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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (70974)	10/4/2006 2:22:24 PM
From: Jack of All Trades	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

90K in fees? what % of the transaction was that? My guess that CA sales tax was a large %? In NH we have no sales tax, there is a tax stamp when transacting property.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (70974)	10/4/2006 9:13:06 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

I shouldn't have had to pay 90K in real estate fees to get into a house I could have had in 92. you complain that you bought a 350K house when you could have afforded an 850K house, if only somebody had been "wise" enough to lend you the money when you were not qualified. what you totally miss is that if the lending rules had allowed you and everybody like you to borrow as much as 850K in your original situation, the house you paid 350K would have cost you 850K. you wouldn't have gotten a different house; you would have just paid much more for it. the house that you eventually paid 850K for would have still been out of your price range. this expansion of credit availability and lowering of credit standards accounts for much of the price rise in the recently ended American real estate bubble.