Also, maintaining a house vs. maintaining a condo is definately more
expensive.. another factor which you might consider.. depending how
old the house is... roof, lawn maintaince, gutters, etc...also what
about property taxes.. another factor which you might want to
consider...



nospam[at]nospam.com wrote in message news:<6t3rn0lfm88tt71j6lb4necqqgggc4on9q[at]4ax.com> ...
- quote -


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please trim the post to which you are responding.

nospam[at]nospam.com wrote:

- quote -

Get appraisals on both houses. The higher priced house may be a better
deal justifying your added costs.

Estimate how much it would cost to make the lower priced house as good
as the more expensive one.

I bought a larger house than I needed and as a result I didn't have to
go through the expensive process of buying a new house and selling the
old one.

Tell us more. What is the square footage? How big are the lots? Which
has the best location? How new are the houses? How much garage space do
they have? Do they both have city utilities like water, sewer, & natural
gas?

--
Ron

darkness39[at]yahoo.com (darkness) writes:
- quote -

OTOH, he's not talking about going _way_ out on a limb here.
He's talking about the difference between his mortgage
being 11% of the gross income to being more like 14.4%.

- quote -

I don't know about 'wow', but it is worth noting that
one's house is more than just a big purchase. I spent
quite a while living super cheaply and saving money so
that when I got around to it, I was able to afford a
house that I really love. I simply like being in my
house. That's an astoundingly satisfying thing.

- quote -

That's the real question. That $300/mo might mean no new
car for a while or something. For me, that's a no-brainer -
I'd rather drive a (reliable) used beater and have the
house than have a nicer car (which depreciates and which
incurs other expenses - insurance, etc).

- quote -

This is the only thing which makes me hesitant here - if
you are planning on her not working, you need to make sure
you do nothing which puts you into a position you cannot
afford to maintain without her income. That may mean that
you should buy _neither_ of the houses until you are in
a position to be able to do so without her income. If
you can't afford it without both of your incomes, and you
think it's likely that one of your incomes will go away
(or way down), then you can't afford it, period.


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

I would be inclined to go the conservative route. But, I am curious
about this statement:
- quote -

If the money you are giving your/her parents is going towards rent,
perhaps buying a bigger house would allow you to accomodate them.
Could be a huge lifestyle change, I realize. You could even consider a
multi-family. But, depending on what the situation is, this could be
the difference between you investing that money and you paying it to
your parents' landlords.

John

In article <6t3rn0lfm88tt71j6lb4necqqgggc4on9q[at]4ax.com> ,
<nospam[at]nospam.com> wrote:

- quote -

I don't have too much of a problem with that.

- quote -

Rather than me telling you what to do, let me ask you a few questions
to ponder.

1) what happens if we get a double-dip recession, like we did
last time, and one of you loses your job for 6 months to a year?

2) what if one of you gets hurt at work, and your disability is
only 50% of your wages?

3) what if you have a child, and that child turns out to have
some special needs?

4) what if inflation comes back, at say 2% to 3%, and your $2
loaf of bread is $6 in 15 years?

5a) what if one of your employeers goes bankrupt, and your new
job is at a place that doesn't pay for health insurance?

5b) what if, after you lose your health insurance, one of you
comes down with diabetes, and no one will insure you anymore?

There are a million what-if's. We all think about dying young,
but the fact of the matter that coming down with a serious
illness, cancer, or being disabled is far more common. Something
like 1 in 12 gets cancer (which is 1 in 6 for 2 people), and
1 in 3 end up disabled for at least 3 months sometime during
their working career.

If you mortgage yourself right up to the hilt, it is like
streaching a rubber band to the breaking point. Any little
glitch, and it comes flying apart. But if you leave your
self a little breathing room, you can survive the ups and
downs and even thrive over the long haul.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john[at]johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

nospam[at]nospam.com wrote in message news:<6t3rn0lfm88tt71j6lb4necqqgggc4on9q[at]4ax.com> ...

Do that which is financially prudent is my gut reaction.

A 'wow' house is like a 'wow' car: it only lasts for a certain while.
Being financially overstretched is never pleasant.

Exception of course is if housing prices are going up. Most places in
Canada I don't see big inflation in house prices in the next few years
(condo market in Toronto is very overbuilt) although in the long run
Vancover and GTA both have good demographics.

But it's hard to see big house price inflation in the next few years
in Canada-- the economy doesn't seem that robust nor are interest
rates likely to fall a lot more. Maybe I am wrong on this, I am out
of touch with the market, but this is my gut feel.

Friends of mine *have* stretched themselves to trade up and done well:
usually where they have an expectation of future promotions or
inheritances. The ones who have done best have stretched themselves
to buy in a better neighbourhood, not a nicer house. In real estate,
location is the most important factor, and you want to own a cheap
house in a nice neighbourhood, not a better house in a less attractive
neighbourhood.


You say the difference is $300 per month? Look at your lifestyle,
what could you do without that would save you $300 per month.

John



- quote -

Hi all,


I would appreciate a little help with my financial planning. Both me
and my wife pull in a combined $9,000/month ($5,500 for me and $3,500
for my wife) income before tax and we owe no debt except our $76K
mortgage.

Income $9,000 - RRSP(401) $1,300 - Income Tax $2,300 - Target Savings
$ 900
=Disposable Income $4,500

Since we both have 4 parents to support at $1,000 a month , our net
disposable income is $3,500.

We have been looking into selling our condo and buy a house.
Depending on market condition, we should be able to get at least $90K
equity out of the proceed of the sale and use it as down payment for
the house.

At first, we limit the house price to 250K which means our mortgage
will be 160K and our payment per month at 5.5% 25 yrs will be about
$1,000. Take away another $500 for heat and property tax etc., we
will have another $2000 to live with.

Then, as most house shoppers had experienced, we started looking at
better houses and found a $310K dream house to us which now we are
thinking about buying.

Our mortgage on the $310K house will be $220K with a $1,300 monthly
payment. The problem is that our living expense will then be down to
$1,700 which should be enough for just food, clothing and
entertainment but I'm hesitant to live on $1,700 alone for two people.

In retrospect, the $250K house is a probably good enough house that is
comfortable for the two of us and a child or two down the road. But
the $310K house is a house that we can be proud of buying, one that
our parents will express "wow" when they see it.

Me and my wife are at this moral crossroad. We think we have been
working and saving hard, managing our finance diligently that we can
justify indulging ourselves a bit by spending another $60K on our
house which likely will appreciate in value down the road anyway.

And yet, the math doesn't support this conclusion. $1,700 for two
people might be alright but when she is on maternity leave in the
future, her income will drop to 50-60% her current level which makes
things even worse.

So I don't know, on one hand I want to buy the $310K house for her and
my kid. On the other hand, I want to manage my money diligently.
What would you guys do if you were me?