Lol, the NAr and consumer groups are balking at the possibility of a $2000 cost increase on a $200k house...spread over 30 years. That is $5.56 per month. Seems like a small price to pay to get a government no-skin-in-the-game loan.
That is $5.56 per month. Seems like a small price to pay to get a government no-skin-in-the-game loan.
That $5.56 quickly adds up when the Government comes up with a new fee or a new way to increase existing fees every three months. In the two years since I've bought, there's already over $300 a month in such fees.
New home owners are the new, pass the tax down to them whipping post. Another reason I'm glad I bought when I did.
I'm only paying $72 a month. The difference in these fees on my mortgage when I bought, and the fees that are 4X the amount. Is the difference in me never being able to refinance at a a lower rate. Even at 2% I'd probably end paying a few hundred more a month, by the time interest gets down to 2%. By that time these fees might be $500 collectively, as a new fee is devised every 3 months.
The problem is that people who have little or no equity are basically renters and should be treated as such. If you have less then 25% skin in the game you should be required to maintain the property and not make alterations without permission. And you should be out in lessthan 90 days just like a renter if you cant pay. In a business partnership 51% ownership calls the shots. With housing the real owner has no say. But maybe if the real owners (banks) did have a say the whole illusion of homeownership would be gone and more people would rent. If the risk to the banks and/ or govt was less mortgage insurance could be less.
Too many people are coming in with 3.5% and depreciate the home and bail and or stop paying and squat. We all have to pay for this.