vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You want to buy a house for $150,000. It may be possible to do this with $10,000 and a 3.5% downpayment, but it would be a lot better to have $40,000 and make a 20% downpayment. That would give you a cushion in case house prices fall, and there are often advantages to a 20% downpayment (lower rate; less mandatory insurance). You have an income of $35,000 and expenses of $23,000 (if you are careful with the money--what if you aren't?). You should have savings of either $17,500 or $11,500 in case of emergencies. Perhaps you simply weren't mentioning that. Note that you also need at least $137 * 26 = $3562 more to cover mortgage payments, so $15,062 by the expenses standard. This is in addition to the $40,000 for downpayment and closing costs. What do you plan to do if there is a problem with the new house, e.g. you need a new roof? Or smaller expenses like a new furnace or appliance? A plumbing problem? Damages from a storm? What if the tenants' teenage child has a party and trashes the place? What if your tenants stop paying rent but refuse to move out, trashing the place while being evicted? Your emergency savings need to be able to cover those situations. You checked comps (comparable properties). Great! But notice that you are looking at a one bathroom property for $150,000 and comparing to $180,000 houses. Consider that you may not get the $235 for that house, which is cheaper. Perhaps the rent for that house will only be $195 or less, because one bathroom doesn't really support three bedrooms of people. While real estate can be part of a portfolio, balance would suggest that much more of your portfolio be in things like stocks and bonds. What are you doing for retirement? Are you maxing out any tax-advantaged options that you have available? It might be better to do that before entering the real estate market.
Realtors cost a ton of money but they provide a useful service: not only helping you find a house but also knowing how to deal with all the paperwork. Plenty of people do it, though. I presume they get the title agency or the bank or somebody to help with the paperwork. There are also discount realtors out there who don't show your home, do little or nothing to market it, basically just help you with the paperwork, and then charge a very low fee. Timing closing for a certain day of the month can reduce what you owe at closing time -- by reducing the amount of interest you pay on the first month's loan payment -- but it doesn't save you any money. You'll make it up over the course of the loan. You might possibly save some money by timing closing around when property taxes are due. Theoretically this shouldn't matter: the theory is that they pro-rate property taxes between buyer and seller so each pays the taxes for the time when they own the house. So again, you might need less cash at closing but you'll make it up the next time property taxes are due. But the formulas the banks use on this are often goofy. Maybe if you live some place with high property taxes this is worth investigating. You could skip the inspection. But inspections I've had done generally cost about $500. If they found something that was a major issue, they might save you from buying a house that would cost tens of thousands in repairs. Or less dramatically, you can use the inspection report for leverage with the seller to get repairs done at the seller's expense. I once had an inspector report problems with the roof and so I negotiated with the seller that they would pay for a percentage of roof repair. I suppose if you're buying a house that you know is run down and will require major work, an inspection might be superfluous. Or if you know enough about construction that you can do an inspection yourself. Otherwise, it's like not buying insurance: sure, you save a little up front, but you're taking a huge risk. So what can you control? (a) Shop around for fire insurance. Maybe save hundreds of dollars.
You can definitely get access to cash during the selling of your home and buying of a new one. Think of the home sale and buy as two distinct transactions. As long as your mortgage qualification doesn't depend on all the proceeds from the first sale being rolled into the new mortgage, you'll be fine.
I think the consensus is that you can't afford a home now and need to build more of a down payment (20% is benchmark, you may also need to pay mortgage insurance if you are below that) and all considered, it takes up too much of your monthly budget. You didn't do anything wrong but as mentioned by Ben, you are missing some monthly and yearly costs with home ownership.  I suggest visiting a bank or somewhere like coldwell banker to discuss accurate costs and regulations in your area. I know the feeling of considering paying more now for the very attractive thought of owning a home... in 30 years. After interest, you need to consider that you are paying almost double the initial principle so don't rush for something you can do a year or two down the line as a major commitment.  One major point that isn't emphasized in the current answers. You have a large family: Two children, a dog, and a cat.  I don't know the kid's ages but given you are in your early twenties and your estimated monthly costs, they are probably very young before the point they really put any stress financially but you need to budget them in exponentially. Some quick figures from experience. Closing costs including inspections, mortgage origination fee, lawyer fees, checking the history of the home for liens, etc, which will set you back minimum 5% depending on the type of purchase (short sales, foreclosures are more expensive because they take longer) Insurance (home and flood) will depend on your zoning but you can expect anywhere between $100-300 a month. For many zones it is mandatory.  Also depending on if it's a coop ($800+), condo($500+) or a townhouse-type you will need to pay different levels of monthly maintenance for the groundskeeping as a cooperative fee.  at an estimate of a 250K home, all your savings will not be able to cover your closing costs and all 250k will need to be part of your base mortgage. so your base monthly mortgage payment at around 4% will be $1,200 a month. it's too tight.  If it was a friend, I would highly suggest against buying in this case to preserve financial flexibility and sanity at such a young age.
Then an insurance fee takes the role of paying for a permanent backup credit line (and should not be more expensive than that). The social aspect is that even events which wouldn't strictly ruin a person might still force them to, say, sell their Manhattan penthouse (no more parties!) or cancel their country club membership. That is a social pain which is probably to be avoided. Another socioeconomic aspect is that you may have a relationship to the person selling you the insurance. Perhaps he buys his car at your dealership? Perhaps he is your golf buddy? Then the insurance may be a good investment. It is only borderline bad to begin with; any benefits move the line into the profit zone. The psychological aspect is that an insurance buys peace of mind, and that often seems to be the most important benefit. A dart hits the flat screen? Hey, it was insured. Junior totals the Ferrari? Hey, it was insured. Even if the house burns down having fire insurance will be a consolation."
Kate Gregory has already covered maintenance and tools. As a one-off, there's furniture and soft furnishings for the home. Cable/satellite TV if you want it. You listed car insurance, but not fuel, servicing, repairs and depreciation/leasing (as applicable). And, there's also food.
Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble."
Mostly ditto Pete B's answer. There's little you can do about closing costs. Some closing costs are government fees. There's nothing you can do about this. Sad and unfair as it is, taxes are not optional and not generally negotiable. Title insurance and fire insurance are required by the lender. Even if you're paying cash, you don't really want to skip on these. If your house burns down and you have no insurance ... well, if you're worried about saving a few hundred on your closing costs, I assume that losing $200,000 because your house burned down and you have no insurance would be a pretty bad thing. Title insurance protects you against the possibility that the seller doesn't really legally own the property, maybe a scam, more likely a mistake or a technicality. You can, and certainly should, shop around for a better deal on insurance. Last couple of housing transactions I made, title insurance was a one-time fee of around $200. (I'm sure this depends on the cost of the house, where you live, maybe other factors.) Maybe by shopping around I could have saved $10 or $20, but I doubt there's someone out there charging $50 when everyone else is charging $200. Fire insurance you're probably paying a couple of thousand a year, more opportunity for savings. Typically the buyer and the seller each have a realtor and they split the fee. If you go without a realtor but the seller hires one, she'll keep the entire fee. So the only way to avoid this expense is if neither of you has a realtor. I've never done that. Realtors cost a ton of money but they provide a useful service: not only helping you find a house but also knowing how to deal with all the paperwork. Plenty of people do it, though. I presume they get the title agency or the bank or somebody to help with the paperwork. There are also discount realtors out there who don't show your home, do little or nothing to market it, basically just help you with the paperwork, and then charge a very low fee.
Also, related to point 2, if you have something other than a linear or annuity mortgage, you will need to refinance to do this as the tax advantages around savings mortgages ([bank]spaarhypotheken) do not apply if it is not used as your own residence. Finally, if you choose to sell and you are in the happy position of having the value of your house be greater than the value of your mortgage (you have an overwaarde), there may still be some obstacles. Any value you have accumulated in a linked savings or life insurance account is not available until after you sell your house. Extra value derived purely from the difference between mortgage value and sale price may be easier to deal with. EDIT: As a final note, I've made extra payments on both a ""Spaarhypotheek"" (linked life insurance) and a ""Bankspaarhypotheek"" (linked savings account). In one, the principal paid each month reduced and the mortgage lifetime stayed the same. In the other, the principal paid each month stayed the same and the lifetime reduced. In both cases, interest payments were less each month. I would contact your mortgage provider to understand what the expected impact of extra payments will be."
lets sat If I buy a house on company's name, It will declared as expense and will deduct from profit. but I am not sure If I can rent it out as a IT LTD company. that's my questions. Buying a house is not an expense, it is a transfer of assets.  The house itself, is an asset.  So if you have $100,000 in cash, buy a house for $35,000, your total assets will remain the same ($100,000), but your asset mix will be different (instead of $100,000 in cash, you now have $65,000 in cash, and $35,000 in property). You can expense the costs associated with buying the house (e.g. taxes, interest, legal fees), but the house itself stays on the asset side of your balance sheet.  To refine the example above, if you buy the house for $35,000, and pay $5,000 in misc fees related to purchasing the house, your assets are now $95,000 ($60,000 in cash, $35,000 in house): the $5,000 reduction is from the actual fees associated with the purchase.  It is these fees that lower your profit. Being not familiar with UK rules, in Canada and the US, and likely the UK, you would then depreciate the house over its useful life.  The depreciation expense is deducted from your annual net income. If you rent out the house, what you can do is expense any maintenance fees, taxes, etc., on the house itself.  This expense will count as a negative towards the rental income, lowering your effective taxable income from the rental.  E.g. rent out a flat at $1,000/month, but your property taxes are $3,500/year, so your net income for tax purposes (i.e. your taxable income in this case) is $12,000-$3,500=$8,500.
The primary reason to put 20% down on your home is to avoid paying PMI (private mortgage insurance).  Anyone who buys a house with a down-payment of under 20% is required to pay for this insurance (which protects the lender in case you default on your loan). PMI is what enables people to buy homes with as little as 3-5% down. I would recommend against paying more than 20%, because having liquidity for emergency funds, or other investments will give you the sort of flexibility that's good to have when the economy isn't so great.  Depending on whether the house you purchase is move-in ready or a fixer-upper, having funds set aside for repairs is a good idea as well.
"As others have pointed out, it's all about a fixed, small cost versus the potential of a large cost. If you have insurance, you know you will pay a fixed amount per month. There is a 100% probability that you will have to pay this premium. If you don't have insurance, there is a large chance that you will have no cost in any given month, and a small chance that you will have a large cost. Like my home-owners insurance costs me about $50 per month. If I didn't have insurance and my house burned down, I would be out something like $100,000. What's the chance that my house will burn down this month? Very small. But I'd rather pay $50 and not have to worry about it. On the other hand, I just bought a filing cabinet for $160 and the store offered me an ""extended warranty"" for something like $20 a year. What's the probability that some accident will happen that damages my filing cabinet? Pretty small. Even if it did, I think I could handle shelling out $160. I can imagine my stomach in knots and lying awake at nights worrying about the possibility of losing $100,000 or finding myself homeless. I can't imagine lying awake at nights worrying about losing $160 or being force to stuff my files under the bed. I'll take my chances. When I was young and had even less money than I have now, I bought cars that cost me a thousand dollars or. Even poor as I was, I knew that if the car was totaled I could dig up the cash to buy another. It wasn't worth paying the insurance premium. These days I'm driving a car that cost me $6,000. I have collision and comprehensive insurance, but I think it's debatable. I bought the car with cash to begin with, and if I had to I could scrape up the cash to replace it. Especially considering that my last payment for my daughter's college tuition is due next month and then that expense is gone. :-)"
Banks buy up, because they get free money at 0.1% interest or so. It does not mean that anybody will afford the houses at those prices in the future. The price will not go up to infinity, unless there is a major inflation round, in which case you will have to wait a decade to sell the house at nominal price after the central bankers let you to do so.   But then again. it is better to own a house in that case, than not having one.
"I would not classify utilities (including electric) as additional fees.  In many cases you interact directly with the utility (not the landlord) and pay for what you use.  There are exceptions like when renting a room. The renter's insurance also is not part of the landlord's profit, it is simply there to protect you.  In the case of loss, the landlord cannot insure your property. You have to provide your own insurance.  Its pretty low costs, typically less than 20 per month. The application fee is typical.   The move in fee is something that could be negotiated away and sounds pretty sketchy.   You can always ""let your fingers do the walking"" and find out the fees before you look at the place."
As a 24 year old, single,your needs for insurance are minimal. Why you might consider it are for these reasons. You are young, so it will be cheaper than buying say at 34. Insurance is always on sale. Two, there is no guarantee that your health will always be good, you may have to pay additional premiums later or even be refused coverage. Ask me, I pay 70% more than others my age for the same coverage.  Three, insurance ownership with equity values can grow tax free as you accumulate the monies. Consider it like a bond portfolio offering guaranteed returns on portions of the growth, and a long term return of 5.5% or slighly more. Four, stating sooner versus later means more cash buildup. Just like being in a pension will generate more cash for you by age 65, than if you had started at age 34. Insurance is only one tool in getting a good start. It is not a panacea.
One legal source (see the discussion on p24) states that: whatever else the ACA does with excepted benefit policies, including specific disease and fixed dollar indemnity policies, it does explicitly provide that such policies do not count as minimum essential coverage for purposes of the ACA This seems pretty straightforward; a dread disease (or ""specific disease"" policy, as it's referred to in the article), won't count towards the minimum essential requirements. This may not be an issue for you, but for others, it's important to understand that you'll still need to pay the penalty if you only purchase one of these policies. The ACA spells this out in Section 5000(f) (see p316, which states that ""excepted benefit policies"" are excluded and defines them using the definition in the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). **The PSHA specifically includes ""Coverage only for a specified disease or illness"" in their definition of ""excepted benefit policies"" (see section 2791(b), paragraph 3A on p82, so it's probably a safe bet that such policies won't count towards the minimum. Also, as Rick pointed out in the comments, the Affordable Care Act also forbids lifetime limits on most insurance plans, so assuming you find an insurance policy with adequate coverage for the specific disease you're worried about, such a plan should cover the related expenses without a lifetime limit. Deductibles, annual limits, and other factors may complicate this somewhat. In the section about lifetime limits (Sec. 2711, p2), the Affordable Care Act states that: A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish ... lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary.
You submitted a claim for damage to the deck. The insurance company notified the mortgage company. Now the mortgage company wants to make sure that the collateral for the loan is still in good condition. They want you to make the repairs that you insisted needed to be done. They may even require you to use a licensed contractor before releasing the funds. Once you own the house without a mortgage, then you can decide for yourself if minor repairs need to be done.
So this deal does prevent you from getting a larger share of any gains in the value of the property, but it also helps insulate you from any losses. That's important to keep in mind. There's also the issue of needing their consent to sell. That's potentially problematic - usually in a joint ownership scheme, either owner has the right to demand to be bought out or to force a sale. I guess it depends on whether you think your parents would be likely to consent under reasonable circumstances, or to insist on holding the property against your best interests. It's true that you aren't building equity with this arrangement, and if you thought you were, you are mistaken or misled. But let's compare it with other options. If you would qualify for a traditional 30-year fixed mortgage at 3%, your monthly payment would be slightly lower ($484), and you would be building some equity because your payments would reduce the principal as well as paying the interest. But a 30-year loan builds equity very slowly at first - after 7 years you'd have only about $20,000 in principal paid down. If we assume that 5.2% represents the interest rate you'd otherwise pay based on your creditworthiness, then your monthly payment would be $631. So compared to that, you have an extra $130 per month that you can save or invest in whatever you want - you're not forced to invest it in your house. Note that in either case you'd still be paying the condo fees, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance yourself. So we might as well eliminate those from consideration. It might be a good idea to find out what other options you would have - perhaps try to get an interest rate quote on a traditional mortgage from a bank, based on your income and credit history. Then you can decide what to do, taking into account: your financial situation; how much of a monthly payment could you afford? your relationship with your parents; are they likely to be reasonable about renegotiating? Do they in general tend to respect your wishes? Would it harm your relationship if you tried to get out of the deal, and how important is that to you? To what extent do you actually want to pay for equity in this property?