By What Age Should Someone Own/Have Bought a House?

You can change furniture and decor around though.

If couples don't move out and stay at the parents/in-laws' home, the husband isn't really the man of the house/head of household. The parent/in-law/grandpa is the man of the house. So, this could potentially cause some conflict. Similarly on the woman's side also, the mother/grandma is the woman of the house...she has ultimate say on decorations/arrangements/etc. I have some relatives living this way...it is not really ideal. There is no space to really bring friends/outsiders over, that is one concern too.

Also, you really don't feel comfortable having your marriage bed within hearing distance of your parents.

That would be very awkward too.

haha

I think by that time your parents or in-laws may have gone deaf

they could have a tiny house and the man could be head of the tiny house.

The wife can decorate it in miniature. They dont need visitors over. They can just go to the church or cafe.

Anyway many retirees just choose to sell up and have a licence to occupy a flat in a retirment village once their children have left home. So they not going to be head of any household once they do that. The staff and housekeepers of the village are and they dictate what villagers can or cant do with their flats or cottages. Mostly they dont let visitors stay over, and no children allowed to live there. so once they do they they not homeowners anymore but by that time, they dont care. They too old to fix the roof.

Just do the family compound thing, everyone has their own house, but on same plot of land, or have homes next door to each other.

I guess couples dont stop to think their children can actually hear their parents in their marriage bed either, works both ways. lol

You ought to see Detroit these days....it's a ghost town with entire neighborhoods and subdivisions abandoned. Places so scary even the gangs won't go into.

The houses used to be some of the most expensive and popular neighborhoods....now abandoned with even some of the plywood nailed over doors and windows stolen off of them. Roofs and walls caved in and collapsed covered porches.

It's bad....

And I think about the people who used to live there....those who had to abandon their homes....I'm sure that it wasn't pleasant by any means.

The governments and banksters are soon going to be running out greater fools. When it comes down to a choice between eating and paying the mortgage, no amount of government arm-twisting and bankster musical chairs will prevent the inevitable implosion.

BTW.....something like 40% of the GDP of Canada is connected to the uber government sponsored and driven housing bubble Ponzi. Now do you understand the extraordinary efforts to prevent an implosion?

I lived and worked in the metro Detroit area on and off for many years. Good times at least in the suburbs. But then again.....I was a young whipper snapper back in those days. Everything was a blast back then.

In the engineering biz at least, things started deteriorating rapidly in the early 2000's. It's toast now.
Never going back I can tell you that.

Just some friendly advice: start thinking in terms of a government "tax farm" and bankster "debt farm", and you are getting warm.

Oh.....and mafia terminology like "territory" "godfathers" capos" "goodfellas" "omerta" "made man" and "mob muscle" and their concomitant activities is really the way business is done in national politics regardless of the intentionally deceptive, feckless, blithe yet relentless and utterly vacuous protocols, traditions and rituals of calling one another "RIGHT HONORABLE".....when all they really do is lie, cheat and steal. And kill when necessary. By the millions quite frequently.

"“Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!”
-Andrew Jackson.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

“I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
–Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

“Everything predicted by the enemies of banks, in the beginning, is now coming to pass. We are to be ruined now by the deluge of bank paper. It is cruel that such revolutions in private fortunes should be at the mercy of avaricious adventurers, who, instead of employing their capital, if any they have, in manufactures, commerce, and other useful pursuits, make it an instrument to burden all the interchanges of property with their swindling profits, profits which are the price of no useful industry of theirs.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:61

“The art and mystery of banks… is established on the principle that ‘private debts are a public blessing.‘ That the evidences of those private debts, called bank notes, become active capital, and aliment the whole commerce, manufactures, and agriculture of the United States. Here are a set of people, for instance, who have bestowed on us the great blessing of running in our debt about two hundred millions of dollars, without our knowing who they are, where they are, or what property they have to pay this debt when called on.”

“I own it to be my opinion, that good will arise from the destruction of our credit. I see nothing else which can restrain our disposition to luxury, and to the change of those manners which alone can preserve republican government. As it is impossible to prevent credit, the best way would be to cure its ill effects by giving an instantaneous recovery to the creditor. This would be reducing purchases on credit to purchases for ready money. A man would then see a prison painted on everything he wished, but had not ready money to pay for.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1786. ME 5:259

“If the debt which the banking companies owe be a blessing to anybody, it is to themselves alone, who are realizing a solid interest of eight or ten per cent on it. As to the public, these companies have banished all our gold and silver medium, which, before their institution, we had without interest, which never could have perished in our hands, and would have been our salvation now in the hour of war; instead of which they have given us two hundred million of froth and bubble, on which we are to pay them heavy interest, until it shall vanish into air… We are warranted, then, in affirming that this parody on the principle of ‘a public debt being a public blessing,’ and its mutation into the blessing of private instead of public debts, is as ridiculous as the original principle itself. In both cases, the truth is, that capital may be produced by industry, and accumulated by economy; but jugglers only will propose to create it by legerdemain tricks with paper.”
–Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:423


“The Bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution. An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?”
–Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:437

Yeah....
Only once recently I had to "Nope!" My way out of a neighborhood.

I was in St Louis studying how to select and roast coffee. I had brought my wife with me and once classes were over we went sight seeing....looked over a very nice Cathedral....one of the most exquisite displays of mosaic art I had ever seen. (Dedicated to Saint Louis himself)

Then off to the Soldier Museum of WWII I think....dunno...I took one look and NOPED us outta there....only a garrison of armed soldiers could clear out the drug thugs in that park in front of the museum.

I did the math on this:

Principal alone (minus the interest payment of $3574) = $2260 a month

$2260 x 12 months = $27120 a year

$27120 x 72.5 years = $2,047,560 (Canadian)

These payments are for a more than $2 million dollar house. (Canadian)

In US dollars it's a $1.5 million dollar house.

I just wanted to see what the cost of this house is.

$2 million is a barely detached McMansion on a 50 foot lot in Toronto aka Canadian debt slave ground zero hell on earth.
Who wants a lifetime of unpayable debt so that you can enjoy a lifetime of unendurable traffic jams?
BTW.....Toronto is ugly ugly ugly. A horrible place.

https://www.realtor.ca/map#ZoomLeve...00000&BedRange=3-0&BathRange=2-0&Currency=CAD

I have owned in the past, but for the stage of life I'm in, I think that renting is working better for my needs (and the needs of my family.)

But there will always be people telling me I'm throwing money away by renting. I understand that, and if I had the option of knowing I'd be in the same place for 50 years and found an affordable place to buy, I would definitely consider it.

I'm happy for everyone who has or is buying a home and it's worked out well for them.

But I want to thank everyone for making these posts that are assuring me that I am doing the best I can with what I have.

One thing I'm thankful for with renting is that I don't have any institutions breathing down my neck with a large, looming number that I will owe them for the rest of my life, and they can't take anything away from me.

Sure, I realize that landlords can make places completely unaffordable by raising rent, but with so many people having to rent now, I would hope that this would at least keep the rates somewhat competitive.


It's a funny thing that this whole discussion has never answered the original question -- what age should a person be expected to have bought or own a house?


I wonder if reading these replies will change anyone's perceptions of being stressed out by not owning a home by a certain age, or develop a more lenient attitude of when someone should own a home or even their own place when considering a potential date, etc.

As a single woman, I have a good grasp on how expensive things are (especially from living in different places,) and I myself don't expect a potential date or spouse to own a home, or to even have his own place (unless it's out of sheer lack of responsibility or willingness to work, etc.)

Most singles I know can't afford their own places and live with family members to cut costs and/or provide necessary care. It's great if someone can afford their own place, but I think it's pretty rare. (If I'm wrong, feel free to state your own experiences/observations.)

I hope the answers in this thread have let some people out there know that not owning a home is perfectly understandable in today's conditions, and will feel a little less stressed about living up to social expectations.

I remember this big huge coffeetable book in the library it was called The Ruins of Detroit.

I think any place becomes run down eventually when you dont have anyone looking after it. But the photos in that book were heartbreaking. Even church buildings completely abandoned.

In Singapore everyone lived in HDBs or apartment buildings leased.
Before that people lived village style in kampungs.


If you were wealthy enough to have a multi generational home it was on a huge plantation with many rooms like the ones in Gone with the Wind, so there would be no problem with hearing your parents in a marriage bed or being overheard. but then you had slave quarters at the bottom and back of the homstead completely out of sight of your twelve oaks driveway. Unless you had an upstairs downstairs arrangement like Downton Abbey. It was all under one roof, but the servants just lived in the basement or attic.

I think what most people are after is a cottage, thought its funny cottages are a thing of the past and tiny homes have come in vogue instead. But not tiny gardens to go with them.

what everyone should own is their own tent or favela. Lets face it whats the use of owning a house when you cant afford to keep it standing. Just live in someone elses house and they can pay for the upkeep. You can offer your services as housekeeper, doorman, or maid and pretend you own it. we arent going to be owning any real estate in Heaven anyway it all belongs to God.

so this idea or expectation that we all should be our own landlords on earth when we really need to be serving THE LORD is a bit suss

what we can do is make friendswith unrighteous mammon and they will let us into their lasting habitations (ie they let out their place to us, since they have so many homes they dont know what to do with them, who really needs ten homes anyway)