Transfer to spouse...divorce.....nothing....
Never say never going to happen.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
PSA - things I should have done....
- Thread starter drgndrvr
- Start date
Transfer to spouse...divorce.....nothing....
Never say never going to happen.
Agreed.
However, you can always revoke it or just change it to so the ex-spouse gets zero and it all goes to the kids.
This is probably why only the servicemember can change the allocation of it. Unless they were able to log onto the website using your credentials, in which case it would be a criminal offense anyway to do so fraudulently.
Yeah, but hopefully you're not having kids while the marriage is swirling the drain. This will get your 4-year clock ticking while the kid is on the way, then once they're in DEERS you can transfer it again with no additional commitment.
And yet again I will say that my original response was to the conversation about INVESTMENTS.
As for real estate tycoon dramas, I'm not sure why you are so hostile. I own the same number of properties as it sounds like you do--one. So the condescension seems a bit misplaced.
And you are ignoring the the stock market also appreciates. So that's more or less a wash. How much would that $60k down payment, plus the monthly investment of the additional $x00 per month in lower costs, have grown in the stock market?
The one thing I agree with you about is that if we are talking primary residence in which you live and only for the time you live there, then yes, there are great online calculators, of which the NYT version is most respected. And when I enter the info both for the place I rent and the one I own, in both cases is says... renting is better. As it does for most markets in the US. I can't try it with your numbers because you weren't upfront with what they are. And I guess I don't care, either. But I hope that people will do the research instead of buying into the age-old truism that has now become more of an urban legend (or perhaps "suburban legend" is more appropriate) that owning is the path to wealth. And the ridiculous notion that "renting is throwing money away". If they (or you) do the math (including accurate maintenance predictions for the future, and remembering that the alternative is a [hopefully] growing stock market, not hookers and blow) and renting is more expensive than owning, then of course they should strongly consider buying. And there are a few markets in the country where that's the case. I'm not anti-buying. (And I acknowledge that there are lots of very valid, non-financial reasons to own, like stability, pet considerations, being able to customize, etc.) I'm anti- blinding buying when rent is most likely--but yes, not always--cheaper because someone said, "renting is wasting money" and you glommed on to that and assumed it was true. I'm anti- uninformed decisions and uninvestigated math.
Like it or not, renting and investing all the difference is nearly always better financially than owning. If that's not the case for your house, congratulations! Or if it is the case but you own because you want the security of knowing your home will never be sold out from under you forcing you to move, or because you want to turn the fourth bedroom into a sex lair and a landlord would never let you do the reenforcing of the joists necessary to support the kind of equipment you want, or because you own 14 dogs and a pony and no one would ever rent to you, great.
This thread is about things people should consider regarding finances so they don't have regrets. And they should consider whether it is truly cheaper to buy or rent, and they should consider whether owning properties (and yes, for the eleventieth time, I know that's not what you specifically are talking about) is actually a wise financial strategy. In most cases, someone is better off dumping that money in an index fund.
Definitely. A renter is indirectly paying property taxes, via a middleman (the landlord). The difference is that this number is baked into the rent; it isn't baked into a mortgage. (People use the term "mortgage" different. Some mean P+I and Other P+I+T+I.) Same with HOA, maintenance, and even Property manager fees where applicable. They are de facto included in rent, certainly. But they aren't included in a mortgage, so they have to be added there if you want to compare total costs for your living arrangements.
And this is exactly the problem. As a renter, my only cost is the one rent check I write. Comparing that to the one mortgage check an owner writes (even if that includes insurance and escrowed property taxes) is comparing an orange to half an apple. Yet it's how many people make the comparison, so no wonder the owning looks more desirable than it probably is.
To be honest with you, the argument of renting a house vs owning a house should be trivial with even moderate financial success. If you think the costs of doing one vice another is going to matter in the long run, I would suggest refocusing your efforts on increasing your earning potential. How many houses does @HAL Pilot own? Do you think he's sweating the cost of a new water heater?
The point of owning your primary home is building up equity. Ideally, by the time you're an oldster, you don't have a mortgage anymore. You have free and clear title to a house, don't have a housing payment to have to pull out of your nest egg, and can pass that wealth on to your heirs.
It matters in the theme of this thread and I think the question we're trying very hard to avoid answering is: "should an RP buy a house at his first duty station?"
My wife (then-gf) and iput an offer on a 1910-20 Craftsman house right when I found out I was staying in Norfolk. Original wiring, one bathroom, I get cold chills thinking about it now. I am not exactly Mr. Handy, nor is my wife, and besides, when all was said and done I spent all or part of 20 or 21 months of my 36 month tour gone. We asked for too many things post inspection and the seller said no way.
Probably one of the best things that ever happened to us. That house would’ve been an absolute nightmare and money pit, especially considering that we only would’ve lived in it for three years. It’s easy to get sucked into the “I’m going to stay here forever” trap, especially if you’ve drunk the kool-aid at the rag, but I know way too many people who are O-5s now, and are still underwater on property in the Hampton Roads area or have spent 10-12 years dealing with the hassle of being a long-distance landlord. We both had good jobs and were in the “let’s not waste money on rent, let’s make it work for us instead!” camp and it might’ve worked out okay, but I’m glad we didn’t press to test.
BLAB: I would tell anyone in the service to be VERY wary of buying at their first sea duty station.
Probably one of the best things that ever happened to us. That house would’ve been an absolute nightmare and money pit, especially considering that we only would’ve lived in it for three years. It’s easy to get sucked into the “I’m going to stay here forever” trap, especially if you’ve drunk the kool-aid at the rag, but I know way too many people who are O-5s now, and are still underwater on property in the Hampton Roads area or have spent 10-12 years dealing with the hassle of being a long-distance landlord. We both had good jobs and were in the “let’s not waste money on rent, let’s make it work for us instead!” camp and it might’ve worked out okay, but I’m glad we didn’t press to test.
BLAB: I would tell anyone in the service to be VERY wary of buying at their first sea duty station.
I would tell anyone in the service to be VERY wary of blanket statements. I bought in SD and my house is valued somewhere in the neighborhood 1.75 times my purchase price.
Fair enough.
Also, congratulations. I think you’re the exception rather than the rule. I know exactly zero people (in real life, so I don’t count you) who made a windfall like that in terms of their first house. And more people who gave up doing what they wanted to do for their shore tour and instead had to root around for jobs to keep them in the area because they were underwater on their house.
My advice to a Cat One would instead be to rent someplace sweet, keep the costs down, and invest that money instead. Another part of my background is that I have a hard time telling someone, even now, to take out a 30 year loan for something they don’t want to live in forever.
Sounds like you’d tell them something different. Perfect. But I’m okay with my blanket statement telling a twenty-something to think hard about buying property just because they think they can make a killing on it in three years.
And the point of owning equities (and to a much lesser degree, bonds) is building up value over time. Ideally, by the time you are an oldster, you have enough to either pay off the mortgage on your forever home or throw off enough cash to pay rent, and you can pass your wealth on to your heirs.
So? The question (outside of the non-financial reasons one might choose to own a home) is simply which one is more likely to leave you with more money. The problem is that people only look at pieces of the equation and then they make a half-informed decision, and this is a perfect example of that. Your $500,000 house is now worth $1m by the time it is paid off ***! Congratulations! But if you would have rented a comparable house and had all the money you've spent on various housing costs, minus the almost certainly lower amount of money you spent on rent, then if your portfolio would likely be worth $1.2 million, you are worse off for having bought.
People look at only a PI or maybe PITI mortgage amount vs rent, and make a decision. They look at the equity growth in the house, but not the growth they'd see in actual equities.
And that's why I keep posting. If buying is truly a better financial option (and in rare cases, it certainly is), that's probably what someone should do. But the methods most people us to determine that are deeply flawed. Or they don't use any method other than "conventional wisdom says...". And that's the problem, and what ends up hurting people.
In some cases, the differences may be < 5%, in which case it probably doesn't matter all that much. But in other cases, it's a significant difference, as it would be in the place I currently rent. People need to do the research and the math and be open to other outcomes. Even if that means accepting that what they did in the past wasn't optimal. (And I include myself in that camp. )
I know exactly zero people who gave up orders to babysit an underwater house. But now that I've had a minute to think about it, I realize there's some really sound advice we should be giving to young JOs:
Get orders to San Diego, avoid Norfolk at all costs. ?