Hacker News Reader

Comment by drsnyder | Hacker News Reader

I understand the longing to be close to family, but unless her yearly income is somewhere around 200K, she shouldn't have bought the house. I'm basing that on 20% down, and a mortgage of about 3x income ((730 * 0.8) / 3). I'm not sure where it comes from, but this has been the historical guideline for affordability.

View on HN

I'm not sure where you're getting your 3x income numbers from, but they're simply ludicrous. With a mortgage of 3x your income, your mortgage will be less than 20% of your salary. For example, with an $85000/yr income, you earn about $5300 post-tax per month, and your mortgage payment is only $1350. If you consider home owning to be important to you, surely you can afford paying more than that for your mortgage.

Furthermore, it is impossible to find a home in the bay area for under $600,000. I'm certain that those starter homes are not being occupied by high net-worth individuals with $200,000/yr salaries.

I have been told that your monthly payments should not be more than 45% of your monthly household post-tax income. That comes out to a mortgage that can be about 5x your income. With those numbers, the lady in the article should've had a household (her + her husband) income of about $150,000/yr.

I'm a recent buyer of a $625,000 home with a $85,000/yr salary and I have no problems keeping up with my payments and establishing an emergency fund.

He's right. The traditional guideline is that you should pay about 30% of your net income on housing. You're right that the bay area is "different", but that doesn't mean it's different in a reasonable way. Most people really can't afford to own property here, by traditional standards.

Also, I'd like to point out that this woman took out an interest-only loan for the bulk of her debt, skimped on the deposit, and secured with another loan. Even if we use your standard (45% of net income), there's no way that she could afford the property.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com