If you owe money on your home, are you really a 'homeowner?'

[Hydroblunt]

Quote from ElCubano:

if you want to see who owns your home...sell it and see who gets to keep the difference....

How is that any different from taking on a lease and then sub-leasing it? Who gets to keep the difference?

How about this real life situation. The guy locked in the owner of a midtown NYC commercial building for a monthly 10k lease on one of the floors and is sub-leasing individual offices for over 100k a month.

If we use the profit logic, sounds like the lessee is more of the owner.

 

[OldTrader]

Quote from Hydroblunt:

Do your homework.

Let me get this straight. You are completely wrong about your statement concerning mortgages being called, you admit it, and then you're gonna tell me to "do my homework"? LOL!

Let me submit this possibility to you. Maybe all of your assertions are wrong. Did that ever occur to you? Certainly you have already proven you no next to nothing about real estate.

I'm not here to educate you. But I suggest you do a little study before you post again about real estate. Start by actually checking out what the IRS does with a lien attached to a home.

OldTrader

 

[Bigpipn]

Quote from optioncoach:

That has nothing to do with whether you own the house or not. It is an obligation as owner you must meet or you no longer have the right to be an owner. Just because ownership comes with responsibilities and obligations does not mean you are not a true owner.

Handing your hard-earned money over to the scumbags that govern your residence is hardly an 'obligation.' It's legalized theft, especially since they are leveraged up on your expected 'contributions' to their ponzi scheme.


If, at the end of the month, you have a negative cash flow from an investment/asset, it is actually a liability.

This system is all based on credit/leverage. I don't think a mortgage is a bad debt, it allows you to leverage yourself immensely. If I can get a 30year mortgage at 5% and make 50% on the borrowed funds, then and only then is my house an asset.

If you're not leveraged you're not participating.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some cheque drops to administer to some unsuspecting lovers.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Quote from Bigpipn:



Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some cheque drops to administer to some unsuspecting lovers.

walked into that one I did...

 

[Bigpipn]

Quote from optioncoach:

walked into that one I did...

How ya doing today coach?

 

[Smart Money]

Quote from Don Bright:

You know, over the decades, things have really been misunderstood when it comes to the "benefits" of home ownership via a mortgage, and vs renting.

Often, you can rent the same house for half what your mortgage would be. And, that "write off" for interest and taxes of 20-30 and the "wasting" of rent money. Well, IMO, interest is wasted as well.

And, of course there's "appreciation" or "depreciation" as we've seen over the last couple of years...so we have two completely different sets of decisions.

Do you want to gamble on the RE market, hoping appreciation will more than make up for your doubling monthly payments (minus 20-30% tax "deduciton" - but only for some, many of us can't itemize anyway, LOL).

Or do you want to live in twice as nice a house for the same payment? Or do you want to live in the same house and keep the other half of the money?

As always..."timing is everything"

My 2 cents...

Don

In most cases, the cost of rent is much higher than half the cost of the payment. Sometimes the cost is roughly equal, and in my "flyover area", rents at 80 to 90% are the norm. When the pendulum was swinging the other way and interest rates were higher, it was even possible to buy a place and rent it out immediately for positive cash flow.

SM

 

[eveningtrader]

You never really own your home even if you have 100% equity. Don't believe me? Try skip your real estate taxes.

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

At what point does one 'own' their home?

Is it when they have 20% equity, 50%, 85%?

Or does one really only 'own' one's home when it's completely unencumbered by any mortgage or other such albatross?

This is an important point that merits discussion in an age in which American Politicians, particularly, trumpet the home 'ownership' rates, even when we are in the midst of a fairly serious housing crisis in which many homes have lost relative value, and a fair share of homeowners have negative equity as they owe more on their homes than what the underlying home is worth.

 

[Cutten]

C'mon, this is ridiculous. If you have a mortgage, you are a homeowner with a mortgage. Different to someone who owns their place free & clear. And different to a renter. In other words - you own the owner, and you owe the bank. End of story. Meaningless semantic politically-laden BS won't make any difference.

 

[Cutten]

Quote from Hydroblunt:

You're using reaching rationalizations that require several paragraphs.

In USA, you never truly own your property. If you have a mortgage on it, you don't own your property, the bank does.

Utter BS. If you own the property, even if your mortgage is worth more than its value, you can decide who can enter, who can stay with you, how you improve the property, whether you want to rent etc. As long as you meet the payments, you are the owner. It's no different to a guy who has $1 million in debt but owns a Ferrari free and clear - so long as he meets the payments on the debt, the Ferrari is his.

 

[Cutten]

Quote from Hydroblunt:

The reality is that the mortgage can get sold and called on. Chances are, you won't have the full balance ready. This has been done a lot in the past, it's a cruel but very effective tactic. One may argue that there are provisions in mortgage agreements preventing this, but upon transfer of mortgage, they become void (not in all cases).

Truly side-splitting idiocy. Learn 2 read legal contracts.