As a renter, who cannot afford to buy, I am getting tired of hearing about "homeowners"

A very large chunk of Americans are renters.

I am 29, have a "good" job, and cannot even begin to think about buying - "starter" homes and condos in my region start about $200,000 out of my price range. Nevermind that like most middle- and lower-class college graduates my age, I have significant student debt and very limited job options at this point. I was also smart enough not to try to get a 120%, 50-year, variable rate mortgage.

I realize that a lot of homeowners who did nothing wrong, who are responsible, are in a position to lose their homes, and I want the government to do something about it. But I am tired of all the pandering to "homeowners" and resent the implication that my money will be used to bail them out. Who's going to bail me out? When do I get to own a home?

/rant

it shouldn't bee too long before you can afford what you want. The downside, though, might be that you won't have a job by then.

You get to be treated fairly when we allow a portion of rent to be deducted from taxes.
Too many people think propping up home values is a good idea.
Too many people think owning a home is a necessity worth punishing renters for.
It ain't.

of their income to their annual rent cost....thanks to Jesse Ventura.

I remember getting that in the early 1980s.

by decades.

when I wax nostalgic for the Ventura Administration. :rofl:

good stuff. One of them the I think was wonderful is the light rail system. Too bad it's not bigger than it is.

But it phases out very quite fast. It seems to go toward subsidizing people who are renting something that is too expensive for their income.

I just want to know if the policy carried on after he left office. That is wonderful! I think it's only fair...I grew up in a house, but all my adulthood it's been one rental after another.

Those of us who didn't think some flimsy piece of suburban pasteboard was worth $400,000 are getting the shaft but good. We behaved rationally, and now we get to pay for those who did not.

the home prices. You know who can afford to buy homes in our area? Summer people from away, that's who.

"Screw the locals, let's give some rich people from NYC or wherever a nice little summer "cottage" at the dreamy price of $300K or above."

How did the real estate agents ramp up the home prices?

that lead to this situation.

My apologies.

Includes (among the middle class) non-homeowners, singles-- especially women, and obviously, the poor and homeless.

is obviously such that they need their own category.

as far as singles, it's kind of a toss up, but married or co-habitating couples are the majority. From 2002, 53% of under age 35 households are single whereas 44.5% of over age 35 households are single. But even the 53% of 100 households would mean you had 53 single people and 94 married people.

are the majority of Americans...


I'm more concerned with individual people than residential grouped units....and I am a homeowner who acutally does give a damn about those who can not...:eyes:

the majority of married couples are homeowners too

and who said anything about giving a tanj?

Having said that...Trying to make it fair is almost an unsurmountable task.

:) :)

I've worked hard for forty years and there are things I should have that I don't like health insurance. I have to accept that I no longer can afford the premiums and huge deductibles...sad, but true. Life isn't fair.

edit: I am self-employed

I had a pretty good job, and prices seemed to always be out of reach. I was finally able to buy about a month shy of my 38th birthday.

But I am tired of all the pandering to "homeowners" and resent the implication that my money will be used to bail them out.

As someone who has made every loan payment on time for many, many years I also resent the idea of my money being used to bail out people who don't. But some people who are facing foreclosure are victims of a giant con game. I don't know that they deserve a subsidized house at taxpayer expense, but how can they be made whole?

I grew up in rented apartments and houses; the only child of a single, working-poor mom doesn't live in a family-owned home.

I own now. Of course, it's a decrepit, falling apart, needs-to-be-condemned old mobile home, but I own the ground it sits on. Me and the bank, anyway.

I'll probably never be able to afford to replace the mobile home, but by the time I die I'll own the dirt.

My sons don't own; they rent. While both are gainfully employed and make a decent salary, neither will ever make the kind of money that will buy a small house or condo where they work. One son lives in a studio apartment; the other rents a house WITH a roommate; shared rent provides a bedroom for him, a bedroom for his son, and the master bedroom for the roommate.

I don't know what the real answer is to the housing crunch, but I'm open to ideas. What do you think? How should the concerns of both homeowners and renters be addressed?

We are in a free-fall and because of republican policies we are headed toward a depression, not a recession. You are going to witness thousands of innocent families losing their homes. Not people who took out bloated mortgages but people like you except that they bought a home, put a down payment toward it and are now LOSING their jobs which in turn causes them to lose their homes.

If you are doing fine and are still earning money then in my opinion you are morally obligated to help others to the best of your ability and if you end up struggling through hard times others should feel morally obligated to help you. At least in my world, that's how it works.

rent the house or buy it on land contract for $50 a month more then rent would have cost. It's not a big house but its big enough for 2. There is no way I would have tried getting a loan, SO gets SSI and I get SSDI, so no bank would touch us. But when I was 29, single who wanted or needed yard work or house repairs when you had a land lord to do those things? Just be glad you weren't one of the greedy who thought buying a $200,000 house on a $100,000 budget. Or worse yet bought into the informertial, buy houses and get rich scams.

Even though I earned enough when I was 29, and prices were much lower, I still couldn't have afforded it (especially on my own.) My salary was less then, too. And I didn't want a house then! I was a bit immature :)

The Cook County sheriff (outside of Chicago) stopped assisting in evictions because he realized that a lot of the people were renters whose landlords defaulted on their mortgages. It's safer to rent these days, but there is always a risk also.

I've been saying this here. It supposedly makes me a heartless bastard or something. No mention that the people we get to buy houses for are exploiting US, though.

That house you couldn't afford?

Well, you own it now after the bail out.

You, me, and every other tax payer are also about to become the proud owners of several banks also.

...and I too am a bit peeved that we're having to "bail out" people who weren't smart enough to recognize the scam-- and I don't mean just the ARMs and the like. I live within my means-- well, I have a car loan and student loans, like you, but I can afford to make the payments. But there has NEVER been a time in my life when buying a house wouldn't have severely lowered my standard of living, which is pretty simple as it is. Just to make some banker richer? I don't think so.

Like you say-- where is OUR bailout?

You'll buy your home some day. I did too, after graduate school (a degree in poetry, fyi, I have been virtually guaranteed a life of penury), with student debt and a very modest income, at the age of 33. If you believe that you "cannot even begin to think about buying," then you're your own problem. If you want to buy property, you have to think about buying property. You have to examine your choices, then ask if there are others available. Buying a home takes legwork and homework, and the "I can't do it because everybody else sucks" attitude is not going to buy a house for you. I thought there was NO WAY IN HELL we could buy a house. One day I reached a tipping point and I suddenly realized that I had to buy a house and I wanted to buy a house. We could and we did - with student debt, and with a bankruptcy that was four years old.

Where's your bailout? You don't need one. You're not tied to a mortgage that's worth more than the house it's written for. Count your blessings.

You say about the homeowners who are upside down with their mortgage debt, "I want the government to do something about it. But I... resent the implication that my money will be used to bail them out."

Don't you get it? This is a democracy. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. You can't say that you expect the government to pay for something, and then expect your whining about taxes to be taken seriously.

My point is that it's unfair for non-homeowners to be left out. We're feeling the crunch, too.

How's that? ;-)

I didn't say and I don't believe that you're not feeling the crunch. We're all feeling it, my family included.

What's so unfair to you? You're not being helped out of a hole because you're not in a hole. Would you complain about firefighters putting out somebody's house fire because they aren't also helping you? Your house isn't burning up.

Circumstances are the way they are. Nobody has victimized you. From what I can derive from your posts, you're doing okay. You have a college education, I suspect even graduate school, and that's a blessing even if it's an expensive one that's still being paid for. You're presumably capable of critical thought, research, and constructing arguments - and those skills of the intellect are also a blessing, because it was failure to use those skills that landed some people in this mortgage mess. If you have good health, that's another blessing. You said that you make a good income - that's another blessing. Do you have a sense of justice? That's another blessing. You have a roof over your head? Blessing. You pay rent? Blessing that you haven't lost your equity like so many have.

You're the one who is complaining about the help other people need (nobody's received any help yet, may I remind you), and you think that I sound like a Republican. Welcome to your looking glass.

I have no property, debt, or money in the stock market, so I'm still unaffected by this crisis, so far. When my job is threatened, I will go from unaffected to ruined in one day. There's no fire yet, but when there is, there's no putting it out.

forgetting a lot of the rest of us, and that irritates me.

McCain's plan is ostensibly to prop up the value of people's homes with taxpayer money - at least I think that's what he said in the last "debate." So not only would my money be used to help out homeowners, many of whom bought irresponsibly, but then if I am able to buy, I get the benefit of buying at what's really an artificially inflated price. Great. We get to pay twice.

I made an investment in my education. I'm not seeing much of a return on it. I have a decent job, but I'm not not where I hoped to be at 30, and I have no savings. Zilcho. I have $98. I live paycheck to paycheck. I don't have rich parents to help me, either. Which is why I owe $45,000 in student loans. When is the government going to "bail out" people who have student loans? I see it as somewhat analogous to home ownership, as far as it being a risky investment in today's economy, and it's one of the reasons I can't buy a home.

There are a lot of variables here. But I don't think asking for a fair deal for everyone, rather than just pandering to "homeowners," is "whining." I think Obama may "get it" and may institute real, broad reform in this country, which is why I am giving him a chance, by voting for him.

Really, I hear you. Paycheck to paycheck, every month, you and me both. You live in one of America's most expensive places to live. I'm fortunate to live in a place that's generally doing okay in the housing market - we have a slump, not a bust. Fuel and food is more expensive, we have one income instead of two.

McCain's "plan" is not reality. There's been no real help offered, there is nothing that's been put into practice. What you're complaining about is only somebody's idea - it's not a reality. I think it's a waste of energy complaining about something that isn't real.

When there are many things wrong with a body - pneumonia, a broken finger, poor eyesight, tonsilitis, an ingrown toenail... each unique problem requires a different solution with unique application. Solutions to problems as serious as the many problems our country is now facing have to come piecemeal - one solution at a time.

You'll get yours too.

The relief needs to be spread around a little more equitably. Renters deserve to have some kind of tax deduction available to them for what they pay every month.

are to blame...not homeowners who pay just as much in mortgage payments as in rent

I bought a mobile home and I own it free and clear with no mortgage to worry about. All I pay is $330 monthly lot rent. You couldn't get a mortage with that low of a payment nor could you rent anything other than a room in a private home for that.

Homes here have always risen faster than wages, so by the time I made enough, the price of a home had increased twofold. I could have probably bought a home like so many others who are now in trouble, but I could never justify the prices for what you got. I also knew my limitations and did not want to be house poor. Of course I'm also single and to buy a home usually takes two incomes unless your salary is pretty fat.
Now there is an apt. shortage and rents are rising with demand. I now pay 1350. for a 2 bdrm. There was a program for 1st time home buyers in the county who were low to middle income. It was disolved because the home had to be no more than 120,000. There are no homes for that price around here and they had so many eligible applicants it couldn't be funded.
But, yes, renters are not reated equally. Perhaps because we're treated as possible transients, not committed to a permanent community. We also do not pay real estate and school taxes, the landlord does.
I really would like to see rents deductable, at least a percentage, on tax forms.

I'm 45 and was a renter until 8 years ago. If you're as smart as you say you are, you will get your home when you are financially in a position to do so.

FTR, we paid our mortgage off last year so we're not infringing on your ability to soak the government for your "fair share".

It's really a form of moral corralling. They want to encourage home ownership and marriage, so they give people who fall into those categories privileges that can amount to a hefty chunk of change. Wouldn't it be nice for someone who is single, for instance, to have health insurance that covered two people of their choice? Themselves and perhaps, an aging parent.

Considering that there are now more households with single people than married, that's quite a sizeable portion of Americans getting shafted. And renting can make financial sense for people in certain situations, they shouldn't be getting penalized either (if you consider not getting benefits a penalization).

At the least, renters and homeowners should get either get no special privileges, or the same. Same with married and single. Although, I'm out of the mainstream here, because I think having more than two children should be TAXED, not given a tax break.

So crucify me.

;) I'm a single renter too. I agree with him/her also.

I think inheritance should be almost completely abolished.

What do you think should be done to property owned by someone who dies?

Why should some people get a head start in life because of an accident of birth?

For the record, I don't expect my parents to help me with or leave me anything, and I wouldn't do it for any offspring I had, though I don't want any.

You are in a bad place right now, at least in your mind. Let's say your folks died tomorrow and owned a property exactly where you want to be. Would you be upset to see the state take that home and offer it to the highest bidder? What happens if you can't afford it? How would you feel seeing the money taken away and given to someone else?

These are things you need to think about before you make statements like the one you made above. This isn't about someone necessarily getting ahead.

How are YOU going to feel if you buy a home now, in a depressed market (something not of your making but you WILL benefit from), when you decide to sell and the market has soared? Will you be willing to give all your equity (or half) to someone else to buy a home with? I mean if the market is doing well when you sell, aren't those who would be buying at THAT time be less fortunate than you were when you bought?

Just more stuff for your young mind to think about.

I also didn't invest in my employer's voluntary 401k plan because I have ethical problems with capitalism and our racket, I mean stock market.

You are not entitled to what they have. In the case of real property, if you are the heir and it hasn't been willed to someone else you will inherit it though.

My rent is inflated, right along with those home prices. Yet I get no break, either from the government, or from my landlord.

Have you considered moving somewhere where the prices aren't so outrageous? Also, the reason why this is such a big deal is because the majority of Americans do own their own homes. It has been the tried and true method(up until the past few years we idiots inflated the housing bubble) for everyday Americans to achieve a modicum of wealth and security in their lives.

Furthermore, this housing crisis will effect you, it already is. In addition to what is going on in the economy right now, you can probably expect a hike in your rent in the relatively near future as more and more people get forced out of their homes and into the rental market. Higher demand means higher prices for you.

Sorry, homeowner or not, this economic crisis is going to effect us all.

Do those cheaper places have a better economy? How about the travel costs if you have to commute?

I live in Los Angeles and will never be able to afford unless I get married or commune - I'm not going to move out to the desert just because it's more affordable. :crazy:

And our economy is holding up well. Granted, it isn't the coast, but then again the coasts aren't the be all and end all of America or American culture.

For a reason! I hate this place.

New builds in the suburbs are asking for $200K.

Decent pre-existing homes can be bought in "undesirable" (ungentrified) in-town neighborhoods for $100K-$200K. We bought our current home for less than $160K last year. Our subdivision has six homes currently on the market, ranging in price from $113K - $179K. The subdivision next to ours has smaller homes on smaller lots, and the prices are even lower.

but I was living on Cape Cod, the land of mansions that were only used for two months out of the year and remained empty the rest of the year while we peons who kept the place running lived in pretty dreadful rentals.

I know your rage, in other words, the feeling that the dream of owning your own place and painting the ceiling purple is a cruel fantasy and resenting the people a few years older than you are who already have theirs.

However, anyone who bought in the last 10 years in a hot market, 5 years in a normal market is likely to lose everything. I don't know what's worse, being shut out of having it or having it and losing it.

Just know that this mess isn't going to last forever. The next few years will see a lot of misery for owners and renters, alike, but bad times like good times always have a finite run.

there are many a horror story regarding renters that are getting kicked out because the owner defaulted.

This has happened to a close friend of mine and is the topic of conversation regarding a police chief in a suburb of Chicago that refuses to evict tenants of an apt complex whose owner defaulted on mortgage payments.

you could get with others and buy a house as a joint project, thus cutting the amount each has to contribute.

Lots of options available.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

My wife got laid off last year, we live in a 2-bedroom apartment with 1 kid, and we've had to get rid of our cable, our landline phone, and most recently our internet at home (still have it at work, or the public library). Wife and I haven't bought each other xmas/birthday/anniversary presents in more than a year. Our kid doesn't have most of the junk other kids have (and doesn't ask for most of it, since he doesn't see the commercials anymore.) And it makes me sick that I'm bailing out people who were -- and are! -- too materialistic and selfish to live within their means, or even really understand what that means.

country. Most of us have. :shrug:

So I think you should care about this.

Home prices falling doesn't make it easier to buy a home if there is no credit available, wages are falling, expenses rising, and jobs disappearing. Our entire economy is built on convincing people to buy more than they can afford. It sucks that those of us with some sense and frugality are penalized along with the sheeple.

I think with the latest financial crisis homes will continue to decline. If you keep hold of a job and save (maybe avoid investing till the markets stabilize) you'll be in a good spot financially.

Just spend as little as you can and you'll end up better than most, Cash is King right now, don't borrow. Pay down debt and Save, save, save.

everybody pays taxes one way or another.

income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, duties, tarriffs, fees, whatever. why the fuss about income tax payers?
are people who work but earn below the point where they are taxed (due to exemptions, deductions, etc.) somehow less pander-worthy?

well, yeah, there's the problem; they're pandering to the people who have more disposable income and are more likely to be able to afford campaign contributions. disgusting.


renters pay property taxes too, it's just not broken out specifically. but it's obviously factored into your rent.

My first (small!) home was purchased under the G.I. Bill with no money down. Why don't you enlist?
Friends lived with family for years and banked their salaries. Why don't you move into a parent's basement?
Other friends rented a VERY small place, furnished it with 2nd hand furniture, banked one salary 100% for 4 years, and then bought a "starter home" (cheapest in its neighborhood) and worked their asses off renovating it.

EVERYONE starts somewhere and only the heirs to the wealthy live "in the style they see themselves as deserving."

No matter how long I've heard this lament, it's always with this background chorus of "oh, no, I couldn't possibly live in THAT neighborhood!" It's a chorus I find dissonant with truly liberal attitudes.

1. I don't want to join an imperialist army, sorry. I shouldn't have to kill foreigners for the elites to be able to buy a house. Just - wow.

2. I have lived with my parents since graduating college, after a really bad breakup with a bad faith longterm partner who abandoned me, which left me in debt I am still paying off three years later, and will be paying for two more, at least. I saved up enough money to get the hell out of the Freeperville I grew up in, and moved to Austin.

3. I don't have a second "salary to bank 100% of for four years" - like many Americans, I am single and barely scraping by, renting, on one salary. A "starter" home within reasonable distance to my work (I consider reasonable bus-able, bike-able, or walkable, as I currently walk to work and am thus neither dependent on a car nor contributing to pollution), starts at about $200,000. I would rather live in "that neighborhood," too. Sadly, even the "bad" neighborhoods in my town are now out of my price range.

Everyone has it hard. I just wish those of us who haven't been able to put ourselves in a position to be able to buy a home weren't being ignored by the media, the politicians, and people like you who are "got mine!" and "pull yourself up by the bootstraps!" types.

:puke:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you're serious about wanting to buy a home in Austin, I know an excellent locally-owned mortgage bank. They helped us with our first home (FHA loan requiring less than $3K down payment), and they helped us with our second home. Both loans were 30-year fixed, ARMs were never mentioned, and we had impeccable customer service. We decided to visit this bank and use their services because two unrelated people referred us to them because their experience with this bank had been so good.

If you're serious about buying a home, I recommend that you broaden your sights. When we began our first house hunt in 2002, my spouse wanted a 3/2 with fireplace and detached garage in Hyde Park. We wanted a mortgage payment of no more than $1100 per month - a $145,000 mortgage. HA! We saw a fixer upper next to the Intermural Fields that backed up to a mosquito filled creekway that needed gutting and leveling and rewiring and replumbing and they were asking $240K. It was not realistic for us to expect to buy a home in this neighborhood - whatever our reasons were for wanting to live there (the walkability, the closeness, the historical cachet).

Ultimately, we bought a 2/1 with a carport in a neighborhood he wasn't very interested in - it was too far, it lacked the character of Bouldin or Travis Heights or French Place. But it was within our means. And we were wise, South Lamar got hot - we sold that house after 4.5 years, and we profited enough to get us into the house of our dreams (3/2 w fireplace, detached garage, solid foundation, large yard), within eight miles of the university (my commute limit).

I believe you can save enough to buy a home. It might take you a couple or several years. You have to figure out the means of getting there. You can do it.

:)

I would like to buy a 2/1 or 3/1, old, "Austin" but don't care what neighborhood (doesn't have to be "hip" at all), don't care about lot size. Just walkable/busable/bikeable to downtown, not south of 71 or north of 183. As it is, I walk to work and have a "low" standard of living, and would prefer to keep it that way. I don't know if the time and money spent traveling from further out would be too much of a sacrifice to make home ownership worthwhile. Also, I have no savings and won't for at least 3 years or so. I am at 100% of my budget, every month, with very little discretionary/entertainment spending.

I'm not seeing anything less than $200,000 under any circumstances.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:shrug: I do feel your pain though. The 700B was enough to give every taxpayer 25,000+ dollars. Those under foreclosure or bankruptcy etc. could have had their "bailout" applied directly to their debts, and those who weren't could have directed the money to student loans, etc.

If not there is probably a homeowner somewhere down the line. It all filters down. Just something to think about.

Homeowners pay many of the taxes that society and especially renters need. I was a renter until I was 38 and then me and my husband barely made it into the homeowners market buy buying in our means in a distressed neighborhood. Then we lived below our means for many years until yes-just now we bought our dream house-with 20 percent down and paying points to get the lowest interest rate possible.

I think it's a shame that many were suckered into believing they could afford houses that they would never be able to afford-regardless of the int erst rate. It was again a sham system-reminds me of wall street-buy this house now-sell it a profit in two years so it doesn't matter that I can't afford it THEN. Well that's a shitty reason to buy a house-it's hard to have empathy for that-how about buying a house because you want a home for many years? WHAT a concept. Well those folks we want to help.

But back to the taxes. FOR YEARS I loved being able to vote yes yes yes on all the tax measures that affected homeowners but not renters. For schools-for the library for fire and rescue, for anything you can imagine.

I was a renter-I didn't have to pay property taxes.

Well now I do and of course I still vote yes yes-because it's the right thing to do. The homeowners are the ones that pay for the basic services many times in any communities. Without homeowners paying taxes, everyone suffers. So renters benefit from those that have keep their homes.

Besides if you want a home, there are (were?) many programs to get first time buyers into homes. FHA is 3.5 percent down-without that program we wouldn't have been able to buy our first home. I'm thrilled prices have come down to more reasonable levels-making 20percent a year for doing nothing is insane. You get to own a home when you save money and really really want one. I didn't want one until AFTER I had a baby and throwing away our money to Ms. Greedy landlord for our shitty rental house was not as appealing as paying that money to ourselves and making it our first priority and SETTLING for a house in a neighborhood many would never live in. But it worked for us and I think everyone that wants to own a home should. And everyone that can really afford the house they have now if they just have a reasonable interest rate should get to keep theirs. It benefits everyone, even renters.

See my response at post #63

It's always complicated.

Renters are paying property taxes - hello, they're paying them rolled into their rent.

Landlords pay property taxes, and pass off the cost usually in the form of rent. They could also pass it off in the form of reduced services or letting go of upkeep or something else, but ultimately, the renter pays. Not to mention all the other taxes that renters pay- income, sales, car tax (registration fees), etc. that they share with homeowners, while homeowners get deductions that renters don't.

I will agree that as far as the middle class and the adjacent income strata goes, we are all in this together (the top one percent are on their own, I think they'll manage), and boarded up neighborhoods aren't good for anyone . There has to be a balance between too much atomization- of a bunch of little islands all thinking only about themselves, and a system that has completely obfuscated the cause and effect of individual choices. Like Obama this type of balance is difficult and nuanced, and requires not a hatchet, but a scalpel. Even then, it will never be completely fair, but it can be improved or worsened.

Please don't misunderstand me. I do sympathize with your situation as I was in it myself in my twenties. I was really torqued that I couldn't afford to buy a home with two gainfully employed adults in the family.

But you're missing a major point here. Your tax money is not bailing out these homeowners. Many of them will remain individually screwed. Your tax money will by and large be bailing out the lenders, not the individual buyers. Those who have been foreclosed upon will not benefit from your taxes unless they are lucky enough to access some of the social programs the Republicans have yet to dismantle.

I urge you to read my post from late last night as it may put an added perspective on things.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4207133&mesg_id=4207133

Personally I don't see much pandering to homeowners as scapegoating of them.

This situation is most definitely hurting renters. Those who cannot secure credit to buy a home and those who are being evicted because their landlord cannot make the mortgage payment. You are absolutely correct that they are not being mentioned much, if at all. I can understand that makes you feel invisible.

I think your ire is a wee bit misplaced however since helping out your fellow human beings, homeowners or not, and raising the standards for all of us makes for a healthier economy in the long run.

...what about the rest of us?

"I don't think people should be able to buy homes."

Quite the contrary. I know my sister's home building company would absolutely love it if they had more first-time home buyers in the market.

Ironically, despite your cries to the contrary, this is a pretty good time for home buyers. At least in my area. We've got people desperate to sell you a home. Builders are willing to build for extremely low margins, people facing forced transfers are short selling and banks are advertising foreclosures for a song.

I'm really trying to maintain my sympathy for you, but you're increasingly coming across as petty and selfish.

So renters in their twenties are facing difficulty buying a home (which is absolutely nothing new by the way) while homeowners are being tossed into the street. Hmmmm, I'm not sure which is the more compelling news story. Can't imagine why your plight isn't being covered.

are a good 20 miles out, in massively overpriced (but not for long! :/ ), shittily-constructed, cookie-cutter boxes. In a solidly GOP area.

I'm not selfish. I live within my means, I am paying off debt as fast as I can (student loan and household breakup debt, not conspicuous consumption debt), and I have no cable, internet connection, washing machine, or dishwasher. I walk to work. And I love that, I'm not whining about it. And, as I have said repeatedly, I don't think homeowners should be kicked out of their houses - I think WE, being the government (in theory), should help. But I just feel like the rest of us are forgotten. Those of us who have never had enough money to buy a home to begin with.

As I said, scraping by to be able to afford your first house isn't exactly breaking news. Sorry!

I guess people don't ever post anything remotely like this on DU...

Hmm.

People banding together to help? Sure, it may look like it is not helping YOU but in the long run we will all be winners.

saying they resent money going to schools and are "tired of hearing about people's kids and their educations."

Your last paragraph is really well put, we're all in this together. And I say that as a childless renter!

because the owner is in foreclosure. So, it is not only affecting home owners.

We bought our first home just this March and we are over 40. We've been renters all of our lives. We got a fixed mortgage and a great interest rate. The house prices in our area fell so much, that we were finally able to afford our own home.

My brother-in-law and his wife bought a house 3 years ago and he was laid off shortly after that. He found another job in another county and they had to move. They would have qualified for a fixed mortgage with a decent interest rate but the lender convinced them that it is better to get an adjustable rate mortgage. Because of the dropping house prices, they can't sell because they owe more than the house was worth. They are renting it out but it doesn't cover the mortgage. They are not able to pay the rent for the place they are living in now and the mortgage at the same time. So, they are heading toward foreclosure and the renter of their house has to find another place to live.

They now agree that it was stupid to listen to the lender.

is that renters are being evicted from the house because the owner has not paid. Now, some owners buy up property specifically to use as rental properties-when these landlords see fit to not meet their obligations, the renters suffer. They showed one family that had to move twice and could no longer afford another deposit because the landlord took off with the deposit. I think there should be some form of program with the bank, allowing the properties to be used as rentals, thus allowing the families to continue living in said property, instead of being thrown out on the street. The banks could still make money off of the property while awaiting an owner. As it is now, there are stories of boarded up properties being stripped of their wiring and any other materials, that thieves can turn a profit from. Also, a boarded up house does not help the neighborhood. Some of these banks may have to get more into property management.

except that I'm a middle-aged single woman, no dependents, living in one of the most expensive areas in the country (Baltimore County, MD, really, it's been nuts here too.)
In my case, bad spending decisions led to major debt that's comparable, maybe a bit less, in quantity to typical student debt.

I have mixed feelings about bailing out homeowners. It's not my problem, so why should i pay for it? On the other hand, I feel compassion and empathy for middle-class and poverty-level homeowners, and would like to see them get some kind of help. But it has to come with more stringent rules of lending that must be enforced, so we never get in this situation again! I'd love to own a house but won't be able to for a long time. But i don't want to see well-meaning homeowners who made a mistake suffer because of a mess that was largely created by non-existent regulation, wild speculation, and criminal business practices. Giving them a hand up will, in the long run, help all of us.

the more obstacles you are going to come up with. Being from Texas and not too far from Austin I can tell you there are some nice homes in the Austin market going for quite a bit less than you are stating.

I have seen several posters on here giving you good advice and lots of good solutions but you seem to WANT to bitch and get people riled up more than you want the solution, or to work on a solution yourself.

Good Luck.

That are walkable/busable/bikeable to downtown?

And what are their property taxes?

Guess what, you will have the taxes no matter what you buy. That is what helps keep the programs and the state running.

Thanks.

Look at all of the neighborhoods that are on bus routes that go through downtown. Any of the neighborhoods off of North Lamar or far South Congress, and any place near the Cap Metro rail line (service starts next spring). There are other neighborhoods. Don't limit your thinking.

I'm a homeowner. We scrimped and saved, lived in dumps, just to save enough to buy our first house back in 1999. I'm not saying that we're special, I'm not saying neener neener. I'm saying that we are the majority of homeowners. The ones who worked hard to buy an investment for our families. It's the middle class' biggest investment, their homes. It is one of the few ways that the middle class has to establish some sort of wealth and it's the basis to much of the middle class' financial stability. Our homeownership pays for many things through our property taxes. Most property tax is based upon the value of our homes. Schools get paid for with property taxes in many areas, as well as many civil projects.

To fix this crisis, attention must be paid to mortgages that families pay. If most families can't afford the houses they live in, then the economy is done. The fix for this mess MUST include affordable mortgages. The ones responsible for the mess aren't the homeowners, it's the banks. The argument should be who pays for the losses. Should the government take the hit of the overpricing? Or should the banks? Or should the homeowner? There are good and bad for all the arguments but, it has to happen. If it doesn't, there will be many many more foreclosures put onto the market, flooding it, driving the values of all houses into the ground. You have to see what that would do to the rest of the economy. It effects everything, including you. With less coming in from property taxes, there will be cuts or there will be new taxes, ones that you will pay to cover the gaps. What do foreclosures mean to those who can pay their mortgages? Their houses will be worth a lot less, shrinking their buying power, shrinking their hopes to send their kids to college, retirements put on hold, schools without enough money to stay open, civil projects like roads and bridges put on hold, more banks going under, higher taxes and much more.

Most homeowners aren't wealthy. Most are just like you. The only effective way out of this mess is a solution that includes the little guy, the homeowner. Have you ever seen what massive foreclosures do to any city? Take a look at Detroit. The city is dead inside. A downtown full of empty houses expedites it's demise. But, this time it's not just cities and not just a couple of them. This is nationwide. Homeownership is a vital part of our economy, obviously. If you have hopes that your 401K will recover or that you will live in a nice area of town, with a low crime rate, or ever be able to afford a home, this is the only way that will happen. We are talking about the middle class and it's ability to fuel the economy. You fuel the engine that will get us out of this, the middle class.

Not all of us have huge mcMansions, or 7 houses. Most of us have one modest home that our families live in and that we hope will appreciate at a rate that will allow us the freedom to eventually send our kids to college and eventually retire in. Our homeownership benefits our communities, including those who live in apartments. It's the bigger picture. I'm actually surprised to hear a democrat rail against we little guys. Focus the anger on the guys that got us here...the banks, the government, the thieves. One way or the other we ALL will pay, it's just the way it is.

But I would like a tax deduction for rent, and a reduction in student loans for everybody (and free tuition for students in future!) to go along with the "homeowner" bailout.

I am happy to pay taxes. I'd pay MORE taxes for universal healthcare, even though I can't really afford to.

One other reason for you to consider, higher rents. The people who are foreclosed upon have to go live somewhere. Most likely they will go to an apartment or rental house. This increases the demand for rentals and with the credit the way it is, nobody is able to build, therefore the supply is going to dry up. With increased demand and decreased supply, prices will go through the roof!

Everyone will be affected by this, nobody will be spared, besides the uber-wealthy that is. I'm worried for the older generations. they don't have the time to recoup a loss this size. I'm worried for my parents and those who a this close to being on the streets. It's going to get ugly.

I'm of the opinion that the banks should have to renegotiate the mortgages and the CEO's should get NOTHING. They will have to take the loss. A loss is better than nothing, which is what they will end up with without it.

Here's my entire story...In December of 2007, we had a house fire. It burned the entire top floor of our house and gutted the garage. We were lucky though, nobody was hurt and we had good coverage. They put us up in a rental house while they rebuilt our house. In February '08 my husband finally got the promotion that he's worked 18 years for. The catch? We have to relocate to Utah. Meanwhile, our house was not completed. We hung in there and updated our 1987 house, the bathrooms, the kitchen, so, we would be able to sell it when it was completed. We paid extra to get some things done like new windows, we knew the market was bad, so, the added updates would help in that. The reconstruction was painfully slow and we didn't get back into the house until July. It still wasn't complete, even then. So, the house was mostly completed and put back together by September. Meanwhile, hubby has been "commuting" to Utah to open stores and do his new job. He's gone at least 3 weeks out of every month. We met with some realtors recently and have found out that we have lost ALL of our equity in the past 3 months. If we put it on the market now, we won't have any money for a down payment on another house, nor would we recoup our original down payment. And we could end up owing more money at the close. Houses here have been on the market for almost a year!

Now, there are no buyers, the credit isn't there them and they don't want to take the loss of a plunging housing market with no end in sight. Can't blame them! Luckily though, my hubby's company is still expanding and is going to allow us to hold off on the sale of our house. Hubby will have a corporate apartment in Utah to stay in until Spring. It sucks that he has to be away from us so much, but, there's no other option. And we ARE lucky that his company is willing to do this for us. We have options. Many do not. you have to go where the money is and in this economy many will have to move to keep their jobs or get a new job. They won't have the option to wait like we do.

So, it's not just owners that are affected at all but also people whose jobs depend on home building and sales. That's a LOT of people.

For my generation, the bubble in real estate began in the mid-late 1970s, and I also found that housing prices sprinted just out of reach for most of my working years, and of course, rents have always seemed to be highly correlated to house prices, at least in Southern California.

I agree with you that all people need homes, and this includes THE HOMELESS as well. The high price of housing is a very serious and a longer term problem.

I'm formally called a "baby boomer", but all I read about the baby boomers is how they auctioned up the price of housing. Hey, I'm a friggin baby boomer who couldn't buy a house until I was 48! (and I bought "low") I think we now know the baby boomers weren't affecting supply and demand of housing (leading to the bubble) nearly as much as some entities with megaphones would have the public believe, it seemed to be Wall Street Fat cats manipulating the markets with exotic derivative instruments.

Rather than 700Billion going to the fat cats, how about granting some reservation land (similar to Indian reservations), to the chronic homeless, where they could legally have limited sovereignty. They're already building impromptu villages the MSM likes to call "encampments", presumably a semantic frame so people don't feel bad when it's reported that homeless folks are forced out of those canyons they learned to call "home" while watching bulldozers scrap their belongings into a big pile.

Since the Federal government is the largest landholder, it wouldn't cost anything but a few entries on a balance sheet to grant some reservations to the homeless.

I agree with you that housing prices are much too high for the wages currently paid. It's one of the reasons many of us want to see a living wage adopted.

I want to see someone on my TV talking about the working poor, or the plain old unemployed poor, or the homeless (many of whom are vets!).

The current "discussion" has NOTHING to do with poor people, or those a little less than the "middleclass dream".

It doesn't include US.

They want our donations and our votes, but they aren't willing to even look us in the eye, let alone HEAR us.

That's the ugly reality.

If you financed the whole thing at 6% the monthly payments would be about $1200? So if you go by the rule of thumb that your housing costs should only be a third of your income, two people would each need to make $21,600 a year to afford that. That's about $10.40 an hour. Not bad. Consider that $600 a month rent per person, which is about what I was paying for an apartment in college while working part time. If you stretch a bit beyond that one-third rule, two people working fulltime at minimum wage could almost afford that.

The problem is they sold these people interest only adjustable mortgages - when they would have been just fine in a traditional loan. As those mortgages adjusted, it started to unravel. Then people started losing jobs. Homes started losing value. And it unraveled even more. Not to mention the securities, CDO's and other investments. The financial industry screwed this up for low income families and that's the real tragedy here.

And then cry.

Cheap. Ha.

That's all.

I'm in the same boat.

In addition, in my hometown, where (I haven't lived for 20 years) less than 30% will go onto college, the average home price has gone from $40-60k for a fixer-upper to $180-$220k, because they've all been bought and fixed up by investors - mostly people who moved up from NYC and anticipated others will do the same. And I have no apologies to make for saying these people deserve to lose their shirts for squeezing low income people out to the trailer parks, people who wouldn't have had to make that choice, otherwise.