# Affordable housing



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I think we can all agree the world needs affordable housing. What's harder to decide is how to get there. In Congress I have seen some day just let the landlords handle it. I have seen some say we should just do 100 percent government housing. I say the answer is between those 2 extremes.

What do you think?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I think houses cost too much because money is worth so little.

My first house cost me about 1 year's gross salary. Do the math on a typical first time home buyer now, it is as much as 2 to 9 years salary now. Take your beloved Texas. The median starter home is about $106 (actually less than I thought). The median salary is about $35K (don't confuse household income, that is most likely a two income household).

Then combine easy credit causing too much money chasing too few homes. Houses get expensive. 

Now lets look at Cali.

Median annual salary is $36K. Median starter home is $305K.

Some states are worse than others.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

compasscaliforniablog



*1950s:* The average new home sold for $82,098. It had 983 square feet of floor space and a household size of 3.37 people, or 292 square feet per person. Homes had more shower space than sleep space: 1.5 bedrooms and 2.35 bathrooms. The most popular colors for kitchen appliances were canary yellow and petal pink.

*1960s:* The average new-home size grew to 1,200 square feet, giving its 3.33 residents a spacious 360 square feet of room apiece. The bedroom-bathroom ratio flipped from the previous decade, with 2.5 bedrooms and 1.5 bathrooms. Turquoise and coppertone were the appliance colors of choice. The average price: $118,657.

*1970s:* Homes continued to get bigger — an average of 1,500 square feet. With the household size shrinking to 3.14, each person luxuriated in 478 square feet of personal space. The average price was $160,338. Kitchen appliances achieved an iconic color balance: avocado and harvest gold.

*1980s:* The average amount of space per household resident more than doubled in a generation, to 630 square feet (a total of 1,740 square feet for a household of 2.76 people). The average price more than doubled since the ’50s as well, climbing to $216,338. Television sets per household totaled 1.57, unchanged from the previous decade. Kitchen appliances eased back on the color schemes to almond and beige.

*1990s:* The average new home sold for $268,055. It had 2,080 square feet of floor space and a household size of 2.63 people, or 791 square feet per person — enough to make those luxurious accommodations in the 1970s look positively skimpy. In the kitchen, black was the favorite color for appliances. The number of bedrooms and bathrooms were little changed from the 1960s: three and two, respectively.

*2000s:* The amount of square feet per person continued its inexorable climb, now at 865 (2,266 total square feet for a household of 2.62 people). The price: $281,141. The number of television sets per household reached two for the first time. Black appliances gave way to stainless steel — a sign of the new millennium?

*2010s:* The average new home ($292,700) offers 924 square feet per person (2.59 people per household, 2,392 total square feet) — three times the space afforded in the 1950s. Television sets per household jumped to 2.93, while kitchen appliances held steady with stainless-steel finishes.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

I see you're talking about homes in Cali.

Mon


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

frogmammy said:


> I see you're talking about homes in Cali.
> 
> Mon


It was a home builder in North Carolina that gathered the information for homes in America.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Houses used to be for people, but now they are for things. Parents and 2 or 3 children could easily live in a small 3 bedroom, 2 bath house. Using ideas learned from tiny houses, this could be as small as 1200 sq ft (or even smaller).

I would love to find a 2 bedroom house that was about 1000 sq ft and was modern, designed well, low maintenance, and energy-efficient.

But why would builders build these types of homes when they can make a lot more money building 2500 to 4000 sq ft houses?


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

MoonRiver said:


> Houses used to be for people, but now they are for things. Parents and 2 or 3 children could easily live in a small 3 bedroom, 2 bath house. Using ideas learned from tiny houses, this could be as small as 1200 sq ft (or even smaller).
> 
> I would love to find a 2 bedroom house that was about 1000 sq ft and was modern, designed well, low maintenance, and energy-efficient.
> 
> But why would builders build these types of homes when they can make a lot more money building 2500 to 4000 sq ft houses?


We just built a house. The builder built exactly the house we asked for, not what he wanted to build.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

frogmammy said:


> I see you're talking about homes in Cali.
> 
> Mon


No, I'm talking about affordable housing across the board. California is just a good way to show how prices can get out of hand.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Something I had hoped I might do one day is to build a community of small one and two-bedroom houses primarily for retirees.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

mreynolds said:


> No, I'm talking about affordable housing across the board. California is just a good way to show how prices can get out of hand.


The article wasn't about California anyway. It was about "American houses".


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> I think houses cost too much because money is worth so little.
> 
> My first house cost me about 1 year's gross salary. Do the math on a typical first time home buyer now, it is as much as 2 to 9 years salary now. Take your beloved Texas. The median starter home is about $106 (actually less than I thought). The median salary is about $35K (don't confuse household income, that is most likely a two income household).
> 
> ...


I'm with you there. Easy credit is the biggest problem. I'm not taking about 5% FHA loans. I think those have their place. I'm talking about the ones that let you buy a zero turn mower in 4 years. Then your refrigerator goes out. 

I truly believe this has been done mostly on purpose to seed the GDP.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

todd_xxxx said:


> The article wasn't about California anyway. It was about "American houses".


I think they were taking about the @HDRider post mostly.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

mreynolds said:


> I think they were taking about the @HDRider post mostly.


Could be, I assumed it was a reference to the name of the blog I linked Compass California blog, but maybe not.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

The more important question is why are many cities requiring that new houses have extra large square footage? I have seen several places where there is a minimum size that is quite a bit larger than my house. 



MoonRiver said:


> Something I had hoped I might do one day is to build a community of small one and two-bedroom houses primarily for retirees.


The place where I live was started as a get-away community, according to the son of the man who used to own quite a bit of the area. Some homes in the area are quite small by modern standards, less than 1000 square feet. There are a few where the owners built substantial additions making them more than 2000 square feet.

I have a house that is about 800 square feet that I want to remodel and make into a vacation cabin.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Danaus29 said:


> The more important question is why are many cities requiring that new houses have extra large square footage? I have seen several places where there is a minimum size that is quite a bit larger than my house.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Regulation is a close second to easy credit imo. By that I mean the local ordinances. They don't want "poor" people living near them so they make these rules. Stuff like you mention and banning things like new mobile home park construction. They have caused people to move into cluttered apts instead of sf homes. Out of sight, out of mind.


----------



## altair (Jul 23, 2011)

I would much rather focus on making people homebuyers than renters. In my small rural town we have a lot of rented homes/buildings. Often these families have children but they don't pay property taxes, so the tax payers bear the brunt of paying for the children.

I also feel like home ownership provides more of a sense of community, which I love to see in people.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

altair said:


> they don't pay property taxes, so the tax payers bear the brunt of paying for the children.


I suspect that is baked into the rent


----------



## CKelly78z (Jul 16, 2017)

"Government housing" is paid for by my taxes, and I DON'T agree with that, but as usual, they will do whatever they want with the tax money (or just print more) with no consequences.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

altair said:


> I would much rather focus on making people homebuyers than renters. In my small rural town we have a lot of rented homes/buildings. Often these families have children but they don't pay property taxes, so the tax payers bear the brunt of paying for the children.
> 
> I also feel like home ownership provides more of a sense of community, which I love to see in people.


Homebuyers are better for a community. It makes it more stable and less transient. They also tend to make better decisions with money. 

But how to get the house affordable is the hard part.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> how to get the house affordable is the hard part.


Is it harder than raising earnings?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Is it harder than raising earnings?


In my experience yes. Every time you raise earnings the price (across the board) just goes up.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> In my experience yes. Every time you raise earnings the price (across the board) just goes up.


It appears as if there is no answer


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

There can be no "affordable" housing built. A house takes too much labor and too much material. The labor all wants to be paid a living wage, every one of them: the laborer who builds the house, and the laborer who manufactures the materials, and the laborer who transports the materials.

The only way to get people into housing with low rent is for the government to pay for the housing and then rent it out for considerably less than it costs to build it. That means the taxpayers are providing housing at below cost for the lower income folks. It also means that the housing is costing three to four times what it should cost to build, because the government is building it. There is plenty of proof, both in this country and world wide, that tenants trash government owned housing where they live for little rent or even for free.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

oregon woodsmok said:


> There can be no "affordable" housing built. A house takes too much labor and too much material. The labor all wants to be paid a living wage, both the laborer who builds the house, and the laborer who manufactures the materials, and the laborer who transports the materials.
> 
> The only way to get people into housing with low rent is for the government to pay for the hlousing and then rent it out for considerably less than it costs to build it. That means the taxpayers are providing housing at below cost for the lower income folks. It also means that the housing is costing three to four times what it should cost to build, because teh government is building it. There is plenty of proof, both in this country and world wide, that tenants trash government owned housing wher they live for little rent or even for free.


I'd like to nominate this for the post of the thread award.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

oregon woodsmok said:


> There can be no "affordable" housing built. A house takes too much labor and too much material. The labor all wants to be paid a living wage, every one of them: the laborer who builds the house, and the laborer who manufactures the materials, and the laborer who transports the materials.
> 
> The only way to get people into housing with low rent is for the government to pay for the housing and then rent it out for considerably less than it costs to build it. That means the taxpayers are providing housing at below cost for the lower income folks. It also means that the housing is costing three to four times what it should cost to build, because the government is building it. There is plenty of proof, both in this country and world wide, that tenants trash government owned housing where they live for little rent or even for free.


I think too many renters are a big part of the problem. I think we more buyers.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

oregon woodsmok said:


> There can be no "affordable" housing built. A house takes too much labor and too much material. The labor all wants to be paid a living wage, every one of them: the laborer who builds the house, and the laborer who manufactures the materials, and the laborer who transports the materials.
> 
> The only way to get people into housing with low rent is for the government to pay for the housing and then rent it out for considerably less than it costs to build it. That means the taxpayers are providing housing at below cost for the lower income folks. It also means that the housing is costing three to four times what it should cost to build, because the government is building it. There is plenty of proof, both in this country and world wide, that tenants trash government owned housing where they live for little rent or even for free.


When I was in the military, the people that worked for me and I helped build houses for Habitat for Humanity in Phoenix. We were a small shop, just 6 of us. We spent our weekends doing it because we thought it was for a good cause. A few months after people moved in, they had destroyed the houses. The windows were broken, paint all over the outsides of the houses, yards destroyed. These were not government houses, these were houses we helped build on our own time, with our own tools, and Habitat for Humanity gave them. That was the end of that for us.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

todd_xxxx said:


> When I was in the military, the people that worked for me and I helped build houses for Habitat for Humanity in Phoenix. We were a small shop, just 6 of us. We spent our weekends doing it because we thought it was for a good cause. A few months after people moved in, they had destroyed the houses. The windows were broken, paint all over the outsides of the houses, yards destroyed. These were not government houses, these were houses we helped build on our own time, with our own tools, and Habitat for Humanity gave them. That was the end of that for us.


That's because it wasn't theirs. Renters do the same.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mreynolds said:


> Homebuyers are better for a community. It makes it more stable and less transient. They also tend to make better decisions with money.
> 
> But how to get the house affordable is the hard part.


Except that these days, we have a very mobile society.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> Except that these days, we have a very mobile society.


But nearly everyone has a home base.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> But nearly everyone has a home base.


Maybe Airstreams is the answer


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Maybe Airstreams is the answer


Maybe.

I know the answer is not 100 percent government owned property like some people want. There are many things happening in the affordable home market. You can now print a house in 2 days or less. 

I think a big portion of the issue is simply us. We feel like we need a McMansion when a small house would do just fine.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mreynolds said:


> But nearly everyone has a home base.


I think that has changed for a lot of Millenials who live in large cities.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

mreynolds said:


> That's because it wasn't theirs. Renters do the same.


Except that it was. The houses were given to them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> We feel like we need a McMansion when a small house would do just fine.


I think someone made this point earlier, but allow me to lend emphasis to it.

When we left Charlotte for Raleigh we wanted a smaller house. Not a crappy house, but a well built smaller house.

COULD NOT FIND IT, because they do not exists

We wound up stealing a really nice 4,000 sq ft, three car garage home from foreclosure.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

todd_xxxx said:


> Except that it was. The houses were given to them.


Yeah, I should have clarified I guess. In my opinion when they gave it to them that was the biggest problem. They had no sense of ownership. It meant about as much to them as a Bic lighter.

I don't think anyone should be given anything unless there is an absolute circumstance that makes them not able to.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> I think someone made this point earlier, but allow me to lend emphasis to it.
> 
> When we left Charlotte for Raleigh we wanted a smaller house. Not a crappy house, but a well built smaller house.
> 
> ...


Thanks to the yuppies. All those small old houses were torn down.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

I'll just mention that in the mid to late 70s, a typical 1600 sq. ft house, brick veneer, in Harris County, TX, think Houston, was around $36,000 . I looked at a number but didn't buy because I thought they were too expensive. Moved to a small TX town and bought an old Victorian era house with 5 bedrooms and 1 bath and paid $10,000 for it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

whiterock said:


> I'll just mention that in the mid to late 70s, a typical 1600 sq. ft house, brick veneer, in Harris County, TX, think Houston, was around $36,000 . I looked at a number but didn't buy because I thought they were too expensive. Moved to a small TX town and bought an old Victorian era house with 5 bedrooms and 1 bath and paid $10,000 for it.


I was between 290 and 10 west of highway 6 just off 529. I bought a 1,500 sq ft brick veneer in 1984 for $50k. The bottom fell out in 88, we could not sell and lost the house. I went back to the neighborhood around 2000. They were selling just shy of $100k.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

More duplexes, condos, etc is one way to make housing more affordable. Everyone doesn't need a detached home. A lot of people aren't interested in having a yard or the work that comes with it.

Building codes have gone a little overboard too. But nobody nowhere nohow is going to be interested in relaxing them in light of the recent building collapse in Florida.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

MO_cows said:


> More duplexes, condos, etc is one way to make housing more affordable. Everyone doesn't need a detached home. A lot of people aren't interested in having a yard or the work that comes with it.
> 
> Building codes have gone a little overboard too. But nobody nowhere nohow is going to be interested in relaxing them in light of the recent building collapse in Florida.


Didn't say relaxed codes. I'm against that completely. I said relaxed ordinances. Those that say "no trailer parks, nothing under 1600 feet". 

These kinds of rules.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

That being said, there are stupid codes too. Like making you put solar on every new house built in the state of California.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

There are 3 mobile home parks within 10 miles of me. The mobile owners aren't the problem but the property owner is. 2 parks are very nice and well kept, renters are allowed to do some planting around their trailers as long as it is kept tidy and weeded. The other park is poorly maintained, water and sewer system failures on a regular basis, road is full of potholes and ruts, lawn is not kept mowed. I believe it is park owners like the bad one that causes cities to close them down or buy them out then prohibit new parks inside city limits.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I’d say housing is affordable.... don’t see many houses sitting empty and the realtors keep selling new ones.
those few who can’t afford housing need to up their game.


----------



## ScottOz (Mar 10, 2020)

Don't forget back in the 80's the interest rates were as high 17.60% Feb of '82. Can you imagine if we were paying that rate.
200k mortgage in 1982 would be 2,949 paying just over 1 million dollars on a 30 year note. at todays rate say 3% it would 843 bucks and total would just over 303k


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ScottOz said:


> Don't forget back in the 80's the interest rates were as high 17.60% Feb of '82. Can you imagine if we were paying that rate.
> 200k mortgage in 1982 would be 2,949 paying just over 1 million dollars on a 30 year note. at todays rate say 3% it would 843 bucks and total would just over 303k


My first mortgage was 12 7/8th, my new truck was 18%, both in '84

I still consider any mortgage below 10% good. My last mortgage was 3.25%


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Danaus29 said:


> There are 3 mobile home parks within 10 miles of me. The mobile owners aren't the problem but the property owner is. 2 parks are very nice and well kept, renters are allowed to do some planting around their trailers as long as it is kept tidy and weeded. The other park is poorly maintained, water and sewer system failures on a regular basis, road is full of potholes and ruts, lawn is not kept mowed. I believe it is park owners like the bad one that causes cities to close them down or buy them out then prohibit new parks inside city limits.


Agree with that too. There are some that just don't care. But there are usually local laws in place to remedy that. If my brother let his grass get over 5 inches he got a ticket. That's why he moved to the country.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

ScottOz said:


> Don't forget back in the 80's the interest rates were as high 17.60% Feb of '82. Can you imagine if we were paying that rate.
> 200k mortgage in 1982 would be 2,949 paying just over 1 million dollars on a 30 year note. at todays rate say 3% it would 843 bucks and total would just over 303k


I remember it well. My father almost lost his house too. Inflation was so out of control. 

Inflation is a tax on the poor and most middle class and it affects those who rent are hit the worst.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

This is why I am building my own. It took me three years to set aside the money, then I bought the material as I needed it. The only thing I didn't do myself was pour the slab. By fall I will have the ceiling finished, then install the outlets, lights and switches. It goes slow because I work alone, but it is worth it. I will install the bathroom and kitchen this winter. The water and power will be next summer. It's 30x40 ft, so 1200 sq feet. Depending on how crazy we get with the kitchen, it will come in under forty thousand.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

muleskinner2 said:


> This is why I built my own. It took me three years to set aside the money, then I bought the material as I needed it. The only thing I didn't do myself was pour the slab. By fall I will have the ceiling finished, then install the outlets, lights and switches. It goes slow because I work alone, but it is worth it. I will install the bathroom and kitchen this winter. The water and power will be next summer. It's 30x40 ft, so 1200 sq feet. Depending on how crazy we get with the kitchen, it will come in under forty thousand.


I bet you won't tear it up either.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Danaus29 said:


> The more important question is why are many cities requiring that new houses have extra large square footage? I have seen several places where there is a minimum size that is quite a bit larger than my house.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tax revenue


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

HDRider said:


> I was between 290 and 10 west of highway 6 just off 529. I bought a 1,500 sq ft brick veneer in 1984 for $50k. The bottom fell out in 88, we could not sell and lost the house. I went back to the neighborhood around 2000. They were selling just shy of $100k.


Probably 2 or 3 times that now. Zillow says mine is worth over $300,000 now. Built it for just over $92, 000. 1500 sq ft, carport, siding, no brick or stone.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I think too many renters are a big part of the problem. I think we more buyers.


How are they going to finance!?!? There's going to be another crash 🤣


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

mreynolds said:


> Thanks to the yuppies. All those small old houses were torn down.


Yes, gentrification is big problem. What happened to ratty apartments, older cheper houses? Even roach motels? Some snobs in local governments didnt want to look at them, deemed them "uninhabitable living conditions" and tore the cheap housing down. Now we see a lot of those folks on the streets, is that really any better of living conditions? I think the homeless encampments are a bigger eyesore than the roach motels ever were


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

RJ2019 said:


> Yes, gentrification is big problem. What happened to ratty apartments, older cheper houses? Even roach motels? Some snobs in local governments didnt want to look at them, deemed them "uninhabitable living conditions" and tore the cheap housing down. Now we see a lot of those folks on the streets, is that really any better of living conditions? I think the homeless encampments are a bigger eyesore than the roach motels ever were


What state do you live in???


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

mreynolds said:


> I bet you won't tear it up either.


Is shooting soda cans off the wood stove considered vandalism? I mean it was just a suppressed 9mm, it's not like it's a real gun. I keep it near the front door for varmints.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

TripleD said:


> How are they going to finance!?!? There's going to be another crash 🤣


Yeah, right now is not the time to be buying for sure. Next year might be real good though.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

RJ2019 said:


> Yes, gentrification is big problem. What happened to ratty apartments, older cheper houses? Even roach motels? Some snobs in local governments didnt want to look at them, deemed them "uninhabitable living conditions" and tore the cheap housing down. Now we see a lot of those folks on the streets, is that really any better of living conditions? I think the homeless encampments are a bigger eyesore than the roach motels ever were


I dont have a problem with gentrification as long as it really is that. To me that word means small investors coming in and fixing or flipping the neighborhood in the hopes their investment will pay off. I have seen this type and have been a part of it too. It can be scary to be the first one but almost always worth it. 

I have hung out with a lot of developers in my life though being in large scale construction trades. Most times they take good boned houses by eminent domain or just like in the movies. Buy and/or force them out. As long as the city gets a bigger tax base they look the other way.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

mreynolds said:


> I dont have a problem with gentrification as long as it really is that. To me that word means small investors coming in and fixing or flipping the neighborhood in the hopes their investment will pay off. I have seen this type and have been a part of it too. It can be scary to be the first one but almost always worth it.
> 
> I have hung out with a lot of developers in my life though being in large scale construction trades. Most times they take good boned houses by eminent domain or just like in the movies. Buy and/or force them out. As long as the city gets a bigger tax base they look the other way.


Yeah, sure it's good for an investor. But how about all the tenants who get kicked out because the place is selling or being remodeled? And after the renovations are done the rent is much, much higher. That is most definitely not the answer to affordable housing. It removes affordable housing


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

RJ2019 said:


> Yeah, sure it's good for an investor. But how about all the tenants who get kicked out because the place is selling or being remodeled? And after the renovations are done the rent is much, much higher. That is most definitely not the answer to affordable housing. It removes affordable housing


Those tenants often move further away from downtown and live in a better house and cheaper. Then the new houses are bought instead of rented in a true gentrification project. In a pseudo one that had crooks and city officials involved they take nice houses and force them out and build a new block of trendy art studios and restaurants whose food you cant pronounce. And they charge 5-10 dollars a foot per month to rent it.


----------



## RJ2019 (Aug 27, 2019)

mreynolds said:


> Those tenants often move further away from downtown and live in a better house and cheaper. Then the new houses are bought instead of rented in a true gentrification project. In a pseudo one that had crooks and city officials involved they take nice houses and force them out and build a new block of trendy art studios and restaurants whose food you cant pronounce. And they charge 5-10 dollars a foot per month to rent it.


Better and cheaper? You must not be from around here.😂😂

To give context, I'm in California and there isnt much for housing anywhere. It is very expensive, and at least here the roach motels do serve a purpose. Would rather look at a rundown apartment complex than a homeless encampment. I can see where things would be different where you are though.

Another thought: you have to have good credit or a LOT of savings to buy a house outright if you dont have good credit. Kind of puts a lot of those folks who fall victim to gentrification at a disadvantage. Of course, a lot of landlords want good credit to rent these days too, so that argument may be a wash.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

RJ2019 said:


> Better and cheaper
> 
> Kind of puts a lot of those folks who fall victim to gentrification at a disadvantage.


They should move to Texas


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Texas piss you off ?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> I think a big portion of the issue is simply us. We feel like we need a McMansion when a small house would do just fine.


That's a changing trend with millennials. Many prefer smaller homes and less stuff because they are just so mobile these days.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Houses used to be for people, but now they are for things. Parents and 2 or 3 children could easily live in a small 3 bedroom, 2 bath house. Using ideas learned from tiny houses, this could be as small as 1200 sq ft (or even smaller).
> 
> I would love to find a 2 bedroom house that was about 1000 sq ft and was modern, designed well, low maintenance, and energy-efficient.


They're out there. These homes are cheaper to purchase, rehab, and maintain as rentals.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

CKelly78z said:


> "Government housing" is paid for by my taxes, and I DON'T agree with that, but as usual, they will do whatever they want with the tax money (or just print more) with no consequences.





oregon woodsmok said:


> The only way to get people into housing with low rent is for the government to pay for the housing and then rent it out for considerably less than it costs to build it. That means the taxpayers are providing housing at below cost for the lower income folks. It also means that the housing is costing three to four times what it should cost to build, because the government is building it.


Not true. Section 8 provides rent relief to low/no income families to be paid directly to the landlord via direct deposit. With Section 8, investors purchase and rehab or build housing and allow Section 8 tenants to live there. Although there are requirements that need to be met and inspections to be passed, once the tenant moves in the rent is never late. And often, Section 8 pays more than the market rate.😁



oregon woodsmok said:


> There is plenty of proof, both in this country and world wide, that tenants trash government owned housing where they live for little rent or even for free.


You can run into that problem with private pay tenants too. Just have to screen them well. Although the Section 8 program runs background checks, etc...still best to perform your own. If a Section 8 tenant gets evicted, they risk losing their voucher. You can use that as a club of sorts.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Any time the government subsidizes anything, the people who don't get subsidized pay more for it. Plus the taxes they pay for the subsidy. Double whammy. Such is socialism.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

After WWII, 3 of my grand-uncles (the married ones) each bought a Craftsman Cape Cod home kit. They and my single grand-uncles built the houses and lived there until they passed. Beautiful solid houses built from a pile of delivered lumber.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Vjk said:


> Any time the government subsidizes anything,* the people who don't get subsidized pay more for it*. Plus the taxes they pay for the subsidy. Double whammy. Such is socialism.


Not in this case necessarily. The extra that Section 8 pays is an incentive for taking them and having to jump through extra hoops.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

kinderfeld said:


> Not in this case necessarily. The extra that Section 8 pays is an incentive for taking them and having to jump through extra hoops.


You aren't thinking broadly enough. Remember when the government was paying people $500 to trade in their junker cars? All of sudden the price of new cars went up $500. Trade in or not. Same principle in housing. If it wasn't for Obamaphones, the cost of phones would be half what they are now.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

My grand parents put up a twelve by twelve ”shanty” and moved in with my dad and his sister. They lived in that until he got the “house“ built. Twelve by twenty four, two rooms. Today’s kids are spoiled rotten and clueless.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Vjk said:


> You aren't thinking broadly enough.


I'm thinking about local rental markets. That's as broad as anyone can think about this subject. From one state to another, from one municipality to another, it can vary widely. Oregon, for example, recently enacted a statewide rent control.



Vjk said:


> Remember when the government was paying people $500 to trade in their junker cars? All of sudden the price of new cars went up $500. Trade in or not.


Actually, the people who got screwed over the cash for clunker program were the used car industry. Dealers _and_ buyers. Subsidy or no, not everyone can afford a brand new car. Not everyone wants one. According to the cash for clunker program, all trade ins had to be destroyed. This left a supply issue with used car dealerships. 



Vjk said:


> Same principle in housing.


Not really. Not all landlords are willing to take Section 8. The extra they may pay doesn't dictate the overall market. Many will settle for lower rents. In the end, most landlords will get as much as they can. But, like anything else, the price depends upon the willingness of tenants to pay it. If it's too high, it gets lowered or the house stays vacant.



Vjk said:


> If it wasn't for Obamaphones, the cost of phones would be half what they are now.


Not sure about that.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Redlands Okie said:


> Texas piss you off ?


No, just* A* Texan.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Section 8 will only go 2.5 percent per year here. I've been working this rental game since I was 12. That's been 45 years...


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

kinderfeld said:


> I'm thinking about local rental markets. That's as broad as anyone can think about this subject. From one state to another, from one municipality to another, it can vary widely. Oregon, for example, recently enacted a statewide rent control.
> 
> 
> Actually, the people who got screwed over the cash for clunker program were the used car industry. Dealers _and_ buyers. Subsidy or no, not everyone can afford a brand new car. Not everyone wants one. According to the cash for clunker program, all trade ins had to be destroyed. This left a supply issue with used car dealerships.
> ...


Again, you fail to comprehend. No point in continuing this conversation.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

When there are more people than houses, which is common in many areas, the price will be met.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Vjk said:


> Again, you fail to comprehend. No point in continuing this conversation.


No. I'm disagreeing. There's a difference.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> No. I'm disagreeing. There's a difference.


Tax payers money pay the rent or people who have jobs!?!?. I've only seen three get off section 8 in 45 years!!!! The rental houses is my retirement...


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

TripleD said:


> Tax payers money pay the rent or people who have jobs!?!?. *I've only seen three get off section 8 in 45 years!!!! * The rental houses is my retirement...


It happens though. Not very often...but occasionally. As their situation improves, Section 8 covers less of the rent or none at all. Sometimes, an eviction follows because these people just aren't good with money. But if they get laid off, or what have you, they can often get requalified.

I do like Section 8.


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

todd_xxxx said:


> When I was in the military, the people that worked for me and I helped build houses for Habitat for Humanity in Phoenix. We were a small shop, just 6 of us. We spent our weekends doing it because we thought it was for a good cause. A few months after people moved in, they had destroyed the houses. The windows were broken, paint all over the outsides of the houses, yards destroyed. These were not government houses, these were houses we helped build on our own time, with our own tools, and Habitat for Humanity gave them. That was the end of that for us.


My parents had the same experience with habitat for humanity!! The recipients would trash the place and skip out on the lowcost/free mortgages provided them!


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

muleskinner2 said:


> This is why I am building my own. It took me three years to set aside the money, then I bought the material as I needed it. The only thing I didn't do myself was pour the slab. By fall I will have the ceiling finished, then install the outlets, lights and switches. It goes slow because I work alone, but it is worth it. I will install the bathroom and kitchen this winter. The water and power will be next summer. It's 30x40 ft, so 1200 sq feet. Depending on how crazy we get with the kitchen, it will come in under forty thousand.


Yep, us too! Hubby did everything except dig the well. We hired the well dug. 10 years in it's not done, but we're debt and job free so it's all good!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

kinderfeld said:


> It happens though. Not very often...but occasionally. As their situation improves, Section 8 covers less of the rent or none at all. Sometimes, an eviction follows because these people just aren't good with money. But if they get laid off, or what have you, they can often get requalified.
> 
> I do like Section 8.
> View attachment 99064


It has become a multi generational tradition/trap for families to get on the section 8 wagon and stay there.
A woman with 2 kids might qualify for a $500 a month apartment; 3 kids and she is up to $650, 4 kids and they have a large home.
It does not benefit that woman to get married or work a full time job with above entry level pay.
There is no incentive to improve.
There is an incentive to hide income, roommates and significant others.
The "Not often but occasionally" should be referring to the ones who remain on the program indefinitely.
Section 8 can provide a consistent guaranteed rental income for a landlord, but it does so at the cost of the futures of those who get swallowed up in it.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> It has become a multi generational tradition/trap for families to get on the section 8 wagon and stay there.
> A woman with 2 kids might qualify for a $500 a month apartment; 3 kids and she is up to $650, 4 kids and they have a large home.
> It does not benefit that woman to get married or work a full time job with above entry level pay.
> There is no incentive to improve.
> ...


True. But as long as the program exists, that money has to go somewhere.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I have had liberal folks paint me as hard hearted for similar descriptions of the program. I would agree that it does help some people and the landlords (when the properties aren't destroyed from damage).
What is cruel is how government programs like this seal the participants fate for life. A young poor woman with kid(s) already has a steep uphill battle to fight if she ever wants to realize what the American dream is.
She really doesn't need a government syringe of entitlement addiction for which there is no cure.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

For section 8 to be considered a "success" it would have to be reporting a decrease in participation. Like foodstamps however, the government is proud to be serving so many of its citizens.
Is it really an example of success to see large public housing complexes, dozens or hundreds of red brick ranch duplexes built and designed like subdivisions in both small and large cities?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

kinderfeld said:


> True. But as long as the program exists, that money has to go somewhere.


Which is why we live in a renters world here in the USA. It's too easy to fall into the trap. 

Renters pay 35% of their income on rent. Home buyers pay 16% of income on a mortgage. 

If an investor can but a house, pay taxes and insurance and still come out ahead by renting it out, then buying in the first place should be where people try.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> For section 8 to be considered a "success" it would have to be reporting a decrease in participation. Like foodstamps however, the government is proud to be serving so many of its citizens.
> Is it really an example of success to see large public housing complexes, dozens or hundreds of red brick ranch duplexes built and designed like subdivisions in both small and large cities?


They dont want anyone off these programs. It's not about blue vs red either. It's about these program directors from all across the country that need to spend the budget this year so they can get a bigger one next year. They have diluted the rules so many times over the years there are hardly any more rules.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> I have had liberal folks paint me as hard hearted for similar descriptions of the program. I would agree that it does help some people and the landlords (when the properties aren't destroyed from damage).
> What is cruel is how government programs like this seal the participants fate for life. A young poor woman with kid(s) already has a steep uphill battle to fight if she ever wants to realize what the American dream is.
> She really doesn't need a government syringe of entitlement addiction for which there is no cure.


Can't say I disagree. What the recipient needs more than anything is a change in mindset. Most people, on govt. assistance or not, never realize their true potential because of mindset misalignment.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Which is why we live in a renters world here in the USA. It's too easy to fall into the trap.
> 
> Renters pay 35% of their income on rent. Home buyers pay 16% of income on a mortgage.
> 
> *If an investor can but a house, pay taxes and insurance and still come out ahead by renting it out, then buying in the first place should be where people try.*


You'd think so. But here's the thing. It's a lot more difficult to obtain financing for a private home purchase through conventional financing vs financing an investment property. Different criteria. Besides, many of these people that rent simply don't have the financial stability that banks are looking for. So yeah, they pay seven or eight hundred dollars a month to live in a house that would cost about two hundred a month for a conventional mortgage.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

kinderfeld said:


> You'd think so. But here's the thing. It's a lot more difficult to obtain financing for a private home purchase through conventional financing vs financing an investment property. Different criteria. Besides, many of these people that rent simply don't have the financial stability that banks are looking for. So yeah, they pay seven or eight hundred dollars a month to live in a house that would cost about two hundred a month for a conventional mortgage.


I think it all comes down to that financial education we were asking for in another thread. Seems some people think it is not worthy of our kids. 

When I was in school there was a book cover that said "*College graduates make over a million more in their lifetime*."

It should have said "*Even if you dont go to college, you can save over a million dollars over your lifetime if you buy instead of renting*."

The first one is always the hardest. Then with equity and past responsibility shown it gets easier. It snowballs.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> For section 8 to be considered a "success" it would have to be reporting a decrease in participation.


"Success" is relative to what your goals are. If you buy into the notion that it is a "hand up" meant to temporarily help a struggling family, then yeah, it's a massive failure.



GTX63 said:


> Like foodstamps however, the government is proud to be serving so many of its citizens.


Call me a cynic, but I'm not sure that pride and public service have much to do with it.



GTX63 said:


> Is it really an example of success to see large public housing complexes, dozens or hundreds of red brick ranch duplexes built and designed like subdivisions in both small and large cities?


Again, it's relative. Are you the contractor that scored this job? Are you one of the investors? Do you own the property management company that will manage these complexes?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> You'd think so. But here's the thing. It's a lot more difficult to obtain financing for a private home purchase through conventional financing vs financing an investment property. Different criteria. Besides, many of these people that rent simply don't have the financial stability that banks are looking for. So yeah, they pay seven or eight hundred dollars a month to live in a house that would cost about two hundred a month for a conventional mortgage.


I had a tenant that rented a house. I told him to save $100 per month. He had to pay child support but 122 months later he had done that and bought his own house. I was glad for him. He did have a good job!!!


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> I think it all comes down to that financial education we were asking for in another thread. Seems some people think it is not worthy of our kids.
> 
> When I was in school there was a book cover that said "*College graduates make over a million more in their lifetime*."
> 
> ...


A house isn't really an asset unless you're renting it out. It's a liability. But, I get what you're saying. These days, in many cases, if not most, college is a waste of time and money.
The book kids need to read is Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki.
Just my opinion.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

kinderfeld said:


> A house isn't really an asset unless you're renting it out. It's a liability. But, I get what you're saying. These days, in many cases, if not most, college is a waste of time and money.
> The book kids need to read is Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki.
> Just my opinion.


I agree with Robert on many things but owning a house we differ. That is like a 401k. When you retire, you can reverse mortgage it if you come up short. You can sell it and rent somewhere else if you retire and not pay capitol gains tax if you have lived there for 2 years. 

Robert looks at the upkeep as a draw on income. It most certainly is. But you still pay that as a renter. You're just paying out to someone else. 

FHA will allow you to buy up to a 4 plex at 5% down. You have to live in it for a year. Then you can repeat the process. Live in one and rent the other three to pay the note. Do that 3 times and you have 12 houses that are rented giving you cash flow. Less than 5 years and the average person can be set.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

kinderfeld said:


> Call me a cynic, but I'm not sure that pride and public service have much to do with it.
> 
> 
> Again, it's relative. Are you the contractor that scored this job? Are you one of the investors? Do you own the property management company that will manage these complexes?


Pride is the exact word a government spokesman used last month when touting how many 10s of millions of Americans (and illegals) were being served by EBT.

Of course the comparison is extreme, but the contractors that built the gas chambers in the mutterland likely did well for themselves too.
Big pharma does pretty well on their trial vaccines no?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

One of the main reasons that there is a continuous and increasing shortage of the availability of affordable housing (all over the world especially in big cities) is gentrification.

Gentrification is when wealthier, people arrive in an existing urban neighborhood and cause changes in the community. These changes are usually very complicated and contradictory. The changes include an increase in median income of the neighborhood, increases in rents and home prices, development of luxury housing, and a disturbance of the neighborhood’s character.

The reality is that city governments are working with developers and investors to allow this to happen to make money. Changing zoning is one big scam. The result is that the lower income people who actually work in the cities can no longer afford to live in them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> No, just* A* Texan.


No. Calm down


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

emdeengee said:


> One of the main reasons that there is a continuous and increasing shortage of the availability of affordable housing (all over the world especially in big cities) is gentrification.
> 
> Gentrification is when wealthier, people arrive in an existing urban neighborhood and cause changes in the community. These changes are usually very complicated and contradictory. The changes include an increase in median income of the neighborhood, increases in rents and home prices, development of luxury housing, and a disturbance of the neighborhood’s character.
> 
> The reality is that city governments are working with developers and investors to allow this to happen to make money. Changing zoning is one big scam. The result is that the lower income people who actually work in the cities can no longer afford to live in them.


Gentrification is housing demand. Demand drives up prices

River Oaks is a very, very pricy area of Houston. I saw a Saudi buy two multimillion dollar homes and build a brand new even pricy house, and separate house as servants quarters. That is upper end gentrification.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> I agree with Robert on many things but owning a house we differ. That is like a 401k. When you retire, you can reverse mortgage it if you come up short. You can sell it and rent somewhere else if you retire and not pay capitol gains tax if you have lived there for 2 years.
> 
> Robert looks at the upkeep as a draw on income. It most certainly is. But you still pay that as a renter. You're just paying out to someone else.


His view on assets vs liabilities is based upon how they would look on a financial statement.
Assets put money in your pocket. Cashflow in the form of dividends, rent, etc.
Liabilities take money out. Mortgage, taxes, utility payments, maintenance, etc.
You need assets to offset and come out ahead of your liabilities.

If you have a mortgage on your home, yes it is an asset...just not yours. And even if you don't, it still pulls money from your pocket. It can become an asset if you sell it. Amortization coupled with equity can seem like a large windfall. Often, though, it's a pretty modest return. And...appreciation is certainly not guaranteed. Very risky. Many people found out the hard way during the great recession. 

And the 401k...just terrible. You have no control. Capped on how much you can invest. All the fees. Put up 100% of the capital, take 100% of the risk, only receive about 30% of the return? But wait, there's more! Instead of being taxed at the capital gains rate you get taxed at the earned income rate which can be twice as much. But, to be fair, the people who came up with the 401k as an investment vehicle never intended it to serve as a foundation of financial security for retirement.




mreynolds said:


> FHA will allow you to buy up to a 4 plex at 5% down. You have to live in it for a year. Then you can repeat the process. Live in one and rent the other three to pay the note. Do that 3 times and you have 12 houses that are rented giving you cash flow. Less than 5 years and the average person can be set.


Now this would be an asset.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

emdeengee said:


> One of the main reasons that there is a continuous and increasing shortage of the availability of affordable housing (all over the world especially in big cities) is gentrification.
> 
> Gentrification is when wealthier, people arrive in an existing urban neighborhood and cause changes in the community. These changes are usually very complicated and contradictory. The changes include an increase in median income of the neighborhood, increases in rents and home prices, development of luxury housing, and a disturbance of the neighborhood’s character.
> 
> The reality is that city governments are working with developers and investors to allow this to happen to make money. Changing zoning is one big scam. The result is that the lower income people who actually work in the cities can no longer afford to live in them.


I agree 100 percent. A bypass was completed last in the next county . I do the rental game but can't find anything that is going to make a profit... If I start flipping I've seen too many go broke back 08 to 2010. I buried three uncle's that got greedy and went broke. I'm going going to play the long game...


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> Pride is the exact word a government spokesman used last month when touting how many 10s of millions of Americans (and illegals) were being served by EBT.


Well, if a government spokesman said it...



GTX63 said:


> *Of course the comparison is extreme*, but the contractors that built the gas chambers in the mutterland likely did well for themselves too. Big pharma does pretty well on their trial vaccines no?


Very extreme.
I'm talking about private contractors building apartment complexes, funded by private investors and managed by property management groups, that will allow low income tenants who are on government assistance to live there. I'm not talking about how big pharma screws the public (a thread in itself) or the contractors who built the gas chambers (likely jews who died there as well) or the contractors who built the death star for the empire. It's housing for people accessible to low income families (if they have assistance).


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Gentrification is housing demand. Demand drives up prices
> 
> River Oaks is a very, very pricy area of Houston. I saw a Saudi buy two multimillion dollar homes and build a brand new even pricy house, and separate house as servants quarters. That is upper end gentrification.


Housing demand would not change a middle or low income area into the million dollar houses and condos being built on those footprints. Housing demand would be building new or renovating existing affordable housing in the original neighbourhood. This is not being done because it would take years of people paying their monthly rent or paying mortgages on hundred thousand dollar houses as opposed to million dollar condos to make enough of a profit to satisfy the developers. 

The cities also prefer to have high density expensive properties paying huge property tax than high density middle and lower valued properties paying lower property tax. There is no justification for a falling down uninhabitable shack on a small lot in Vancouver selling for 1.2 million dollars. And of course there are millions of investors all over the world buying properties just to let them sit empty and thus pushing people out of the neighbourhoods of affordable housing. Many cities are being forced to stop this because affordable housing is now a crisis. They are enacting bylaws that say you can invest in property but it must be inhabited - by yourself or through rental. Cities are also being forced to enact rent controls or rent increase controls..


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

You failed to get my point, or if you disagree with it, you did a poor job on rebuttal.



emdeengee said:


> There is no justification for a falling down uninhabitable shack on a small lot in Vancouver selling for 1.2 million dollars.


Regarding the above statement. You seem to think market forces do not exist, or they should be made to go way.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I do knw that market forces exist but I also know that market forces are manipulated. Greed is the number one market force.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> I do knw that market forces exist but I also know that market forces are manipulated. Greed is the number one market force.


“Greed is good”
from the movie The Firm


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Only to a certain extent. When it dominates all aspects of life it only leads to trouble. The fact that there is so much corruption in politics and finance is not good for anyone. Those involved in the corruption may be having a good time now thinking that they are protected by those who also share their corrupt values but people are only willing to take so much before they respond. It has happened all through history and the US or other corrupt countries are not immune.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

emdeengee said:


> I do knw that market forces exist but I also know that market forces are manipulated. Greed is the number one market force.


There is no separating greed and market forces. They are one in the same.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> “Greed is good”
> from the movie The Firm


No it isn't


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> No it isn't


Right. You’d prefer we all still lived in caves I spose? Greed is the great motivator that has advanced civilization since the cave dwellers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> Right. You’d prefer we all still lived in caves I spose? Greed is the great motivator that has advanced civilization since the cave dwellers.


You did not even understand my post. It is from the movie Wall Street


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> You did not even understand my post. It is from the movie Wall Street


I stand corrected. But greed is good just the same.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Evons hubby said:


> I stand corrected. But greed is good just the same.


I agree.
And for those interested, here is the quote in its entirety.

_"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much." _Gordon Gekko


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

TripleD said:


> I agree 100 percent. A bypass was completed last in the next county . I do the rental game but can't find anything that is going to make a profit... If I start flipping* I've seen too many go broke back 08 to 2010*. I buried three uncle's that got greedy and went broke. I'm going going to play the long game...


That wasn't really a time to flip for profit, generally speaking. That was a time to buy at a discount. There might be another black Friday sale coming soon to a housing market near you.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> That wasn't really a time to flip for profit, generally speaking. That was a time to buy at a discount. There might be another black Friday sale coming soon to a housing market near you.


There's only so many cycles in a lifetime!!! I will only be worried if the price of land drops.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

kinderfeld said:


> His view on assets vs liabilities is based upon how they would look on a financial statement.
> Assets put money in your pocket. Cashflow in the form of dividends, rent, etc.
> Liabilities take money out. Mortgage, taxes, utility payments, maintenance, etc.
> You need assets to offset and come out ahead of your liabilities.
> ...


But if you dont own a home you are giving that money away to someone else for rent. Better to keep it in a "savings" account in a commodity instead of a bank where interest is always lower than you can get on the open market. 

And there are 401ks that you can invest in commodities. You can even buy rental property with it. You also have 100% of the control and 100% of the responsibilities. You keep the check book and you write the checks. 

I have a friend who buys options on land. He gets people with a Roth IRA to invest. 100% of the money is tax free. Profits too. Forever. 

This is where early financial education comes into play. I was never taught these things. I learned them all after 2008 when I got burned.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> But if you dont own a home you are *giving that money away to someone else* for rent.


I get what you're saying. But you'll do that with a mortgage and you'll do that with taxes. In terms of assets I'm specifically talking about something you own that puts money in your pocket right now whether you're working or not, as opposed to invest and hope it works out in the future. As far as home ownership vs. renting, what's best for anyone depends upon their current situation and personal preference, I suppose.



mreynolds said:


> Better to keep it in a "savings" account in a commodity instead of a bank where interest is always lower than you can get on the open market.


Historically that's true. By and large real estate trends upward. But, again, things like 2008 happen.
I just wouldn't _count_ on homeownership as part of a retirement plan. As far as banks and savings accounts go, interest in a savings account is a joke. Doesn't even keep pace with average inflation, which is about 3%.



mreynolds said:


> And there are 401ks that you can invest in commodities. You can even buy rental property with it. You also have 100% of the control and 100% of the responsibilities. You keep the check book and you write the checks.
> I have a friend who buys options on land. He gets people with a Roth IRA to invest. 100% of the money is tax free. Profits too. Forever.


Self directed IRA's are an option.



mreynolds said:


> *This is where early financial education comes into play.* I was never taught these things. I learned them all after 2008 when I got burned.


Definitely.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kinderfeld said:


> I just wouldn't _count_ on homeownership as part of a retirement plan.


I count heavily on owning my home as part of my retirement. It basically adds hundreds per month to my income in the form of rent I don’t have to pay.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Evons hubby said:


> I count heavily on owning my home as part of my retirement. It basically adds hundreds per month to my income in the form of rent I don’t have to pay.


I was talking about the equity.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kinderfeld said:


> I was talking about the equity.


so am I. My home is the best investment I ever made. Definitely an asset.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Evons hubby said:


> so am I. My home is the best investment I ever made. Definitely an asset.


Reverse mortgage?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kinderfeld said:


> Reverse mortgage?


Nope, penny saved penny earned and like that.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Evons hubby said:


> Nope, penny saved penny earned and like that.


Definitely helpful in retirement, no doubt. But still not an asset. Just a cheaper liability.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kinderfeld said:


> Definitely helpful in retirement, no doubt. But still not an asset. Just a cheaper liability.


Oddly enough my tax man, the government, as well as my bank all consider it an asset.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Evons hubby said:


> Oddly enough my tax man, the government, as well as my bank all consider it an asset.


Well it is for them. Especially a bank if there's a mortgage or HELOC. I'm looking at it from the viewpoint of a monthly balance sheet and what direction the cash flows. An asset brings money in. With a liability cash flows out. With that in mind, in the interest of financial security, one's assets should exceed their liabilities.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

kinderfeld said:


> Well it is for them. Especially a bank if there's a mortgage or HELOC. I'm looking at it from the viewpoint of a monthly balance sheet and what direction the cash flows. An asset brings money in. With a liability cash flows out. With that in mind, in the interest of financial security, one's assets should exceed their liabilities.


And that's true but everyone has to start somewhere in getting those assets. Is it better to rent or buy a home to get there.

Assuming all other things unobtainable for a poor person.

If you rent for for years you have nothing. If you buy for ten years you have equity in which you can refi and invest in an income producing property.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> I agree.
> And for those interested, here is the quote in its entirety.
> 
> _"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much." _Gordon Gekko


I understand greed is the grease that makes the economy work. I understand that full well. We all, most everyone, works to enrich themselves. That is the coarse definition of greed. 

That said, when our elected officials, in all their greed and glory use our system to enrich themselves and those around them something is broken.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Greed is not the same as the desire to attain more.
Nymphomania is not the same as the desire to have a lot of sex.
The lack of more specific and descriptive wording seems to be losing some people.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I understand greed is the grease that makes the economy work. I understand that full well. We all, most everyone, works to enrich themselves. That is the coarse definition of greed.
> 
> That said, when our elected officials, in all their greed and glory use our system to enrich themselves and those around them something is broken.


While motivated by greed, what you're describing is corruption. They were sent to do a job. They're not doing it. They are looking out for themselves instead... exclusively.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> And that's true but everyone has to start somewhere in getting those assets. Is it better to rent or buy a home to get there.
> 
> Assuming all other things unobtainable for a poor person.
> 
> If you rent for for years you have nothing. If you buy for ten years you have equity in which you can refi and invest in an income producing property.


I agree. And everyone's situation is different. Lots of room for creativity. House hacking for example. What works for one may not work for someone else. But, knowing the difference between an asset and liability is a fundamental first step on that journey.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Greed is not the same as the desire to attain more.
> Nymphomania is not the same as the desire to have a lot of sex.
> The lack of more specific and descriptive wording seems to be losing some people.


That is why I called it a "course" definition.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> While motivated by greed, what you're describing is corruption. They were sent to do a job. They're not doing it. They are looking out for themselves instead... exclusively.


What they do is legal.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> What they do is legal.


It's still corrupt, dishonest, and fraudulent.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

A wall street/banking/investment lobbyist courts a congressman and uses veiled conversations and generalties and "oh by the way did you read that..." in order to message and direct them to personally profit from legislation they would both benefit from, is somewhere between very poor ethics and breaking the law.
It happens every single day.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Happy Birthday US Fiat Dollar.
How the US Dollar Came to be a Fiat Currency - American Monetary Association


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> It's still corrupt, dishonest, and fraudulent.


And that is my definition of greed, and it ain't good no matter what movie says it is.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> A wall street/banking/investment lobbyist courts a congressman and uses veiled conversations and generalties and "oh by the way did you read that..." in order to message and direct them to personally profit from legislation they would both benefit from, is somewhere between very poor ethics and breaking the law.
> *It happens every single day.*


In very large measure.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> And that is my definition of greed, and it ain't good no matter what movie says it is.


Greed is just the pursuit of self interest not a person's MO. Every major advancement in this nation has come from people pursuing their separate interests. That's what the world runs on. How a person satisfies their greed is a separate issue. You can make a fortune providing affordable housing. Or... you can make and sell crystal meth. Both are motivated by greed.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> What they do is legal.


I wouldn't say that all of it was legal. Only the stuff we find out about.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Much of the stuff we find out about isn't prosecuted.
You and I, now that would be different.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> Much of the stuff we find out about isn't prosecuted.
> You and I, now that would be different.


True, here lately it's pretty blatant too.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I wouldn't say that all of it was legal. Only the stuff we find out about.


I posted a thread that shows how the wealth of Representatives and Senators grows exponentially on a salary of $174k per year

It is not hidden, or unknown. It is business as usual.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> It is not hidden, or unknown. It is business as usual.


Didn't say that. I said it wasn't all legal.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Didn't say that. I said it wasn't all legal.


I'm just talking about the legal stuff


----------



## marlowefamily (Sep 8, 2020)

I'm not sure i agree with politicians focusing on affordable housing... they will generally screw it up anyway...

But, after crossing much of the country the last few decades and seeing houses priced from 1,000 to 10mil...I feel we have more than enough houses and apartments. Heck, we have many cities with abandoned houses.

Work is becoming increasingly remote friendly. 

Areas with high housing prices are crowded already and the US population has skyrocketed from the under 200mil that I remember when younger to 330mil today... maybe 350mil if illegals aren't being properly counted.

So, I'd redirect attention towards:

A) fixing up abandoned housing and providing incentives for the young and poor to take over abandoned property.

B) give employers incentives to permanently allow remote work in or around urban environments. 

C) have and actually implement a long term national population plan. Whether we like it or lot, a lot of problems go away when population density is within an ideal range and citizens are encouraged to stay and invest in their local communities. Likewise, if population is too nomadic or divided across different cultures..it becomes hard to unify or get anything done.

I realize the above might not be popular, but I'm guessing it's the only way the affordable housing issue will ever get fixed.

It depends on if people actually want to solve it or just use it as a political issue every year to gain votes and allow corrupt politicians to be bribed by land developers...


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

A few years back some small towns that were losing population rapidly started doing a program similar to homesteading of old. A young family could move in and get a house for little or no money but they had to stay there for a certain period of time. Seems like some were in west Texas some in the other plains states. i really don't remember the details about it. May have read it here on HT. The city fathers were trying to keep the towns and schools alive. That is kinda what Chuck was talking about.


----------

