Anonymous wrote:A mortgage is not a time commitment; it's a means of financing real estate. The real question is: do you intend to be living in this same house in 15 or 30 years? If yes, that's a different set of questions. If no, who cares how old you are when you take out the mortgage?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, but I would factor in my age and expected age of retirement because they will impact your finances.
The thing is, lots of people take out 30 year mortgages in their 30s. So the difference between that and taking out a 15 year mortgage in your 40s is negligible. But I'd want to be putting more money down in my 40s, which shouldn't be a problem because you should have both more savings and more income in your 40s so putting together a large down payment should be a lot easier in your 40s.
Ideally if I take out a mortgage in my 40s (which I very well may as we intend to move in the next few years and the proceeds from our current home are not going to be enough to pay cash for the home I want), I want to be putting down a very sizable down payment (like maybe even 50% or more if I can swing it) and I want my monthly payment to be pretty low.
Also, by your 40s you should be starting to be able to identify your expected age of retirement and also have some idea of what your your finances will be. For us, we're on target to retire by 62 and would currently have about 10k/month in income (if we needed it). So taking out a 15 year mortgage at 49 with a payment of 2k/mo doesn't seem like a big deal to me -- I'd be done paying it at 64 but it wouldn't delay retirement because our retirement income would more than cover it without things being tight at all.
There is no such thing as a $2000 mortgage where I live, unfortunately. There’s nothing under $8-9000 per month that’s livable (somewhat livable ranch house in a decent neighborhood). That’s what concerns me.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I live in NYC and there are plenty of extremely livable places for mortgages far less than $8-9k, unless you have like a dozen children and need an absurd number of bedrooms.
Apparently NYC has become cheaper in the last few years. Where I live, I need to include a 2% property tax plus high insurance costs. So, yes - there are no houses available for less than that in my area and the surrounding areas. And that’s for mediocre ranch houses.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This place is full of financial fools.
Meaning what exactly since I'm assuming YOU are not one of us financial fools?
Meaning until a year or two ago interest rates were 2%. It's free money.
Lol, no, it's not free money. Even if you locked in a 3% mortgage and inflation averages 3% for the next 28 years, that just means your real, effective interest rate is 0%.
But you still owe every penny of the $800K principal you borrowed, and this must be paid back according to a rigid schedule whether or not you're sick, have lost your job, etc. And if you can't make those payments, the bank can take your house. Not my definition of free money.
Plus, if you borrowed $800K, you still owe that $800K even if home prices drop (as they inevitably will at some point when interest rates rise). So your house drops by $200K and then you lose $200K when you sell. These "mortgages are magical!" posters are so stupid.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Would you take out a new mortgage at the ripe old age of 45? Truth be told, none of us knows when our working days will be over - we could face age discrimination or ill health. Would you take the risk to buy a new home at that age or is it over for me? Income and down payment are available.
No way. But we have college to pay for. So, if you have kids: no. If you don't have kids: maybe.
Anonymous wrote:Yes, but we arguably overfunded retirement accounts, we have a lot of money committed to private investments that will most likely allow us to just payoff the mortgage in lump sums over the next 10 years, and 529 plans are fully funded. We had kids late, so we still need a family-size house for a while, but can always downsize when our youngest is the last one left at home.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, but I would factor in my age and expected age of retirement because they will impact your finances.
The thing is, lots of people take out 30 year mortgages in their 30s. So the difference between that and taking out a 15 year mortgage in your 40s is negligible. But I'd want to be putting more money down in my 40s, which shouldn't be a problem because you should have both more savings and more income in your 40s so putting together a large down payment should be a lot easier in your 40s.
Ideally if I take out a mortgage in my 40s (which I very well may as we intend to move in the next few years and the proceeds from our current home are not going to be enough to pay cash for the home I want), I want to be putting down a very sizable down payment (like maybe even 50% or more if I can swing it) and I want my monthly payment to be pretty low.
Also, by your 40s you should be starting to be able to identify your expected age of retirement and also have some idea of what your your finances will be. For us, we're on target to retire by 62 and would currently have about 10k/month in income (if we needed it). So taking out a 15 year mortgage at 49 with a payment of 2k/mo doesn't seem like a big deal to me -- I'd be done paying it at 64 but it wouldn't delay retirement because our retirement income would more than cover it without things being tight at all.
There is no such thing as a $2000 mortgage where I live, unfortunately. There’s nothing under $8-9000 per month that’s livable (somewhat livable ranch house in a decent neighborhood). That’s what concerns me.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I live in NYC and there are plenty of extremely livable places for mortgages far less than $8-9k, unless you have like a dozen children and need an absurd number of bedrooms.
Apparently NYC has become cheaper in the last few years. Where I live, I need to include a 2% property tax plus high insurance costs. So, yes - there are no houses available for less than that in my area and the surrounding areas. And that’s for mediocre ranch houses.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, but I would factor in my age and expected age of retirement because they will impact your finances.
The thing is, lots of people take out 30 year mortgages in their 30s. So the difference between that and taking out a 15 year mortgage in your 40s is negligible. But I'd want to be putting more money down in my 40s, which shouldn't be a problem because you should have both more savings and more income in your 40s so putting together a large down payment should be a lot easier in your 40s.
Ideally if I take out a mortgage in my 40s (which I very well may as we intend to move in the next few years and the proceeds from our current home are not going to be enough to pay cash for the home I want), I want to be putting down a very sizable down payment (like maybe even 50% or more if I can swing it) and I want my monthly payment to be pretty low.
Also, by your 40s you should be starting to be able to identify your expected age of retirement and also have some idea of what your your finances will be. For us, we're on target to retire by 62 and would currently have about 10k/month in income (if we needed it). So taking out a 15 year mortgage at 49 with a payment of 2k/mo doesn't seem like a big deal to me -- I'd be done paying it at 64 but it wouldn't delay retirement because our retirement income would more than cover it without things being tight at all.
There is no such thing as a $2000 mortgage where I live, unfortunately. There’s nothing under $8-9000 per month that’s livable (somewhat livable ranch house in a decent neighborhood). That’s what concerns me.
This is absolutely ridiculous. I live in NYC and there are plenty of extremely livable places for mortgages far less than $8-9k, unless you have like a dozen children and need an absurd number of bedrooms.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This place is full of financial fools.
Meaning what exactly since I'm assuming YOU are not one of us financial fools?
Meaning until a year or two ago interest rates were 2%. It's free money.
Lol, no, it's not free money. Even if you locked in a 3% mortgage and inflation averages 3% for the next 28 years, that just means your real, effective interest rate is 0%.
But you still owe every penny of the $800K principal you borrowed, and this must be paid back according to a rigid schedule whether or not you're sick, have lost your job, etc. And if you can't make those payments, the bank can take your house. Not my definition of free money.
Plus, if you borrowed $800K, you still owe that $800K even if home prices drop (as they inevitably will at some point when interest rates rise). So your house drops by $200K and then you lose $200K when you sell. These "mortgages are magical!" posters are so stupid.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This place is full of financial fools.
Meaning what exactly since I'm assuming YOU are not one of us financial fools?
Meaning until a year or two ago interest rates were 2%. It's free money.
Lol, no, it's not free money. Even if you locked in a 3% mortgage and inflation averages 3% for the next 28 years, that just means your real, effective interest rate is 0%.
But you still owe every penny of the $800K principal you borrowed, and this must be paid back according to a rigid schedule whether or not you're sick, have lost your job, etc. And if you can't make those payments, the bank can take your house. Not my definition of free money.