top | item 40677034

(no title)

dawnbreez | 1 year ago

The problem isn't that the cost of renting is higher than the cost of mortgaging, the problem is that banks treat people who have to make a $2,500 monthly payment to live decently as if they can't be trusted with a $2,000 payment. People like me are charged a premium for shelter because we did things like...be financially responsible and avoid taking on unnecessary loans or credit card debt. And when we ask why we can't have the cheaper option, the response is...the bank doesn't trust us to make a payment that's _easier_ to make than the payment I'm working with right now?

It's blatant nonsense, which makes one wonder what the real reasoning is.

discuss

order

recursive|1 year ago

I think an insolvent renter is probably a smaller risk than an insolvent loanee, at least with certain assumptions. I'm not defending it, and have no background in it, but it seems possible.

dawnbreez|1 year ago

But we're not talking about an insolvent renter, we're talking about a renter who's making their payments. A renter who makes payments every month at 2500 can, and regularly is, not approved for a mortgage at 2000 a month, even though--based on the payment history--the renter would not only be able to make those payments, the mortgage payment would be easier for them to make--and therefore less risky--than the rent payment.