Thread Content
It’s a market economy now; no one is involved in helping people find wives or dividing up houses. So we have to rely on ourselves – buy a house as large as we can afford. The question is whether it’s better to buy a larger house right away, or to opt for a smaller one to live in initially. The former comes with high mortgage payments in the short term, while the latter will result in additional burdens in the future as housing prices and costs rise. What would you do? ? ? ? ? ?
Personally, I don’t think 30% of a family’s high income is necessary
The size of the purchase should be determined based on an individual’s financial situation; it’s advisable for the mortgage payment not to exceed 20% of the family’s income! !
It seems that you can’t borrow as much as you want for a mortgage; it depends on your income proof. Generally, it’s around 30% I think.
If one lives in a house, then they can account for 50%
It also depends on how much your minimum monthly expenditure is; it’s hard to give a general answer. Banks generally approve loans based on half of that amount, that is, half of your monthly fixed income is used to repay the loan
Passing by, in confusion, seeking answers too
Ah, I just started working and with nothing yet, I feel a lot of pressure
30% would be better; otherwise, the pressure will be too great.
Hehe, there are no fixed rules for this thing; percentages are completely meaningless. If you have extra money and don’t know what to do with it, are you really going to stick to that 30% ratio and put the rest in the bank? Hehe
The pressure is very high as well. . . :A handshake means getting nothing in return and even incurring a loss = =