Should I buy a house?
Topic: Best buy case study
May 23, 2019 / By Admiranda Question:
I'm gonna move out soon for college and it seems like it's cheaper to pay the house by month than an apartment. Now, Im saving up over the summer for this and already have a full scholarship for College, but I'm still planning to work while studying. So I can probably pay either way. My problem is the mortagage, they are only asking 10-20k for the mortgage but I don't have that much money. I will probaby have 4k saved up over the summer and i''ve heard things about getting a mortgage with low interest if you are a first time buyer but I don't know a lot about that either. My question is should I try to get a house now or just live in an apartment. I just think that buying a house is a better investment but I don't want to be bankrupt either.. So I need opinion. If anyone can explain me the mortgage stuff, that would be great! (even if you say it's a bad idea, if you know just tell me so I know how it works and can use it in the future). Thank you very much!
Best Answers: Should I buy a house?
Tennyson | 3 days ago
Buying can have advantages over renting but renting can have advantages too. First, you will have a difficult time finding a lender that can do a purchase mortgage for only $10-20K. Most closing costs associated with a mortgage are the same whether you are borrowing $10K or $100K and there are rules in place that make it hard to justify paying $2500 in fees (not including taxes and insurance)to get a $10K loan. I can go as low as about $30K.
In my area as in many areas, home values have not increased and in many cases have decreased in the past 4-5 years. Unless you are planning to stay in the home after you graduate there will be additional expenses (typically 8-10% of the sale price) to sell the home when you are finished with school. You could easily be in a position in which you owe more than you will net from the sale of the home. That is not a good place to be. If you get an apartment, someone else pays for maintenance.
If you find a home you can qualify for and afford and you are comfortable that it will increase or at least hold value during the time you own it your idea may make sense. Just make sure you go into this with your eyes open.
👍 214 | 👎 3
Did you like the answer? Should I buy a house?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Best buy case study
Originally Answered: Does a house renter have to let a house owners daughter and her friends party in the house?
Holy Moly! No, you did not have to put up with this at all, when you pay your rent, it is an agreement that the property is considered yours to use, with all privacy accorded to a homeowner. In fact, *A landlord must give prior notice (typically 24 hours) before entering your premises and can normally only do so to make repairs or in case of an emergency.* (see reference)
So, when the girl calls the next time, you may tell her no, you would prefer she did not come over, and not feel guilty about it.
There are many places on the internet you can learn EXACTLY what the laws in your state are for renters rights, just go to google, or search engine of your choice, and type in your state and "renters rights".
"To construct a apartment or a inn, the participant ought to possess all houses in a colour institution. Development ought to be uniform throughout a monopoly, such that a moment apartment can't be developed on one estate in a monopoly till the others have one apartment." I acquired that from Wikipedia. I have performed this recreation due to the fact I used to be a bit child, and I have performed special approaches with special individuals. Sometimes we performed like your mother is describing. Other occasions we could purchase something we would come up with the money for, however you can not placed a moment apartment on a estate until all of the different houses have one apartment already on it (like Wikipedia says). Hope this is helping.
👍 90 | 👎 2
Here's the deal, renting is only a waste of money if you're really interested in being homeless. You are paying for a roof over your head, therefore it's not a waste of money because if you didn't pay for it you'd be living in a box. Don't live in a box.
You are, what, 18? You are DREAMING if you think it's just a simple matter of the rent and the mortgage payment being equal. Utilities are expensive. Upkeep is expensive. It's not just as simple as moving in and then magically the house takes care of itself.
Get an apartment. The real thing you get when you rent is that you have options. You're really young and it's wise to keep your options open. Besides, odds of you getting approved for a mortgage with a sum total of 4 grand in the bank and some sort of mythical job you'll be working while going to school full time are pretty low.
👍 88 | 👎 1
You are right,buying is a much better investment than renting,unless your rent is so low you can save a lot towards a house.
👍 86 | 👎 0
Originally Answered: When GOP controlled the house, senate, white house AND supreme court, why didn't they overturn roe v wade?
Justice Kennedy "flip-flopped" on the issue of abortion.
Contrary to what you may think, not every Republican appointee to the Court (during 1981-1992) was selected because of their views on abortion. O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas were not selected because of their views on that issue. Thomas HAPPENED to be anti-Roe, but that wasn't the reason he was appointed. Kennedy appeared to be anti-Roe with his very first vote in 1989, but then 3 years later, he flipped. If you have any doubts about that, see Mark Tushnet's book, published 2005, entitled "A Court Divided," and in particular see Chapter Eight, starting on page 204.
It specifically says, on page 216, "At the end of the Court's term, the law clerks staged a skit and used the theme from the television program *Flipper* as Kennedy's signature song."
The simple fact is that none of the Supreme Court Justices are under the control of the President who appointed them, nor the members of the Senate who confirmed their appointments. The Justices truly are independent. That IS the way it's supposed to be.
Roe v. Wade SHOULD be overturned, but the only way it's going to happen is if Justices get appointed for the right reasons, and the right reasons are those stated by Reagan on July 1, 1987, when Reagan announced he was going to nominate Robert Bork for the vacant seat on the Court at that time (the seat then ended up going to Kennedy, who obviously doesn't have the same philosophy of constitutional interpretation that Bork did.)