SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Jack of All Trades who wrote (70966)10/4/2006 1:27:34 PM
From: UncleBigs  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110194
 
Jack, I hear NH is the freeist (SP?) state in the country. Where can I find 30+ acres with great views, creek and combination of mature trees and meadows?



To: Jack of All Trades who wrote (70966)10/4/2006 2:07:07 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 110194
 
I'm not saying it Can't be done.

But the point is, why should some single professional be forced to buy a house lower than their ability to pay just because there are overstetched people somewhere else in the country.

If singles have to get into "starter homes" all that does, is force them to trade up once or twice and feed this scam real estate transaction business (paying 60K-100K in real estate fees to "trade up" when they don't need to).

I'm really surprised at the responses I am getting on this thread to this.

You do realize that real estate is a big drain on productivity in the US? ANd the whole system is inefficient? Nobody but the real estate industry wants people to trade up. Most folks would like to buy one house and stay there. I shouldn't have had to pay 90K in real estate fees to get into a house I could have had in 92. Besides, property taxes in CA are frozen from the moment you buy the house. Buy the best house you can at the earliest time is the best approach but not possible due to these archaic rules.