Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimbaBear who wrote (70902)	10/4/2006 12:38:38 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 110194

but if you make more, the same percentage applied to your income level means you can buy much more house. I mean someone bringing down $5,000/ month has an $1,800 limit in which to fit housing and all other credit obligations. In your example of $16,000/month that means $5,760 to cover housing and all other credit obligations. Since each additional $665/mo of P&I buys another $100,000 of mortgage (7%, 30yr fixed), that's quite a bit more house if one just stays within the guidelines. With more money down, demonstrated ability to save, and great credit, I've seen that DTI stretched to 50% in conventional products. Agreed, but its just that the flat ratios don't scale, is all I'm saying. The 30% rule is intended (I think) to leave you with enough money to live. This argument is like the old flat tax argument. Sure you can buy slightly more house with a 200K income vs. a 140K income, but you have so much more spending money its somewhat laughable. I think its a hard problem to solve. I just don't like people assuming that everybody has a ton of debt. A lot of people don't have any debt, and my experience is the "workaholics" which are people who make a lot of money, basically have no time to spend it. Those people are not served by the current system. Virtually everyone I know HAD to start out with a "starter home" and move up at least once, paying the scam real estate 6% commission each time, for no other reason than the system doesn't allow a 60% DTI on a house so that the professionals can buy a house in their late 20s/early 30s that they can actually stay in. If you run the numbers its obvious what the problem is, not enough scale on the high salaries, as I say, you can buy a "slightly" better house with a 200K salary vs. 140. But only slightly. Your only alternative is to move up.