mortgage

When you purchase a house, your mortgage is set for the term of the mortgage.

The market value of a $200k mortgage for a $100k house is NOT $80k, or even $100k.

For rural kids, rent for a room is half what their parent's pay on mortgage or rent.

When we returned home, we didn't have enough to make the next month's mortgage payment.

On the other hand, I know those who "had to have a house" who are now seriously underwater on their mortgages.

This means the total cost of buying is relatively unaffected by the size of your mortgage.

This isn't the first attempt at trying to "fix" the problem of underwater mortgages, but results so far have been mixed at best.

Which in context is basically the nuclear option; the value of a house which can't get a mortgage is pretty much $0.

He may have a family, a mortgage, car payments, school debts, and without any reason, you decided to just screw him over.

Having a supporting spouse, a couple of kids and a mortgage are enormously motivating so this should come as no surprise.

An idea has been floating around for a while now that, in theory, you could use eminent domain to seize not just the houses, but the mortgages on the houses.

Kind of bizarre seeing someone else's value system which is completely alien to my own. If I was leaving my wife and kids with mortgage and car loan debt, I wouldn't spend $10-20k on a graveyard plot, that's for sure.

Unlocking them over time can enable automatic mortgage, trust, and allowance payouts.

Rent vs. mortgage calculators and spreadsheets are readily available.

That's not too impressive if you assume it's a place worth $375k and at his 2% taxes and maintenance price, you'd have $625 in costs in addition to the mortgage - well over the $240 that the rent had risen.

Even if the mortgage is currently in default, it still represents ownership of a house worth $100k; by definition that makes it worth $100k, no $80k...and many mortgages won't default at all; even the ones who will eventually will be making payments in the meantime.

I suspect that many homebuyers in SF are doing the irresponsible thing of squeezing into a home by spending upwards of 40%, even 50+% of their income on mortgage payments instead of the usually fiscally responsible number of ~30%.

I'm not "rich" by any means, but I live a very comfortable boring suburban life free from any debt beyond a rapidly disappearing mortgage on a very comfortable home with enough left over for lots of overseas travel every year.

Using your money, one way or another - whether it's your farm, the mortgage on your house, or your pension fund.--If we accept the above as true, we can go further on a limb and ask questions about why is the wealth that passes through financial markets so liberally redistributed to people in the industry?