|
Uuudar posted:I just closed yesterday and $8000 is better than nothing, but $15k would be jaw-droppingly awesome. Hopefully this will apply to anything bought after 12/31/08. I still hold firm that this would be a scary and potentially harmful thing to pass.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2009 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
Uuudar posted:I just closed yesterday and $8000 is better than nothing, but $15k would be jaw-droppingly awesome. Hopefully this will apply to anything bought after 12/31/08. It's very doubtful that it will pass. First off because it didn't pass the first time it was proposed in the stimulus bill and second because it won't help. Sellers will just jack up their home prices another $7K like the $8K they did when the credit first became available. Besides, who wants to move up when it means they eat a $100K loss on their current house? So now you're only out $85K - great! If anything the underwater people would be more likely to move laterally or down so they could get out of their current situation without losing a home or having to write the bank a check. This stimulus would help first time buyers a little more, prospectors, and people who bought homes before the bust that are not underwater and looking to move up. It would not help the people who are underwater (not that I think they deserve help). Those people are either going to have to eat the loss or send in their keys and move on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2009 17:49
|
|
|
Realjones posted:It's very doubtful that it will pass. First off because it didn't pass the first time it was proposed in the stimulus bill and second because it won't help. Sellers will just jack up their home prices another $7K like the $8K they did when the credit first became available. Is there proof of this, or is it just an assumption? As a buyer I see the $8000 as a nice perk, but considering I can't use it for the down payment, it doesn't really influence what I would pay for the house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2009 18:22
|
|
|
That and the main reason the stimulus came about to begin with was to get unoccupied homes off of the market.. Opening the bill to everyone, not just first timers, would have people who already own a home moving (or upgrading), or people using them as investments, both of which will not dent the unoccupied home count.Strict 9 posted:Is there proof of this, or is it just an assumption? As a buyer I see the $8000 as a nice perk, but considering I can't use it for the down payment, it doesn't really influence what I would pay for the house. Our builder has pamphlets and the secretaries can't stop talking about it.. If they are this aware, their prices will be as well. But no, I've not seen a literal 8000 increase in home prices, though sellers may be more reluctant to assist in closing costs or reductions. Plus, there's ways around the down payment thing. FidgetyRat fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jul 1, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2009 18:23
|
|
|
quote:Assuming home values decline, should I expect property tax rates to drop as well? I guess I could see the value in waiting it out while home prices drop some more, but I'd really like to take advantage of the $8,000 credit for my down payment. Tax rates will most likely go up due to the assessed value of everyone's home going up. The city needs its money somehow. What pisses me off is that tax rate will probably stay up after home prices recover. So goes the cycle of increased dependency on government spending...
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2009 21:18
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Tax rates will most likely go up due to the assessed value of everyone's home going up. The city needs its money somehow. What pisses me off is that tax rate will probably stay up after home prices recover. So goes the cycle of increased dependency on government spending... But the assessed value of everyone's home are going down recently. The problem has been tax rates are staying high during the home pricing drop, making $150K houses that were assessed at $350K 2-3 years ago have prohibitively high tax rates. Eventually enough homeowners/sellers/banks will put in the effort to challenge their assessment to a more reasonable level but will probably never get back to to a realistic level until housing prices head back up. Homeowners and sellers are too uninformed to care, banks are too lazy to challenge assessments on the foreclosures they own, and government is too dependent on the revenue to make the process actually move. I could see a slight automatic drop off as assessments are triggered from sales or other causes based on the jurisdictions laws, but not a rise right now. Eventually as housing prices start to rise they will meet these levels again and taxes will obviously stay the higher rate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2009 21:49
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Tax rates will most likely go up due to the assessed value of everyone's home going up. The city needs its money somehow. What pisses me off is that tax rate will probably stay up after home prices recover. So goes the cycle of increased dependency on government spending... This is what it says on my county assessors website: Township Assessor posted:We continue to receive calls from residents wondering whether their property taxes will be reduced in response to the downturn in the real estate market. Unfortunately, that most likely will not happen. Property taxes are driven by the spending of your local taxing bodies, such as schools, villages, libraries and park districts. If assessments were frozen or reduced, but spending by taxing bodies increased, taxes would still go up. So the $126,000 house I looked at today - which sold for $260,000 in 2005 with a tax rate of $4,180 is still the same and could go up. It's just mind boggingly outrageous to me that $350 of my mortgage payment would go to loving property taxes. I hate the chicago market. Literally 15% of my gross income towards property taxes. By the time I'm done paying income tax and property tax, I'm drat near 40% percent of my income for a 1000 square foot house that's a foreclosure and in bad shape to boot. 
The Shep fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jul 1, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2009 23:37
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:This is what it says on my county assessors website: I would make a phone call asking what happens if a property is sold at $126K and is currently assessed for $260K. As retarded as they are, someone with some sense may have given you some sort of legal recourse. That said it doesn't help you a whole lot now, and it would be sort of a gamble to bet on being reassessed properly. Can you look up the tax bills on the property and find out whether its Chicago's fault or Cook County's fault and try aiming outside city limits if the majority of the tax is coming from Chicago? In Atlanta you pay ~1-1.3% for any metro county, but Atlanta proper is ~3% more but only covers a small area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2009 00:27
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:We continue to receive calls from residents wondering whether their property taxes will be reduced in response to the downturn in the real estate market. Unfortunately, that most likely will not happen. Property taxes are driven by the spending of your local taxing bodies, such as schools, villages, libraries and park districts. If assessments were frozen or reduced, but spending by taxing bodies increased, taxes would still go up. It's retarded and everyone knows it's retarded. A home's taxes should be based on it's assessment, and should go down if the assessment does down. The problem is that the people that use the money that comes from property taxes are already facing huge gaps in their budgets from foreclosed homes that aren't paying any property taxes anymore. If you bought a house tomm for $250K that sold for three years ago for $450K, the rates should definitely be adjusted (and you should have legal recourse for that), but I believe what the bank is saying is that if you bought a house for $450K and are staying in it they aren't about to adjust the rates downward just because the assessment is lower (which makes no sense and everyone knows it). quote:Is there proof of this, or is it just an assumption? As a buyer I see the $8000 as a nice perk, but considering I can't use it for the down payment, it doesn't really influence what I would pay for the house. Well it cannot be officially proven, but given that the credit is mentioned EVERYWHERE in real estate ads these days means that you better believe it influences things on the seller's financial side as well. Maybe they list their home for a couple grand more because they know that the buyer will be looking at the home as costing "their offer - 8000," or (and far more likely) they hold off on dropping the price of their home. As someone else mentioned as well sellers may be less likely to help out with closing costs and repairs because the buyer will be getting their $8000 in "free money" from the government to help out with that stuff. A simple way to see the influence will to be to see what happens once the credit goes away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2009 03:59
|
|
|
Realjones posted:It's retarded and everyone knows it's retarded. A home's taxes should be based on it's assessment, and should go down if the assessment does down. The problem is that the people that use the money that comes from property taxes are already facing huge gaps in their budgets from foreclosed homes that aren't paying any property taxes anymore. If you bought a house tomm for $250K that sold for three years ago for $450K, the rates should definitely be adjusted (and you should have legal recourse for that), but I believe what the bank is saying is that if you bought a house for $450K and are staying in it they aren't about to adjust the rates downward just because the assessment is lower (which makes no sense and everyone knows it). It's not the bank saying anything, it's the county/local Tax Assessor's office. And I think what they're saying is that as assessments (values) drop, millage (tax rates) will go up to keep total tax revenue more or less the same - since reducing spending is an utterly alien concept to most governments. Therefore homeowners should expect to see their assessments decline, and their rates go up proportionally so that the total tax owed is about the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2009 05:17
|
|
|
Arzakon posted:But the assessed value of everyone's home are going down recently. The problem has been tax rates are staying high during the home pricing drop, making $150K houses that were assessed at $350K 2-3 years ago have prohibitively high tax rates. Eventually enough homeowners/sellers/banks will put in the effort to challenge their assessment to a more reasonable level but will probably never get back to to a realistic level until housing prices head back up. Homeowners and sellers are too uninformed to care, banks are too lazy to challenge assessments on the foreclosures they own, and government is too dependent on the revenue to make the process actually move. I could see a slight automatic drop off as assessments are triggered from sales or other causes based on the jurisdictions laws, but not a rise right now. Eventually as housing prices start to rise they will meet these levels again and taxes will obviously stay the higher rate. Err, my bad, meant the assessed value going down prompts the tax rate to go up to compensate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2009 05:24
|
|
|
Just got my closing date and locked in. I am buying a co-op so the rates are a bit higher (Fannie Mae's mortgage penalty for people moving into lower price residences is absurd). I ended up getting 5.25% with 1 point. I suppose it could have been worse when the rates were creeping around 6% earlier this month.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2009 06:24
|
|
|
Realjones posted:The problem is that the people that use the money that comes from property taxes are already facing huge gaps in their budgets from foreclosed homes that aren't paying any property taxes anymore. I have wondered about this for a while, wouldn't the banks be paying the property taxes on these homes? I wouldn't think the government would just give them a pass because its a bank owned property rather than a person owned property. Seems to me if the bank wasn't paying the property tax the government would put a tax lien on the property. Cheesemaster200 posted:Err, my bad, meant the assessed value going down prompts the tax rate to go up to compensate. I get that now, but I guess that depends on the local government to pass higher taxes. I'm sure there are more than a few places around that would string up their local officials for attempting to raise taxes right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2009 13:35
|
|
|
Arzakon posted:I have wondered about this for a while, wouldn't the banks be paying the property taxes on these homes? I wouldn't think the government would just give them a pass because its a bank owned property rather than a person owned property. Seems to me if the bank wasn't paying the property tax the government would put a tax lien on the property. You are right. I was referring to the period between when the family stopped paying property taxes to when the bank took over...that can be a very long time in some cases. Now the bank is supposed to pay off those back taxes when they take over the home and auction it with a clean title, but that may not always be the case. Also, when the house sells at auction it will have to be reassessed, thus making the tax income on it lower. Another thing the bank can do (especially if the house was gutted) is just say "screw it" and not pay the taxes on it either and let the city come take it over to resell for tax money (which also takes a very long time).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2009 13:58
|
|
|
Tomorrow I'll be going to look at a house, and if everything is kosher I'll probably be making an offer. My question is thus: What's considered a 'lowball' offer in real estate? The state of the market being what it is I want to get as good a price as possible, but I have no idea where to start with the negotiation process. The asking price of the house is 95k, it's bank-owned and has been on the market for about two months. The county puts the appraised value of the house at around 102k, and from the pictures I've seen it looks to be in good shape. I can't in any case afford more than 90k, but I'd like to get it down around 85-88k if possible. Would 85k be a reasonable offer on this house, can I go lower, or should I start a little higher?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2009 03:41
|
|
|
fatman1683 posted:What's considered a 'lowball' offer in real estate? The state of the market being what it is I want to get as good a price as possible, but I have no idea where to start with the negotiation process. You can always discuss it with your realtor as well, but from what I've read (and I'm just learning the whole house buying thing myself), your starting bid should be 8-10% below the list. AS far as I know, you can start your opening bid as low as you want and always come back with a higher bid up until you reach your limit. If your maximum limit is 90k and the house is 95k, you can come in with a bid for 85k and if it is rejected, go to 87k, and so on until you reach your maximum. Unless it's a short-sale type property, don't think it is since you mentioned bank owned, but those can take up to 4 months to hear back on your offer I've heard. I'm sure many more experienced and helpful people will chime in though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2009 07:23
|
|
|
fatman1683 posted:The asking price of the house is 95k, it's bank-owned and has been on the market for about two months. The county puts the appraised value of the house at around 102k, and from the pictures I've seen it looks to be in good shape.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2009 16:51
|
|
|
I am a first time buyer looking at condos and townhomes. Does one make a better investment than the other? I'll chat with my realtor next time we meet, but I can't find a decent answer online. I have heard two lines of thought: 1.) I can buy a much nicer condo for a same price making it better for renting/resale (when I move in 5-10 years). 2.) The building doesn't matter as much as the land. Townhomes come with a bit land, and that makes townhomes a better deal (even if the building may not be as nice). I assume that reasoning #2 makes townhomes a better buy. I do want a 2-story place w/ an attached garage and that "house-like" feel, but I have seen some very nice ranch-style condos in my price range that I'd be happy to live in. Should I hold off a bit longer to see if I find a townhome I like?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2009 22:00
|
|
|
Rikes posted:I assume that reasoning #2 makes townhomes a better buy. I do want a 2-story place w/ an attached garage and that "house-like" feel, but I have seen some very nice ranch-style condos in my price range that I'd be happy to live in. Should I hold off a bit longer to see if I find a townhome I like? #1 may be true, but does it take the HOA fee into account, which will likely be significantly higher with the condo? Townhouses are more desirable than condos just like SFHs are more desirable than townhouses. If you can afford a townhouse definitely go with the townhouse. You will have an easier time reselling it even if it is not as nice inside simply because it's not a condo. A lot of people won't even look at condos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
Realjones posted:#1 may be true, but does it take the HOA fee into account, which will likely be significantly higher with the condo? Townhouses are more desirable than condos just like SFHs are more desirable than townhouses. If you can afford a townhouse definitely go with the townhouse. You will have an easier time reselling it even if it is not as nice inside simply because it's not a condo. A lot of people won't even look at condos. That's a good way to think about it. I have noticed that the HOA fees between the two types of properties are very similar. The extra cost of parking lots, pools, club houses, etc that are common in condo communities are probably balanced by the higher density of residents to split the costs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 06:36
|
|
|
I'm genuinely curious as to why people even go for townhomes/condos when SFH's are available. At least in my area, a Condo/Townhome can sell for just as much as a full 2-story home on a decent lot where neighbors aren't sharing walls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 13:16
|
|
|
Another thing to consider is maintenance. In a townhouse, you would presumably have to get your neighbours on board if you decide that your roof or siding or whatever needs to be replaced. In a condo, the roof isn't your concern. This is one of many reasons we went for a single family detached house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 13:26
|
|
|
FidgetyRat posted:I'm genuinely curious as to why people even go for townhomes/condos when SFH's are available. At least in my area, a Condo/Townhome can sell for just as much as a full 2-story home on a decent lot where neighbors aren't sharing walls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 14:22
|
|
|
FidgetyRat posted:I'm genuinely curious as to why people even go for townhomes/condos when SFH's are available. At least in my area, a Condo/Townhome can sell for just as much as a full 2-story home on a decent lot where neighbors aren't sharing walls. 1. I don't want more than a small yard, ever. I hate yardwork after doing it for 10 years as a kid for my parents. I don't want to pay for a gardener / landscaper either because I'm a cheapskate. 2. I like the style of a lot of townhouses in the target area (DC / VA) 3. Significantly cheaper than a SFH because the cost of land is huge. A SFH in my estimated budget was practically a ghetto. It was ludicrous even before the housing boom. 4. I expect to rent it out later and I expect townhouses to be far easier to rent than condos in my target market. There's an overabundance of condos I've seen and the area will be attractive enough to my target demographic that it'd be quite desirable. 5. There's almost no SFHs under $1 million that aren't crappy to me in the areas I want to live, and the thought of shelling that out for a house makes me cringe. 6. I won't have children, so it'll just be me, the woman, and the cats to take care of, and you don't need a big house for that whatsoever. Smaller families are going to be more common in the markets I'm looking at, making the selection and variety of townhouses greater than SFHs, too. If I have an extra $200k or something by the time I'm ready again, then maybe I'd be in the market for a SFH where I'm looking, but I would rather put $200k toward buying land in the country and building a vacation home / ranch / farm for retirement instead of a smidgen more of house I don't want or need. Diminishing returns is a bitch when buying real estate. Realjones posted:#1 may be true, but does it take the HOA fee into account, which will likely be significantly higher with the condo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 15:03
|
|
|
FidgetyRat posted:I'm genuinely curious as to why people even go for townhomes/condos when SFH's are available. At least in my area, a Condo/Townhome can sell for just as much as a full 2-story home on a decent lot where neighbors aren't sharing walls. This is like asking why people buy a toyota instead of a lexus, at least in most markets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 15:09
|
|
|
Thanks, even though it was dumb of me, never considered location.. Around me is pretty rural so condos seemed pretty dumb, but it would make much more sense in a dense location.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 15:24
|
|
|
FidgetyRat posted:I'm genuinely curious as to why people even go for townhomes/condos when SFH's are available. At least in my area, a Condo/Townhome can sell for just as much as a full 2-story home on a decent lot where neighbors aren't sharing walls. I live in the city, can walk to about 20 bars, do not have a lawn to mow, have little or no maintenance on the house, and my heating/cooling bills are probably half that of a free standing house. My neighborhood also has a quick turnover when I want to sell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 16:28
|
|
|
Yeah, I have looked at several SFH in my price range, and I have found none of them very desirable. The condos and townhomes I have been considering are located in areas were SFH are two to three (or more) times the price. From what I have looked at: Condos - Most of these that I've seen I would happily live in. Townhomes - Hit or miss. Most need a little work or upgrading that I'd do myself, but I haven't found the "right one" yet. Detached Homes - lovely neighborhoods, located way too far outside of town, and/or the house needs lots of fixing up that I wouldn't want to do myself. I don't even bother looking at these anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 18:39
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me about financing a Foreclosed home purchase? The house is going up for auction in July of this year, and I've been told that since the home is to be purchased "sight unseen", that it might be very difficult getting a First Time Home Buyer loan (since I only have about 5% of downpayment ATM).
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 18:48
|
|
|
5% down isn't a deal breaker if you have very good credit, but getting financing for a foreclosure may be a bit rough mainly because you don't have a guarantee to the property until that contract is signed.. The bank will take the highest offer possible and may wait a month to hear it. Plus, besides that 5%, do you have enough to cover closing costs which could be around 3-7k depending on the area and cost of the home?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 23:26
|
|
|
Can someone explain what the difference between a discharged and a released mortgage?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 02:40
|
|
|
Does anyone have any tangible evidence of home prices being jacked up 8000 due to the rebate? Ive been keeping an eye on the prices in my area and haven't seen any pronounced changes in the momentum of house prices. This is just a curiosity since I bought when it was just a 7k loan (which is still bad rear end), but the whole "The 8k isnt really being money saved, houses just went up in price by that much" seems to have taken root here as cold hard fact when ive only seen a bit of empirical evidence and theory thrown around as a basis for it
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 13:49
|
|
|
Dead Man's Ham posted:Does anyone have any tangible evidence of home prices being jacked up 8000 due to the rebate? Ive been keeping an eye on the prices in my area and haven't seen any pronounced changes in the momentum of house prices. First result on google for "average house price" http://www.realestateabc.com/outlook/overall.htm Edit: The spike is much more than 8K, because $8k up front yields the same mortgage monthly payment of ~$20k off the price of the house. Dik Hz fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Jul 7, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 14:17
|
|
|
Dead Man's Ham posted:Does anyone have any tangible evidence of home prices being jacked up 8000 due to the rebate? Ive been keeping an eye on the prices in my area and haven't seen any pronounced changes in the momentum of house prices. It's probably a lot more obvious in higher-priced markets. Around here in somewhat rural PA you can buy a house anywhere from $50k-$300k, most priced between $100k-250k. I don't think I noticed much, if any, price increase around here but we're in a cheap area for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 14:22
|
|
|
Dead Man's Ham posted:Does anyone have any tangible evidence of home prices being jacked up 8000 due to the rebate? Well, its the same as all the people saying house prices are going to go lower due to "historical trends". Not 100% sure if it was result of the homebuyer credit or not, but prices in my development went up $20k base price this year, the same year when everyone is adamantly preaching how every-thing's going to go so much lower. In our block alone (the newest section), its mostly single police officers and young couples, pretty much everyone making use of the credit. Nobody will outright come out and say "Yes we raised prices exactly 8k due to the credit" so I'm not sure what kind of evidence you expect, but if people will adamantly side with the whole "historical data" crowd with no evidence, not sure why this is getting such a hard time when honestly, its pretty obvious. Buyers get free $8000. Sellers know this.. Sellers want this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 14:36
|
|
|
FidgetyRat posted:...but if people will adamantly side with the whole "historical data" crowd with no evidence...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 18:50
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:First result on google for "average house price" I'm not sure this proves anything. What about the spike last month? Unless you're attributing the entire rise in house prices to this act, which seems pretty generous. I'd say that rise is more due to the decline in mortgage rates and more of a feeling that housing prices have bottomed and the economy is turning positive (as seen in the stock market). I think it's much more likely the $8000 would effect negotiations regarding, say, closing, more so than what people list the house at. And knowing most Americans, they see the $8000 as money they can spend on a new kitchen, TV, or vacation, than money they will throw towards the mortgage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 21:40
|
|
|
swenblack posted:How can you claim there's no evidence that barring political changes (like in the late 1940s) home prices follow income trends? Because its impossible to predict the future with absolute certainty.. it MAY follow historical trends, or it may not thereby creating entirely new historical trends. So therefore there is no evidence, just guesses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 21:53
|
|
|
Strict 9 posted:I'm not sure this proves anything. What about the spike last month? Unless you're attributing the entire rise in house prices to this act, which seems pretty generous. I'd say that rise is more due to the decline in mortgage rates.... It doesn't really prove anything, but its impossible to prove anything due to lack of controls. Also the spike last month could be anything. There is noise in the baseline. Or it could be that the FED let people use the $8K as part of the down payment in May.  Strict 9 posted:...and more of a feeling that housing prices have bottomed and the economy is turning positive (as seen in the stock market).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 06:03 |
|
|
FidgetyRat posted:Because its impossible to predict the future with absolute certainty.. it MAY follow historical trends, or it may not thereby creating entirely new historical trends. So therefore there is no evidence, just guesses. Throwing your hands up in the air and crying that we can't know anything with absolute certainty is a cop out. It's basically an excuse to not even try. And that's a pretty lovely way to live one's life. Rather, everyone should weigh the evidence against their situation and make an informed decision. My money (literally) is on housing prices continuing to drop. I arrived that position after analyzing market trends and the fundamental issues that affect home prices. Of course I don't know for certain what will happen, but by my research, home prices are much more likely to go down to historical trends than to remain at a clearly unaffordable level for most people in major markets. Furthermore, you have demonstrated a clear inability to distinguish your individual market conditions from nationwide trends. Yet you still try to talk as someone informed on those same macro trends. Please stop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 22:13
|
|