The ?forever? home

momopi

Well-known member
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/08/0...outhern-california-arent-selling-their-homes/

"Staying put longer can stymie economic growth while stifling business for those who depend on home sales for their livelihoods. And it?s contributing to the current shortage of homes on the market.

?It?s creating a logjam of inventory, especially in the first-time buyers? category,? said Daren Blomquist, senior vice president for Attom Data Solutions. ?Move-up buyers are staying in their homes longer, and that affects the first-time buyer.?"



...how about training financial advisers to help people pay off their homes (or passive income to pay the mortgage) so they can retire earlier and not have to cling to their jobs until 67?
 
momopi said:
...how about training financial advisers to help people pay off their homes (or passive income to pay the mortgage) so they can retire earlier and not have to cling to their jobs until 67?

My parents bought their first home for $20,000 for 10yrs at 15% interest. Paying an extra $500/mo meant the home was paid off in 29 months (less than 2.5years)

Their second home had a $105,000 mortgage for 15years at 9% interest. Paying an extra $1000mo meant the home was paid off in 64 months (just over 5 years)

If I paid an extra $1,500/mo on my mortgage it would still take 155months (about 13 years) to pay off the mortgage.

Paying off a home early is not nearly as easy as it used to be.
 
momopi said:
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/08/0...outhern-california-arent-selling-their-homes/

"Staying put longer can stymie economic growth while stifling business for those who depend on home sales for their livelihoods. And it?s contributing to the current shortage of homes on the market.

?It?s creating a logjam of inventory, especially in the first-time buyers? category,? said Daren Blomquist, senior vice president for Attom Data Solutions. ?Move-up buyers are staying in their homes longer, and that affects the first-time buyer.?"



...how about training financial advisers to help people pay off their homes (or passive income to pay the mortgage) so they can retire earlier and not have to cling to their jobs until 67?

You can pay your house off when you are 40 and retire but u still gotta come up with health insurance out of your own pocket for another 25 years. It's a bummer to pay enough in premiums to buy a brand new Honda civic for cash every year and get insurance that is more expensive to use than just paying the doctor his non insurance patient rate.

Well maybe a cheaper car based on lower age than me but still it's a major bummer and reason to stay working even with a paid off house.
 
Instead of thinking "why it won't work", it's better to think "how to make it work".

The role of the elder is to teach the young and have them replace the elders.  What we have today is older people with mortgages desperately clinging onto their jobs as retirement age side upwards.  Instead of teaching/training the young to take over the old competes with the young for the jobs and, when you are in competition you don't want to help or train your competitor.

If we can manage to reduce early retirement age to 55 and help people make it possible with financial planning, older people can retire earlier and reduce unemployment for the young.  And when it's time to go, we have an obligation to society to die quickly and quietly, not cling to life while plugged into a machine with zero quality of life.
 
momopi said:
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/08/0...outhern-california-arent-selling-their-homes/

"Staying put longer can stymie economic growth while stifling business for those who depend on home sales for their livelihoods. And it?s contributing to the current shortage of homes on the market.

?It?s creating a logjam of inventory, especially in the first-time buyers? category,? said Daren Blomquist, senior vice president for Attom Data Solutions. ?Move-up buyers are staying in their homes longer, and that affects the first-time buyer.?"



...how about training financial advisers to help people pay off their homes (or passive income to pay the mortgage) so they can retire earlier and not have to cling to their jobs until 67?

That article has such a negative view of people staying in their homes. Homeowners don't have an obligation to move in order to create more business for the realtor-finance-escrow-inspector-attorney job market. It feels like the tone of the article should be in Trade Publication Monthly, not the OC Register.
 
One of the biggest reasons people in CA do not sell their houses is because of prop 13.  I feel like I should be collecting properties in CA and never sell.

Here is the prop 13 owners dilemma:
I buy a house for $900,000 ~ property tax $9,000+
5 years later it is worth 1.2 million ~ property tax 12,000+

If I sell the house after 5 years and buy another 1.2 million dollar property, my property taxes go up $3,000/year forever.
Although I love Prop 13, it's another government policy that creates unintended consequences.

People who bought back in the 80's are paying less than half the property taxes of today.  You think they will ever sell with that type of property tax advantage?  The obvious strategy in CA real estate is to never sell and collect homes.

EDIT: I realize that 900,000 after 5 years of 2% growth will be 993,673.  This is still a $2,000 prop tax advantage.
 
Back
Top