House Payments+ Taxes
What percent of your net monthly income should go to the house payment and tax bill?
25%?
33%?
25%?
33%?
0
-
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
What percent of your net monthly income should go to the house payment and tax bill?
25%?
33%?
That is a higher than I normally like see. I prefer closer to 20% but 25% will work if you have a very stable job and the proper (6-9 months) of liquid cash reserves.0 -
for comparison, when you go to rent an apartment, they want to see at least 33%. but of course house payments are a larger and you have a lot more to lose if the bank takes the house back. 0 -
I would agree with elkoholic. Some things can't be helped, but I would try to keep it around 25%(tops) if possible. I know that ours is just over 20%, but we are renters right now.
Jon0 -
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
What percent of your net monthly income should go to the house payment and tax bill?
25%?
33%?
Depends on when you bought and how much you put down. I don't see how median price - $210K-ish - corresponds to median income - high $40K-ish, close to $50K-ish. But yeah, if you bought before 2002-3 insanity began, you probably can look at 25-33%.
On topic: I hate to see more than 25% of my net go to rent/mortgage, tax bill included, assuming you meant property tax since we're talking net here.0 -
22% 0 -
My mortgage payment is 8.9% of my income.
I figure my taxes to be another .5% or so. (Figuring you are talking about property taxes).0 -
quote:Originally posted by cubslover
My mortgage payment is 8.9% of my income.
I figure my taxes to be another .5% or so. (Figuring you are talking about property taxes).
You are in great shape there Grasshopper.. Ours is just a little lower BUT I borrowed some money on the home to buy more rental properties.0 -
That is something I don't know, living in California the house taxes are extremely low if you've lived in the same house a long time. Same thing with house payments.
Bought the house in 1986/2400sq.ft./$139,000 (a steal - market was down) house payments were, and are, $1200/Mo (and change) and the taxes run about $1300 a year (thank you Calif. Prop. 13 - your house taxes never increase as long as you keep the house OR transfer it in a trust - too bad other state residents haven't passed that legislation - never have been able to understand that).
The house is worth a million+ now and I doubt I'd want to buy another today, and start all over again. I could do it, but my 'retirement' would be pretty much limited to feeding the ducks down by the lake at the ranch!
if you move to Southern California - bring lots and lots of money or make sure your (and your wife's pay) is in the six figures - or, at least, very high five figures!
[8D]0 -
Here is a handy mortgage calculator. Type in the loan amount and interest rate, term.
http://www.mortgage-net.com/calculators/mp_cl.html0 -
Nice one - seen lots of those.
Now that I'm older - I think I'd have bought more houses ... instead of
land, fer sure, here, fer sure.
[8D]0 -
[8D]--Yea Zip, THANK GOD for prop 13--
--I don't have any mortgages now, but my prop taxes above Susanville are higer than my home here in the North Bay (which is worth $920,000)--
--This huge rash of Realestate failures was based on New loans for $600,000 No interest/no down and THEN Ballooning mortgage payments and that was all over, not just in Ca.--
--Don't want to do ANY MORE BUYING-I'm staying here !!!
--When I want a change of scenery, I just go somewhere, just like you Zip-ain't it great--
--[:p][:p][:D]-JIMBO0 -
(That's why they all HATE us, Jim![B)][xx(][B)]) 0 -
11% on our house payment. Not sure on the property taxes because the state/county keep changing the assesments. 0 -
I can see why you guys love Prop. 13, but there's no way it's the fair or right way to do things. Is it fair that you are paying $1,300 on a million dollar house, while a guy down the street is probably paying 7 or 8 times that much for a house worth the same amount? Does he get 8 times the government services you do? I never understood why Prop. 13 wasn't declared illegal, since it is uneven and not equitably applied.
As to the original question, lenders won't think twice going as high as 30-33 percent, but I think that's too high. 25 percent is plenty high.0 -
quote:Originally posted by zipperzap
That is something I don't know, living in California the house taxes are extremely low if you've lived in the same house a long time. Same thing with house payments.
Bought the house in 1986/2400sq.ft./$139,000 (a steal - market was down) house payments were, and are, $1200/Mo (and change) and the taxes run about $1300 a year (thank you Calif. Prop. 13 - your house taxes never increase as long as you keep the house OR transfer it in a trust - too bad other state residents haven't passed that legislation - never have been able to understand that).
The house is worth a million+ now and I doubt I'd want to buy another today, and start all over again. I could do it, but my 'retirement' would be pretty much limited to feeding the ducks down by the lake at the ranch!
if you move to Southern California - bring lots and lots of money or make sure your (and your wife's pay) is in the six figures - or, at least, very high five figures!
[8D]
The taxes do in fact increase. They go up 2% a year plus any bonds that are approved. Proposition 13 (also known as the "welcome stranger act") results in very unfair taxation. I was able to transfer the tax value of my home (a once in a lifetime old geezer benefit) when I moved in 2002. My taxes are $1400/yr & my neighbor across the street who moved into a similar house a couple of years later pays around $7000/yr.0 -
Mine is about 1% and I wish I didn't have that!!! 0 -
quote:farmplinker:
I can see why you guys love Prop. 13, but there's no way it's the fair or right way to do things. Is it fair that you are paying $1,300 on a million dollar house, while a guy down the street is probably paying 7 or 8 times that much for a house worth the same amount?
Tough one - yes, it's fair. Instead of slamming everything California/Californian, you should have gotten here sooner.[:o)]
Seriously, it's a trade off. You can either have the current Prop. 13 system OR you can have the poor and the retired homeowners - like happens in just about all the other states - get forced out of their homes (after being good tax paying residents all their lives) because of annual big, bigger and huge home tax increases![:0]
Can't have it both ways, you know.
[:D]0 -
My mortgage payment is ZERO.[8)]
JM[^]0 -
.... and that's best!
[:D]0 -
[8D]--No it ain't fair, but unfair practices are going on EVERYWHERE-
--We just got our finger in the dike EARLY--
-Gruntled-yea you're almost right, one home I'd bought in 1992 was part of ths Solano county State approve (2% of original sales price) -increase per year (wasn't much) but did increase--
--But there are Northern Ca. counties, that still are rock solid under Prop 13 and have no increases, well minor crap--
--I came to California from Portland, Oregon in 1946-man you had to be EARLY--
--[:p][:p][:D]--JIMBO0 -
OK ... one more parting shot from me, too.
Most $500K and $1Mil homes did not cost that much to build.
Nay, brothers - they cost the same/nearly the same that your
homes cost to build at any given/comparable time.
Why do they cost a million, now?
It's location, location, location, period.
These houses have appreciated up from $70K back in '76 to $1Mil+ because they
are in the finest place in the good ole USA. if they were in West Undershirt, neat to
Hodunk .... they'd have appreciated up to maybe $140-$210K - same house -
different location. Matter of fact, I'll bet most of your homes are built with more than
2x4's, tarpaper, chicken wire and stucco - oh, and some latex paint on top. If you've
got a brick or stone house, you've probably twice the house!
It's location, location, location.
[8D]0 -
farmplinker said "I can see why you guys love Prop. 13, but there's no way it's the fair or right way to do things. Is it fair that you are paying $1,300 on a million dollar house, while a guy down the street is probably paying 7 or 8 times that much for a house worth the same amount? Does he get 8 times the government services you do? I never understood why Prop. 13 wasn't declared illegal, since it is uneven and not equitably applied."
I donated to the Prop 13 initative. I worked for the Prop 13 initative and I voted for the Prop 13 initative. I have supported it thru the SCORES of legal challenges. If someone is worried about "unfair" go back to the old system. The guy complaining about paying 7-8 times as much as the guy who owns a house worth the same amount would feel real great under the old system paying 2-3 times what he is paying now.0 -
quote:Originally posted by zipperzap
(That's why they all HATE us, Jim![B)][xx(][B)])
No, thats not it. Don0 -
I agree - get those old folks on fixed incomes the hell out - they can't
pay higher property taxes anyway! You can certainly sell their homes
at auction!
... old feeble and helpless folks are a drag, anyway! There's always a
cardboard box for everyone's mom and pops. Gettim outta here and
out of sight - sleeping under bridges ain't so bad - they get used to it.
[}:)]0 -
So how can anyone afford a house in California??? 0 -
My house expense if 50% of what I make. 0 -
In my opinion 20% is about right with a possible stretch to 25%. However, total household monthly obligations, including house payment, should be comfortably covered by a single income and not dependent two incomes.
Actually I like my current percentage - 0%!0 -
What about the idea of "growing" into a house payment? In theory, your house payment will remain the same for the next 30 years and your income will increase. 0 -
Im right below 18%-It took A HEALTHY down payment.. But if I include what my old lady kicks in it drops to 8.7 [:D]
Plenty left for guns,cars and food!!!
I also bought a house that needed a good deal of work though.
I resided the house. re-did the main bathroom and the kitchen.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
What percent of your net monthly income should go to the house payment and tax bill?
25%?
33%?
Ideally no more than 1 weeks paycheck (takehome). Unfortunately many lenders have let people borrow much more than that (as high as 38%) is not unheard of. And it's usually people with no cushion. When the lenders start crying (and they already have) I ain't listening. No bail out for the money men! And no bail out for the fools too dumb to read the contract before signing it.[:(!]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
33 comments