There are two reasons one might accept a conventional mortgage, idiocy or intimidation
true
Side Score: 17
|
false
Side Score: 20
|
|
|
|
I think there's more reasons than the ones you listed but I'll vote in favor of the general concept that people sign on for mortgage deals which help the banks more than help the homeowners. Most people are like the old story of lemmings. When they reach a river to cross they see everyone else is jumping in and swimming so they do, too. They just assume they're not going to be one of the unlucky who drowned. But in their defense, if they don't swim for it then they're stuck on the other side, and most people would rather die than give up on their dream. Side: true
There there. Intelligent educated people can genuinely do their research and read financial analysts advice and come to the conclusion it's smart to take out a mortgage. And then get burned. You're not automatically an idiot just because you chose to take a calculated risk but then lost. And you're not intimidated if you actually did your homework first. Side: false
1
point
1
point
|
Money paid as rent is a sunk cost, never to be recovered. Money paid as a mortgage is an investment in the equity of a house, which is retained by the person paying the mortgage. The advantages of buying over renting are numerous, and for those who cannot afford to buy a house outright, a mortgage might be the only feasible option to buy. Side: false
No, I just understand the concept of sunk cost. Poor people rent, and is one of the contributing factors for why many of them will stay poor. The advantages of buying are numerous, as any financial expert will tell you. That some people overexert their finances and take on debt that they cannot handle is no argument that all debt is bad, or that all mortgages are bad. Do your homework first, understand what you are getting yourself into, and for Godssake don't take on debt that exceeds 25% of your income. Side: false
1
point
Before I was born my father had sold the house that he and my mother were living in, he bought some property and he and my Grandfather started construction on a house on the land. Both of them had Construction experience, but no experience with house-building specifically. My grandparents at the time were foster parents for the state and my grandfather had enlisted the help of some of the foster boys to help build the house. It took a few years and they finally completed construction. The house was 'different' from other houses, it had plumping, electrical, and other things a house would normally have, but you could tell whoever built it had no experience house-building. It was worse quality than the house they sold so that they could build it. There were a number of serious mistakes that were made during its construction. I have no doubt had my father had built a few more houses he would have gotten much better at it. Years later when someone bought the property they had the house demolished. Keep in mind this was with 7 people or so, two of whom had construction experience, and a couple years construction time. I can only imagine how it would have turned out with one person with no construction experience. Side: false
1
point
|