Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

Wasting: Apr 25, 2013; The next to go

Some anecdotes:

I work with a lot of people in the 80 to 100k a year salary range, and a very small minority, maybe 1 in 20, does not own either a condo or a house.

Of those owning houses, they tend to be in their mid 30s or older, with many owning multiple "investment" properties, some preconstruction, some rented. The older the person is, the more likely he is to own multiple properties.

People in their 20s to early 30s tend to own condos, and again, later 20s tend to own multiple condos or a condo (investment/rental) and a house as a primary residence.

Married people tend to own houses, while single people tend to own condos. And the plural is intended.

Those not already owning multiple properties seem to be interested in buying preconstructions. No one I ask would be willing to buy a residence for what their own assessed value is (granted, I've only asked like four people this).

And dear lord do they eat up the "there is no bubble" news stories. People react with hostility to any suggestion otherwise, so now I just nod and praise their financial prudence, as is expected.

Some days it makes me feel a bit sick to my stomach, as something is definitely, seriously wrong, but there is nothing to be done.

I don't particularly want or need property at this point in my life, as I move around a lot, but I'm sick of being talked down to about my decision not to buy. I could definitely afford to, however, it would wipe out my savings and mess up my actual investments.

I wish people would just loving shut up about houses, I guess. I don't work in real estate and I do not prompt these conversations.

Wasting fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Mar 28, 2014

# ? Mar 28, 2014 01:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 22:19

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Wasting posted:

Some anecdotes:

I work with a lot of people in the 80 to 100k a year salary range, and a very small minority, maybe 1 in 20, does not own either a condo or a house.

Of those owning houses, they tend to be in their mid 30s or older, with many owning multiple "investment" properties, some preconstruction, some rented. The older the person is, the more likely he is to own multiple properties.

People in their 20s to early 30s tend to own condos, and again, later 20s tend to own multiple condos or a condo (investment/rental) and a house as a primary residence.

Married people tend to own houses, while single people tend to own condos. And the plural is intended.

Those not already owning multiple properties seem to be interested in buying preconstructions. No one I ask would be willing to buy a residence for what their assessed value is (granted, I've only asked like four people this).

And dear lord do they eat up the "there is no bubble" news stories. People react with hostility to any suggestion otherwise, so now I just nod and praise their financial prudence, as is expected.

Some days it makes me feel a bit sick to my stomach, as something is definitely, seriously wrong, but there is nothing to be done.

I don't particularly want or need property at this point in my life, as I move around a lot, but I'm sick of being talked down to about my decision not to buy. I could definitely afford to, however, it would wipe out my savings and mess up my actual investments.

I wish people would just loving shut up about houses, I guess.

I love these anecdotes. What sort of jobs do these people have? Are they university educated?

# ? Mar 28, 2014 01:30

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Wasting posted:

Some anecdotes:

I work with a lot of people in the 80 to 100k a year salary range, and a very small minority, maybe 1 in 20, does not own either a condo or a house.

Of those owning houses, they tend to be in their mid 30s or older, with many owning multiple "investment" properties, some preconstruction, some rented. The older the person is, the more likely he is to own multiple properties.

People in their 20s to early 30s tend to own condos, and again, later 20s tend to own multiple condos or a condo (investment/rental) and a house as a primary residence.

Married people tend to own houses, while single people tend to own condos. And the plural is intended.

Those not already owning multiple properties seem to be interested in buying preconstructions. No one I ask would be willing to buy a residence for what their own assessed value is (granted, I've only asked like four people this).

And dear lord do they eat up the "there is no bubble" news stories. People react with hostility to any suggestion otherwise, so now I just nod and praise their financial prudence, as is expected.

Some days it makes me feel a bit sick to my stomach, as something is definitely, seriously wrong, but there is nothing to be done.

I don't particularly want or need property at this point in my life, as I move around a lot, but I'm sick of being talked down to about my decision not to buy. I could definitely afford to, however, it would wipe out my savings and mess up my actual investments.

I wish people would just loving shut up about houses, I guess. I don't work in real estate and I do not prompt these conversations.

I could write this verbatim and have it apply to me.

The worst part is definitely all the financial geniuses.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 01:34

apatheticman: May 13, 2003; Wedge Regret

Wasting posted:

I don't particularly want or need property at this point in my life, as I move around a lot, but I'm sick of being talked down to about my decision not to buy. I could definitely afford to, however, it would wipe out my savings and mess up my actual investments.

I wish people would just loving shut up about houses, I guess. I don't work in real estate and I do not prompt these conversations.

I work with a lot of wealthy individuals (same salary range you are speaking of). Accountants mostly, I get the same spiels, however there is a ting of class warfare in there.

They basically hate the people the rent to, hate the imposition of being a "landlord" yet continue to extol its virtues.

I usually smile and nod and just be like you know what its not for me, but it really is almost cult like.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 01:35

Wasting: Apr 25, 2013; The next to go

Cultural Imperial posted:

I love these anecdotes. What sort of jobs do these people have? Are they university educated?

Transport, tradesmen on contract. Some are, though it is more common with people in their 20s who changed careers after not finding work in their field.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 01:37

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; "That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."

Wasting posted:

people in the 80 to 100k a year salary range

The thing is, 80k is pretty much in the middle of the fourth income quintile, so these are members of the top 20-30% of the country by income.

(All the income quintiles I could find were per-family or per-individual after tax, so it's a little tricky to know for sure, but a quick tax calculation for 80K in BC gives 63K after tax; after that I compared with table 1 here)

So I guess it's the wealthiest Canadians living beyond their means.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 02:09

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Lead out in cuffs posted:

So I guess it's the wealthiest Canadians living beyond their means.

you're right

ahahahahah gently caress this country

# ? Mar 28, 2014 02:21

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; Guten Abend, meine Damen und Herren.

Lexicon posted:

I could write this verbatim and have it apply to me.

The worst part is definitely all the financial geniuses.

The other line of reasoning you get is that Canada is Not the States, so if there was a damaging housing bubble in the States, Canada must be immune, because it's Not the States.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 02:36

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

tagesschau posted:

The other line of reasoning you get is that Canada is Not the States, so if there was a damaging housing bubble in the States, Canada must be immune, because it's Not the States.

I liked Canada a lot more before this particular superiority complex developed, or at least before it became so overt.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 03:00

Blade_of_tyshalle: Jul 12, 2009; If you think that, along the way, you're not going to fail... you're blind.

There's no one I've ever met, no matter how successful they are, who hasn't said they had their failures along the way.

Lexicon posted:

I liked Canada a lot more before this particular superiority complex developed, or at least before it became so overt.

What, 1776?

# ? Mar 28, 2014 03:10

Grand Theft Autobot: Feb 28, 2008; I'm something of a fucking idiot myself

Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

What, 1776?

1812 never forget :canada:

# ? Mar 28, 2014 03:19

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

What, 1776?

Overt is the key word. Something changed for the worst post-GFC.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 03:32

Kraftwerk: Aug 13, 2011; i do not have 10,000 bircoins, please stop asking

I'd love to see a lot of those condos get mass foreclosed and converted into rental apartments. Having insuite laundry while renting on the cheap would be awesome.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 04:28

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

EvilJoven posted:

It's obvious now that our banks and government are going to allow the housing market inflate so bad and everyone ~~who didn't max themselves out already~~ but the banks is going to be left holding the bag.

There, I think I fixed it.

If the Canadian Housing Bubble follows the pattern of the American one then they're either going to keep doubling down or wallow in denial until it all blows up. By then the people responsible hope to either be out of office or will try to point fingers and muddy the waters to prevent reform and by so doing keep their monied friends with their sinecures safe and ready for them when they do leave office.

I don't think they have a lot of room left to double down with anymore as far as rate cuts go. A .5% reduction on a mortgage rate isn't that big of a deal when you're dealing with a principal that is 5-10x your yearly income. Especially when the rate is already fairly low.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 05:04

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

quote:

“If you don’t have a mtg today and you are in the top tax bracket, you don’t understand the basic rules of personal finance”—@CalumRossTO

This loving piece of poo poo

# ? Mar 28, 2014 05:50

Amos Moses: Oct 13, 2012; by Ralp

I live in a Canadian oil boom city.

This city has many, many multi-building apartment complexes. Originally they were built and owned by two brothers.
Lately, on one side of the city, a company that shall remain nameless began inspecting all the tenants apartments and all of a sudden wham, new landlord.
Their rent went from $825 a month to $1325 a month. This is in Saskatchewan.

The same company has now performed inspections on my apartment complex and soon it will be unaffordable to live here. I live in Alberta so I pay $925 and expect
the price to jump to atleast $1400-1500 a month. These are not updated, modern apartments. They have poo poo carpet from the 70's etc.

Someone convince me why It's not a good idea to get a mortgage even with so-so to crap credit between me and the missus, I'd rather be hosed by a brokerage
and build equity than pay some rear end in a top hat 5x what this shitbox is worth.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 07:10

Wasting: Apr 25, 2013; The next to go

Cultural Imperial posted:

This loving piece of poo poo

Hungry Hungry Hippos: Mortgage Edition. For the seasoned investor.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 08:15

peter banana: Sep 2, 2008; Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

it's almost as if we should have rental oversight for our majority-urban nation instead of allowing a few rich fucks to make everything terrible.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 14:20

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Amos Moses posted:

I live in a Canadian oil boom city.

This city has many, many multi-building apartment complexes. Originally they were built and owned by two brothers.
Lately, on one side of the city, a company that shall remain nameless began inspecting all the tenants apartments and all of a sudden wham, new landlord.
Their rent went from $825 a month to $1325 a month. This is in Saskatchewan.

The same company has now performed inspections on my apartment complex and soon it will be unaffordable to live here. I live in Alberta so I pay $925 and expect
the price to jump to atleast $1400-1500 a month. These are not updated, modern apartments. They have poo poo carpet from the 70's etc.

Someone convince me why It's not a good idea to get a mortgage even with so-so to crap credit between me and the missus, I'd rather be hosed by a brokerage
and build equity than pay some rear end in a top hat 5x what this shitbox is worth.

It depends on your financial situation. If you can afford to buy a house with cash, go for it. If you make 40k a year and you need to take out a 400k mortgage, then that is pretty loving stupid.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 14:45

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Cultural Imperial posted:

This loving piece of poo poo

This guy is insidious. Unlike Cam Good et al - who are really just good marketers (preying on the fear of the 'yellow peril') - this guy is constantly touting his MBA with a Finance focus, and how he's a "numbers guy" etc. To the financially and numerically unsophisticated, I have no doubt he sounds very convincing. Combine this with the complete absence of any regulation limiting what real estate vendors can advertise about future ROI etc (which puts them at a vast contrast to how, say, the mutual fund or ETF industry must conduct itself), and it's a recipe for hoodwinking en masse.

edit: hell, even that tweet - it makes no goddamn sense in actuality - but I bet it has an effect on many people. We don't even have mortgage-interest deductibility in Canada for Christ's sake!

Lexicon fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Mar 28, 2014

# ? Mar 28, 2014 15:54

on the left: Nov 2, 2013; I Am A Gigantic Piece Of Shit

Literally poo from a diseased human butt

Lexicon posted:

This guy is insidious. Unlike Cam Good et al - who are really just good marketers (preying on the fear of the 'yellow peril') - this guy is constantly touting his MBA with a Finance focus, and how he's a "numbers guy" etc. To the financially and numerically unsophisticated, I have no doubt he sounds very convincing. Combine this with the complete absence of any regulation limiting what real estate vendors can advertise about future ROI etc (which puts them at a vast contrast to how, say, the mutual fund or ETF industry must conduct itself), and it's a recipe for hoodwinking en masse.

The difference between this humorous It's Always Sunny sketch and reality is that the bank will give you 300k+ to invest in this sort of scheme

# ? Mar 28, 2014 16:18

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=9670210

quote:

Instead of looking the other way, politicians should consider ways to address the affordability crisis afflicting Vancouver’s property market.

While government likes to argue that an unfettered marketplace determines housing costs, policy-makers have more discretion than they often care to admit.

In Vancouver, where housing costs are driving some into debt and cutting others right out of the market, remarkably little effort has gone into easing the pain of home buyers. The thinking seems to be that anyone who can afford a $1-million home needs no help from government. And it is not as though people have stopped buying.

But when the average price of a single-family detached home in Greater Vancouver reaches $1.36 million, as it did this month, arguably the average buyer of such an average home could use some help from government. (The board defines Greater Vancouver as the region west to Whistler, south to Tsawwassen and east to Maple Ridge.)

Provincially, the property transfer tax has become a cash grab, based on a percentage formula established in 1987, when the average home price in Greater Vancouver was about $150,000.

The percentages have never been adjusted to recognize that home prices have soared.

Christy Clark’s government, in its February budget, boosted the PTT exemption threshold — only for first-time buyers — to $475,000. This will affect a scant number of purchasers.

At the same time, the budget lowered the threshold for phasing out the homeowner grant, providing a break on property tax, to $1.1 million, from $1.295 million.

It can be argued that lowering any of these taxes leaves a hole in the provincial budget. But the tax system is all about choosing which sectors of society to tax and how heavily.

Municipally, hundreds of millions in development cost charges and community amenity contributions are annually imposed on developers.

Such charges, the city argues, pay for municipal engineering changes required to accommodate new developments. They also pay for new parks, libraries, heritage preservation and child care resources.

Such investment is important. But lately, developers are balking at the amount of these charges and the behind-closed-door manner in which they’re established. They point out that, inevitably, the levies are passed along to end users through higher pricing on condos and townhouses.

And for those in Vancouver opting to rent, they find the rental market increasingly tight. Because of rent control limiting yearly increases to 2.2 per cent in 2014, developers are less keen to build new rental housing.

Policy-makers are not actively contemplating ways to make Vancouver’s housing market more affordable, taking a view if people want to over-extend themselves, let them.

But the truth is, buyers don’t have all that much control. One reason why Vancouver is so costly is because it is a peculiar market with a temperate climate, attracting 30,000-40,000 new immigrant and foreign buyers annually.

In an open and free market, politicians may not determine real estate pricing, but they do have the power to soften the property blow a little. And they should.

The vancouver sun says that the path to housing affordability lies in reducing property transfer taxes and getting rid of rent controls. In other words, free the real estate industry from government tax and regulation shackles!

# ? Mar 28, 2014 17:46

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=9670210

The vancouver sun says that the path to housing affordability lies in reducing property transfer taxes and getting rid of rent controls. In other words, free the real estate industry from government tax and regulation shackles!

Nick pick: I don't know what board they are referring to but I am pretty sure the average price across that defined Greater Vancouver region is not that high. Vancouver property probably average that, but as a region it likely averages quite a bit less than that.

Legit gripe: It takes some gall to demand a tax break on behalf of all the "average families" buying an "average home" worth 1.36Million. No average family is actually doing that, since it would require +80% of income going to your bank. If you are dumb enough to pay that much for a Vancouver special, the province should add a luxury surtax to it.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 20:15

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Every single bull in Vancouver is trying to normalize financial profligacy. The sun, mortgage agents, Realtors, your dumb rear end coworkers loving everyone. Just be a loving man and take out that 600k mortgage.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 20:40

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Cultural Imperial posted:

Every single bull in Vancouver is trying to normalize financial profligacy. The sun, mortgage agents, Realtors, your dumb rear end coworkers loving everyone. Just be a loving man and take out that 600k mortgage.

Well yeah. Not exactly a lot of fallback industries.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 20:58

Franks Happy Place: Mar 15, 2011; It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dank of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by weed alone I set my mind in motion.

The Vancouver Sun editorials page editor is a former Fraser Institute analyst who is now married to noted neoliberal shill and all-around obnoxious shitlord Laura Jones of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (And Always Cutting Taxes).

# ? Mar 28, 2014 21:04

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

The Fraser Institute is like the loving Illuminati of this province.

# ? Mar 28, 2014 21:12

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Rime posted:

The Fraser Institute is like the loving Illuminati of this province.

just follow the money

According to journalist Murray Dobbin, 31% of the Fraser Institute's revenue come from corporations and 57% from "business-oriented charitable foundations" such as the Donner Foundation and the free-market-oriented John Dobson Foundation.
In addition, a report stated that Fraser Institute received $120 000 in funding from oil giant ExxonMobil.

During 2008-2010, the US-based Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, both under the control of billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, provided a total of US$500,000 to the Fraser Institute

# ? Mar 29, 2014 00:51

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://www.canadianrealestatemagazine.ca/news/item/1915-investors-call-for-tax-help-on-condo-losses

quote:

Investors are calling on the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) to allow for tax concessions on any losses incurred following the sale of condos.

Investors believe that any monetary losses incurred in condos should be tax deductible. As the CRA continues to crack down on condo flippers as part of a special project, irate investors believe the taxman should consider all income and expenditure.

Commenting on CREW�s report that the taxman is targetting condo owners, one reader said that the CRA �cannot have it both ways and if it assesses such gain (profit upon selling), then it has to allow for loss too.� Adding that more investors are losing cash on pre-sale condos, the investor says any loss should be as part of a deductible against income.

Sam Elgohary, real estate broker specialising in pre-construction condos, says flipping in this property type is now �dead� and investors need to adopt to today�s new environment. �Investors need to see condos as long-term investment, there are not short-term anymore. You need to build equity in them,� he tell CREW.

�I would advise a minimum of holding them for a minimum of five years.� Since last April, almost 600 tax audits have been undertaken by the CRA in its new �condo project.� Almost half of these audits led to penalties.

# ? Mar 29, 2014 01:26

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://new.bradjlamb.ca/2014/03/think-interest-rates-going-nowhere/

quote:

On Why I Think Interest Rates are Going NOWHERE
Posted on March 28, 2014 by bjladmin
The focus of discussion on interest rates has been that we will likely see them rise with reduced unemployment figures, perhaps with an unemployment rate of 6.5% or so. Economists and other experts have weighed in that this is likely going to happen in late 2014. That is to say that they believe that the Central Bank will start to raise rates soon. They have been predicting this imminent change every year for 4 years. Well, I�m no economist or expert, but I am equipped with excellent common sense and an ability to look forward and identify what may be problems prior to them occurring. I think that too many �experts� (save a few) are not seeing the interest rate issue clearly. All central bankers in the big seven western countries got their job through political appointments � IE � from their President or Prime Minister. Every one of these countries has borrowed a huge amount of money to jump start their economy and bail out their banks and insurance companies. Their debt, and deficits, have ballooned. Even conservative Canada has hugely increased our debt from $457B in 2008 to 602B in 2013. This represents a 32% increase in 5 years. We will only likely hit an annual budget surplus in 2016 and by that time our debt will have ballooned higher. The other big six have no hope of hitting a surplus for years. There is not a chance that any western country can, or will, increase their central bank rates anytime soon or they risk putting their fiscal house and economies in peril. In short, they won�t be able to fund or finance their debt. For most countries, this deleveraging will take years � many years. We have in Canada, the benefit of a coming surplus, but have the added problem of a potentially strong dollar if we raise interest rates. This will hurt our export economy. There is no wiggle room for higher rates.
Low Central Bank rates are here for a long time. I believe they will stay very low into the next decade and further. The damage done to the US debt is almost catastrophic and will take 10-15 years to fix even with low interest rates.
As indicated from below excerpts from the Globe and Mail, Bank of Canada Governor, Stephen Poloz, agrees�
�As a result of the aging population, the new normal for economic growth looks to be slower than in the past, Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz said in a speech Tuesday, with interest rates likely to be lower for longer.�
�Recovery period will be slower than our historical trend,� he told the Halifax Chamber of Commerce. That will also mean lower interest rates �than we are used to,� he added.
�The tons of his language showed no rate hikes are on the horizon. In fact, �interest rates may remain lower than we have experienced in the past for a longer period, until some of these long-term forces dissipate,� he said. The message �reiterates the theme �lower rates for longer,�� said Sebastian Lavoie, assistance chief economist at Laurentian Bank of Canada,

yes, central banks can't afford to raise interest rates because the government is in too much debt

This whole loving week has been an unrelenting barrage of an appalling magnitude of utter loving dumb.

# ? Mar 29, 2014 01:28

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://new.bradjlamb.ca/2014/03/think-interest-rates-going-nowhere/

yes, central banks can't afford to raise interest rates because the government is in too much debt

This whole loving week has been an unrelenting barrage of an appalling magnitude of utter loving dumb.

What do you want from your billionaires? He already prefaced his comments that he wasn't an economist or expert. :v:

Sadly this work probably convince my dad, which explains why he's a billionaire.

# ? Mar 29, 2014 02:00

HookShot: Dec 26, 2005

I can't get my head around how anyone could describe the GVA as going "west to Whistler".

Like, anyone who came up with that descriptor has obviously never looked at a map. Also holy poo poo 1.36 million.

# ? Mar 29, 2014 03:36

Rob Ford: Aug 12, 2013; by XyloJW

Cultural Imperial posted:

I wasn't sure where to post this but on the taxonomy of "stupid things canadians do with their money", I thought this thread was most appropriate.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/03/26/rcmp-fraud-ontario-charges/

ps: gently caress you globe and mail. you and your loving paywall can go to hell

Yeah, fight the power. :jerkbag:

And what does a case one case of fraud have to do with :lol:

"stupid things canadians do with their money"?

Retard.

# ? Mar 29, 2014 03:57

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

HookShot posted:

I can't get my head around how anyone could describe the GVA as going "west to Whistler".

Like, anyone who came up with that descriptor has obviously never looked at a map. Also holy poo poo 1.36 million.

GVA goes all the way west to China and then follows the currents through to Kamchatka, Alaska and finally back to Whistler.

# ? Mar 29, 2014 05:03

Amos Moses: Oct 13, 2012; by Ralp

Cultural Imperial posted:

It depends on your financial situation. If you can afford to buy a house with cash, go for it. If you make 40k a year and you need to take out a 400k mortgage, then that is pretty loving stupid.

Combined we make a total of around 117,000 gross give or take 20,000 depending on bonus and overtime yearly. Due to some mistakes in the past that we are correcting we currently have poor credit. It just seems silly that if the landlord is going to raise the rent to $1400-1500 I shouldn't try for a brokered mortgage and start building equity no?

I know I'm going to get hosed on the interest rate. It just seems like it's better than being hosed but getting nothing but a lovely apartment that even at $925 is too much for what it is.

No washer/dryer, 2 bedrooms, 680 square feet, building was constructed in 1970 and has a terrible radiant heating system. 18" Dishwasher, single sink, 15 cubic foot frige, 24" oven in a galley kitchen with no prep surface, I've had to rehang most of the doors because this place seems to have shifted in some way, replace all the eletrical sockets because the tabs inside would no longer grip plugs.. etc.

# ? Mar 29, 2014 05:08

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Amos Moses posted:

Combined we make a total of around 117,000 gross give or take 20,000 depending on bonus and overtime yearly. Due to some mistakes in the past that we are correcting we currently have poor credit. It just seems silly that if the landlord is going to raise the rent to $1400-1500 I shouldn't try for a brokered mortgage and start building equity no?

I know I'm going to get hosed on the interest rate. It just seems like it's better than being hosed but getting nothing but a lovely apartment that even at $925 is too much for what it is.

No washer/dryer, 2 bedrooms, 680 square feet, building was constructed in 1970 and has a terrible radiant heating system. 18" Dishwasher, single sink, 15 cubic foot frige, 24" oven in a galley kitchen with no prep surface, I've had to rehang most of the doors because this place seems to have shifted in some way, replace all the eletrical sockets because the tabs inside would no longer grip plugs.. etc.

Look, if your financial situation isn't the best, you can't play this "build equity" game that all real estate bulls play.

As many posters here have posted on this thread and the Canadian finance thread in bfc, your chances of building a secure financial future are far greater through prudent investing and financial management.

If the two of you make about 100k, there are far better financial instruments to invest in, ones that have far less risk and are far more liquid than a house. Do you understand the advantage of owning a liquid asset?

I sympathize with your living situation. In the past 10 years I've moved about 6 times and I haven't owned real estate since 2005. More than anything, I would like a home of my own however I'm not willing to do it at the cost of long term financial health. Sure you need a place to live but when you retire, what are you going to live on? Marble counter tops?

# ? Mar 29, 2014 06:14

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Dear posters should I buy during a real estate bubble?

# ? Mar 29, 2014 06:16

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Amos Moses posted:

It just seems silly that if the landlord is going to raise the rent to $1400-1500 I shouldn't try for a brokered mortgage and start building equity no?

That would depend on what kind of equity you are intending to cultivate.

Sure, if you care to assume that your house is going to blithely increase in value forevermore or even remain neutral at the price you paid for it (which would involve ignoring the constant costs of maintaining it), then go ahead and buy in the hopes that you'll come out a couple grand ahead at some nebulous point in the future.

On the other hand, at current prices a 20 - 30% correction in the market (which is basically inevitable the longer this goes on) would put you in the position of having a fuckton of debt which you can't just magically wave away by flipping the house.

Your call if you want to gamble on negative equity and inevitable bankruptcy court. :allears:

(In case that wasn't clear enough: Yes I think you're loving retarded for using the phrase "Start Building Equity" in the loving housing bubble thread. gently caress.)

# ? Mar 29, 2014 06:17

enbot: Jun 7, 2013

Amos Moses posted:

Combined we make a total of around 117,000 gross give or take 20,000 depending on bonus and overtime yearly. Due to some mistakes in the past that we are correcting we currently have poor credit. It just seems silly that if the landlord is going to raise the rent to $1400-1500 I shouldn't try for a brokered mortgage and start building equity no?

I know I'm going to get hosed on the interest rate. It just seems like it's better than being hosed but getting nothing but a lovely apartment that even at $925 is too much for what it is.

No washer/dryer, 2 bedrooms, 680 square feet, building was constructed in 1970 and has a terrible radiant heating system. 18" Dishwasher, single sink, 15 cubic foot frige, 24" oven in a galley kitchen with no prep surface, I've had to rehang most of the doors because this place seems to have shifted in some way, replace all the eletrical sockets because the tabs inside would no longer grip plugs.. etc.

You don't actually build equity by buying during a bubble, that's an incredibly stupid idea. You've fallen for the same trap that created housing bubbles around the world in the first place, you are completely ignoring the hidden costs of home ownership in favor of raw numbers and the promise you'll actually be able to sell when you want to for a profit. Hint: that's not guaranteed at all.

# ? Mar 29, 2014 06:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 22:19

Bleu: Jul 19, 2006

When did 'buy low, sell high' stop being a thing people understood? I learned that poo poo by playing Drug Wars on my TI-83+ in high school.

Maybe it should be bilingually labelled.

# ? Mar 29, 2014 07:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

«‹›1518 »