Wouldn’t leasing or renting be more accurate depending on what’s involved and the circumstances?
It’s a scam that you’re forced to pay homeowner taxes on a home that the bank actually owns.
And, they force you to pay mortgage insurance (against yourself) if for some reason you can’t pay your mortgage. In the event you can’t pay, they make you leave the house AND reap the benefits of the insurance claim. I’m sorry, if the bank wants to bet against you that’s one thing, but forcing you to pay the bill to bet against yourself is massively unfair.
It’s entirely possible that you could be unable to afford the mortgage payment because of the additional costs of the extra insurance they force you to pay, to insure them against you not being able to pay. Think about that.
This is entirely separate from homeowners insurance, which is a whole other scam they force you to pay.
There should be a law to force mortgage lenders to disclose the full price of the loan at the time you take the loan. For example, if a home is $200k, a typical 30-year mortgage for that home will have you paying something like $450k by the time you finish paying it off. This should be shown to the buyer at the time you take the loan.
I mean technically you own the house and the bank owns your loan (with house as collateral), but I do get your point about taxes. However, if the bank had to pay the taxes, they’d just wind up incorporated into the loan. And if the bank actually owned the home, you’d need their approval for any changes.
As for mortgage insurance, you can avoid that with a large enough down payment (20%).
As for the full cost of the loan, I thought that is part of the standard paperwork? If not, sounds like you might have had a bad realtor. You can also look up that info online with any mortgage calculator.
I just thought it’s more of an issue of language/expression than anything… Methinks the concept of “leasing/renting” for an indefinite amount of time might be quite new in human history, so maybe we just don’t have a better word for it
Case in point… From a pure technical standpoint, I thought a game I purchased on Steam or an audiobook from Amazon is technically “leased indefinitely with no additional fees”, but doesn’t the lack of additional fees make it equivalent to owning something?
And as otherwise pointed out, under capitalist systems you can literally own a home, but would still have to pay taxes to pay for maintenance of publicly shared resources… so at what time should we call it “leased” instead
Well, we do have the words leasing and renting.
The difference between owning games on steam and actually owning a game? When steam shuts down, you suddenly don’t own any games anymore.
When you own a house, you can do whatever you want with it. If you choose to use it without utilities, you can for no extra cost. And paying taxes doesn’t really have anything to do with ownership.if anything taxes are proof of your ownership.
What are you talking about? “Taxes don’t have anything to do with ownership”
Your county sends the person on the deed to the house a tax bill every year. For me, it works out to over $300 per month for a very modest house. If you have a mortgage, it’s bundled into the mortgage payments.
FYI, some domains can genuinely be acquired for an indefinite period, as the delegation has no expiration period. So long as the domain is kept in good standing (eg two working authoritative nameservers) and doesn’t violate the parent domains’ policies, it will persist. Granted, few people go through this rather-old process to get such domains but they do exist. See my earlier comment.
I requested a PTR record once from my ISP. They first didn’t understand what it was, then said they didn’t provide it. I didn’t have a static IP but still.
Thanks for this info! I was unaware of this given how rarely it’s mentioned.
For domains, you actually own them. If you define ownership as being able to trade them compared to leasing something where you are not allowed to sell the item for example.
I never understood the concept of owning a home when for most it’s actually owing a mortgage and maybe owning part of a home, depending on how it might sell.
‘Expensive things’? Houses? Cars? Stocks? Businesses? Art? What are you thinking of here?
In the vein of houses and cars, yeah. I should get in a better habit of elaborating on ambiguous terms in the body, only haven’t as I’ve mixed experience with people skipping over those.
When you take out a loan/mortgage, the bank does not own the property you purchase with those funds. You own the property, and you use it essentially as collateral to secure the loan. (It’s considered a lien.) The bank can take ownership of the property if you violate the terms of the agreement, typically by failing to pay what you owe, but the bank doesn’t own the property.
Mentioning @[email protected] here to address you both in your similar corrections rather than duplicate my reply: I stand corrected.
I see that I had misconstrued my personal misgivings with the penalties of failing to pay with a lack of legal ownership.
It still feels off, precarious, to describe it as ownership to me, but I recognize what you’re both saying regarding the legal standing of it all.
It does, sure. It helps to understand that the debt is separate from the property, same as if you borrowed $20 for lunch—it feels a lot different from your friend buying you lunch, but it doesn’t feel like your friend owns your lunch until you repay them, either.
With real estate especially, once the property begins to require your attention and money, you begin to feel that ownership more acutely. The bank has no idea when the gutters need to be cleared or there’s a drainage issue. They’re concerned only with the loan.
I’m still confused. I own my houses and cars. I’m still paying for one of my houses (the one my mum lives in) but it’s legally mine as long as I continue to pay the mortgage.
Own as in mortgages/loans paid off, I take it? That’s the slight distinction I’m thinking of with expensive items that typically can’t be bought outright. It’s not wholly owned until mortgage/loan is paid off, which you kinda nod towards with your last sentence.
But you legally own your house if your name is on the title deeds. The deeds say I am the owner regardless of whether there is a mortgage or not. The mortgage is recorded on the title deeds, but it doesn’t change the fact that I am the owner. I can do whatever I want with it.
In essence, I have a loan against it but in extremis, the bank can force me to sell. I would get anything over the loan amount I sold it for but the bank would have no reason to do this if I continue to pay.
The big one of course is home ownership, despite having to pay the government for the rest of your life.
Needing to pay for gas doesn’t mean you don’t own your car.
The government taking things away under certain circumstances doesn’t mean you don’t own the things.
Having to continue to pay for something that you “own” does not sound like ownership to many people.
Paying taxes is different than paying to own. It is one way that money is collected to pay for common needs like roads, parks, and schools and is more consistent than income or other taxation because we know how much land exists.
I guess a dollar amount could just be expected from every single person regardless of circumstance. Would that be better?
I guess a dollar amount could just be expected from every single person regardless of circumstance. Would that be better?
Yes, that would make far more sense to me than tying it to something arbitrary like land. Failure to pay should not result in homelessness. Especially after a lifetime to paying for said home.
I’m not sure where you are, but typically even if you rent rather than owning you pay the normal taxes, either directy or via your landlord, so they have little to do with owning a property, and more to do with occupying one, as a proxy for the demands you put on communal services. In most places you would also not lose your home for not paying them, you’d get dragged through the courts, possibly jailed for some period, and the tax authority in question would just end up with a lien on the property, entutling them to recompense when you sold or refinanced it.
I’m not discounting the possibility you live sonewhere with different property tax laws, but you’ve been making extremely broad and general statements that don’t match reality in many places.
How does one account for maintenance costs with this view? Even barring taxes, you may have to pay for upkeep either in materials or contracting out services to assist in maintenance.
