't incur any of the costs or headaches associated with with home ownership or repair. There are also plenty of people who are only living in one place for a limited period of time, and additionally, plenty of corporations will rent out homes in decent locations if their employees need to be there for extended projects.

I am aware; I was a renter until a couple of years ago. I have rented houses in the East Bay (Alameda, CA) and Seattle, and in each case, my rent was 70%-80% of what the monthly payment on a 30 year mortgage on the same house would have been. The same was true of apartments I rented in Manhattan. Maybe it doesn't work that way in other markets, but you'd have to be nuts as a renter to pay enough to cover your landlor…

Let me assure you then, that in most markets, you will pay far more than the cost of a 30 year mortgage plus taxes and insurance for renting a house. You're subsidizing the cost of vacancies and also paying for some of the maintenance.

A 3 bedroom, 2 bath home in a decent but inexpensive part of the DFW where I live will run you $2K per month. These prices will skyrocket as rental prices catch up to the mortgage market. But just for comparison, 2 years ago that same house would have been on the market for about $220K and would have had a monthly mortgage of about $1200 a month on a 15 year loan or $800 or so on a 30 year loan.

Re: America’s Covid job-saving programme gave most of its cash to the rich

#433

Post by MisterBastahrd » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 4:05 PM UTC

giaour wrote: post #398

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does this "normally" occur? A house in my neighborhood would rent for over $3000 a month and cost about $1600 a month in mortgage / insurance / taxes, and that's been my experience when looking at any property anywhere in my entire city.

Manhattan, Seattle, the Bay Area. I haven't rented anywhere other than that, so I don't know how it works outside of those markets (which are admittedly unique as far as market fundamentals go). I paid $1400/month for rent on a place in Alameda, CA. The last recorded sale of the property was for ~$400,000 a couple years before I moved in. That mortgage would be ~$2400/month given average interest rates at the time.

That's crazy comparative to most places I've lived. $1400 will get you a 2 bedroom apartment in a run down complex in the DFW area. Right now, $2350 gets you into a doublewide in Alameda.