spain Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I really wouldn't classify the people looking in that price range as rich.... here in California they are called middle class. Agreed. But I think that sort of trending extends up into the +$2M home market. And the difference between 5.75% and 8% on a +$1M loan is significant and will affect some buyers in all price ranges, again exerting downward pressure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Our jumbo loans start at 417K. I would not want to be listing a home in that market currently. Wow. Should we feel sorry for rich people? A. No. A 417k home doesn't necessarily mean rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 A 417k home doesn't necessarily mean rich. Well, to the Democrats, "rich" means anybody that has a job and pays taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 When you're as virile as twiley and fertile as twoobs, he'd need a kryptonite condom to keep from knocking her up. good info here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 This calls for some negotiation. To get the bigger house, she needs to know that other expenses like porn and golf will have to be seriously curtailed. And that she'll need to make those up to you with lots of sex. Lots and lots of it...... Coffeman is wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Well, to the Democrats, "rich" means anybody that has a job and pays taxes. Haw, your generalizations are, as always, accurate and timely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Haw, your generalizations are, as always, accurate and timely. With the new political climate at the Gate, I have to take my shots where I can get them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 A 417k home doesn't necessarily mean rich. Actually, a 417k home loan is purty rich in most of America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Actually, a 417k home loan is purty rich in most of America. Wish mine was worth 417K I did add roughly 100K to it in sweat equity, though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellab Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Actually, a 417k home loan is purty rich in most of America. Maybe I am naive, but how does one afford a $3000 mortgage plus kids, cars and a little fun. Not to mention saving for retirement. My wife and I make good money and save a bunch, but don't have a mortgage due to the fact that the business I am a partner in owns our house. There is no way we could afford half that much house. Any insight into this would be greatly appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Maybe I am naive, but how does one afford a $3000 mortgage plus kids, cars and a little fun. Not to mention saving for retirement. My wife and I make good money and save a bunch, but don't have a mortgage due to the fact that the business I am a partner in owns our house. There is no way we could afford half that much house. Any insight into this would be greatly appreciated. thats the reason many are going to be in deep doodo... they over spent and now things will hit the fan.... people that were or should have bought a 250 house bought a 400 house... not good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 thats the reason many are going to be in deep doodo... they over spent and now things will hit the fan.... people that were or should have bought a 250 house bought a 400 house... not good yep....had to live in 'that' neighborhood cause so and so lives there!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Maybe I am naive, but how does one afford a $3000 mortgage plus kids, cars and a little fun. Not to mention saving for retirement. My wife and I make good money and save a bunch, but don't have a mortgage due to the fact that the business I am a partner in owns our house. There is no way we could afford half that much house. Any insight into this would be greatly appreciated. Uh, have at least $150-$200K cash flow per year, combined for your household. If your spouse/SO doesn't work, you have to do it on your own. Usually means either 1) inherited wealth (rare), or 2) a successful entrepreneur (fairly rare) or 3) stressed out professional with post-grad education and lots of hours on the job weekly for decades (more likely). Simple. Next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Maybe I am naive, but how does one afford a $3000 mortgage plus kids, cars and a little fun. Not to mention saving for retirement. My wife and I make good money and save a bunch, but don't have a mortgage due to the fact that the business I am a partner in owns our house. There is no way we could afford half that much house. Any insight into this would be greatly appreciated. That's really ony a combined income or sole income of $160K a year. Pretty feasible if you manage your money correctly.You'd easily have, and I'm just running quick numbers, 3-5K left over for everything else. Then again, my math may be way off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Uh, have at least $150-$200K cash flow per year, combined for your household. If your spouse/SO doesn't work, you have to do it on your own. Usually means either 1) inherited wealth (rare), or 2) a successful entrepreneur (fairly rare) or 3) stressed out professional with post-grad education and lots of hours on the job weekly for decades (more likely). Simple. Next? My math wasn't off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) Ummmm, $200k a year is waaay above median...so is a $400k+ mortgage. My use of the word "rich" may be in dispute, but it's well over normal. But what do I know? When I built my casa last year, my mortgage guy told me I was strange cause I only borrowed about half of what I could and actually put 20% down payment to bring my 30-year fixed loan under $200k. So I'm weird like that. The point is we shouldn't be feeling sorry for someone who has to borrow at 8% for their half-million dollar home, which outside of select areas like SF or NY is a purty big house. Boo f'n hoo. Edited August 8, 2007 by TimC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) Ummmm, $200k a year is waaay above median...so is a $400k+ mortgage. My use of the word "rich" may be in dispute, but it's well over normal. But what do I know? When I built my casa last year, my mortgage guy told me I was strange cause I only borrowed about half of what I could and actually put 20% down payment to bring my 30-year fixed loan under $200k. So I'm weird like that. The point is we shouldn't be feeling sorry for someone who has to borrow at 8% for their half-million dollar home, which outside of select areas like SF or NY is a purty big house. Boo f'n hoo. I know a guy with a combined income with his wife that's around 260K, they bought a $1.8m home about 2 years ago and they're hurting pretty badly right now. I'm with you on the boo hoo...they whine about not having any money but that's their problem. Edited August 8, 2007 by twiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Ummmm, $200k a year is waaay above median...so is a $400k+ mortgage. My use of the word "rich" may be in dispute, but it's well over normal. But what do I know? When I built my casa last year, my mortgage guy told me I was strange cause I only borrowed about half of what I could and actually put 20% down payment to bring my 30-year fixed loan under $200k. So I'm weird like that. The point is we shouldn't be feeling sorry for someone who has to borrow at 8% for their half-million dollar home, which outside of select areas like SF or NY is a purty big house. Boo f'n hoo. i agree with the southern slow one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellab Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Ummmm, $200k a year is waaay above median...so is a $400k+ mortgage. My use of the word "rich" may be in dispute, but it's well over normal. But what do I know? When I built my casa last year, my mortgage guy told me I was strange cause I only borrowed about half of what I could and actually put 20% down payment to bring my 30-year fixed loan under $200k. So I'm weird like that. The point is we shouldn't be feeling sorry for someone who has to borrow at 8% for their half-million dollar home, which outside of select areas like SF or NY is a purty big house. Boo f'n hoo. Ok this makes a little more sense. Mrs Rebellab and I don't have kids no mortgage and every April 15 I bend over and Uncle Sam gives me the big sausage without lube. So to expect a mortgage in the 2500 to 3000 range plus insurance and property tax as well as utilities would greatly reduce what we save and what kind of fun we have. So I am assuming that this is not the norm to have a $400,000 to 1m house. The way people are talking on here, it sounds like everyone has a hugh house. Are the tax breaks that good with kids and a house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) Ok this makes a little more sense. Mrs Rebellab and I don't have kids no mortgage and every April 15 I bend over and Uncle Sam gives me the big sausage without lube. So to expect a mortgage in the 2500 to 3000 range plus insurance and property tax as well as utilities would greatly reduce what we save and what kind of fun we have. So I am assuming that this is not the norm to have a $400,000 to 1m house. The way people are talking on here, it sounds like everyone has a hugh house. Are the tax breaks that good with kids and a house? You may be able to find a fairly small townhouse for under 400K here in southern california. I have a relatively small house. It is about 1150 square feet. The bedromms are small, the kitchen is small, etc. The saving grace is I am on a lot of about 11000 sq. f.t, which is hugh in southern california. If I were to try to sell today, I could probably expect to get in the low to mid 600s for it. Now, my brother in law in Nashville for a similar price just bought a 2500 sq ft home on two acres. In other words, "norm" is very subjective. I have some friends that are just bought their first home. It's not too big, not in the most plush of areas, and she is pregnant with twins to boot. It is considered a very reasonable "starter" house by most standards. They had to finance near 100% of it. Their mortgage with taxes rolled in is $3800 a month. ETA: Tax breaks IMO aren't that great. The kid one is nice, but I am already outlaying a bunch in additional expenses like diapers, etc., so really it just provides a discount on those things that I have already paid sales tax on. ANd sure, I can write off the interest I pay, but I would much rather have my mortgage paid off and have the increased cash flow. Edited August 8, 2007 by Big Country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) Ok this makes a little more sense. Mrs Rebellab and I don't have kids no mortgage and every April 15 I bend over and Uncle Sam gives me the big sausage without lube. So to expect a mortgage in the 2500 to 3000 range plus insurance and property tax as well as utilities would greatly reduce what we save and what kind of fun we have. So I am assuming that this is not the norm to have a $400,000 to 1m house. The way people are talking on here, it sounds like everyone has a hugh house. Are the tax breaks that good with kids and a house? Now this Q is better - now we can talk. I agree with BC, first of all. Yes, the tax advantages are good with a large mortgage and kids, but perhaps not enough to justify such a large mortgage. And no, a $400K-$900K house is not a 'hugh' one in SoCal. It may be a 2bdrm, 1 bath 1100 sq.ft. shack, but on the beach in L.A., Ventura or Orange county. Or maybe just a 3 bdrm, 3.5 bath 2000 sq ft ranch in a little suburb east of Pasadena. Location, as they say, is everything. And no, don't feel sorrry for anyone in this sitch - life is all about choices, beginning with whether or not you pay attention in school way back in elementary. And if my wife needs to go back to work to pay rising bills, she can. But maybe not to Countrywide - they're in a major down cycle. We both grew up here and appreciate the weather and lifestyle, along with most of our family (both sides) and most of our friends from our school years. Despite all the drawbacks - high $, smog, traffic, etc. But someday - probably after the kids are gone - we might want the quieter/slower/cheaper life somewhere. Don't worry - if and when we cash out, we'll come to your neighborhood and drive up the prices..... Edited August 8, 2007 by Coffeeman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellab Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Don't worry - if and when we cash out, we'll come to your neighborhood and drive up the prices..... This is what is already happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 I'm with Coffee. I accept the much higher cost of living, and my wife only works part time for her mom's company so that she can essentially be a stay at home mom. But, her family is all local here (sister is under a mile away, mom about 15 minutes, extended family mostly within 30 minutes) and my family lives in northern California. I accept the fact that as long as my wife is a stay at home mom, we won't be buying a boat or taking week longfirst class cruises anywhere. But, I enjoy where I live. I am under 20 minutes from the beach, under 1 hour from the mountains, have family close by and my children are happy and well taken care of. Will I be retiring at 50? No, not very likely. Would I like a bigger house? Yes, and quite frankly we probably need one with two rugrats running around. Could I sell and move somewhere less expensive? Sure, it would be great to go somewhere and pay cash for a house and not have to worry about a mortgage. But then I'd be giving up being close to family and everything else. Now, had we not gotten our house 5 years ago, I would not be able to afford to get into the housing market today. My bother is in this predicament. In addition to what I perceive as some spending issues (no need to go there, but he'll never learn so long as my parent bail him out), he can not possibly afford to buy a house in California. Just recently he moved into my grandmother's house (she passed away last Tuesday, rest her soul) with his family and our cousin (interesting setup, I'm curious to see how it works) and my mom and her siblings have all agreed to let them live there rent free for at least a year so they can pay off debt and ideally save enough to make a down payment on a house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 fwiw, if your household takes in more than $166,000 per year then you are in the 95th income percentile for US households. You might not be rich, but you are taking in more than three times as much money as the median household is bringing home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 fwiw, if your household takes in more than $166,000 per year then you are in the 95th income percentile for US households. You might not be rich, but you are taking in more than three times as much money as the median household is bringing home. is that net/net or gross income? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.