Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

whilst im always one for paying in cash and minimizing credit usage, i always wondered why 20% down was required for a house when taking out a loan. At the end of the day a loan is a loan, regardless of how much money is put down, be it 100% financing, or 80% financing. And when you think about it, the bank owns your house followed by gov, even if 99.9% of it is paid off, thanks to the way lien laws work. So really, whilst in a sound money system, one would pay cash for a house, all the downpayment is doing is giving free equity to a bunch of parasitical kikes so they can gamble it away

whilst im always one for paying in cash and minimizing credit usage, i always wondered why 20% down was required for a house when taking out a loan. At the end of the day a loan is a loan, regardless of how much money is put down, be it 100% financing, or 80% financing. And when you think about it, the bank owns your house followed by gov, even if 99.9% of it is paid off, thanks to the way lien laws work. So really, whilst in a sound money system, one would pay cash for a house, all the downpayment is doing is giving free equity to a bunch of parasitical kikes so they can gamble it away

(post is archived)

[–] • 0 pt

The 20% down to the seller is so that there is enough equity in the home to work out in the banks favor if they have to repo the house in a down market, and then sell the house, there should still (over 99% of the time) be enough value left in the house that they can get their "loan" money back.

I have heard of people, when forced out of their home by the bank, breaking as much shit in the house as possible on the last day (punching in all walls, pouring wet cement down the drains so it hardens under the house and then has to be dug up to be replaced, leaving something to rot deep in the air ducts, shutting off the main water valve to the house, then going into the walls and cutting the pipes in strategic places so that the water can still flow to a bunch of different places, but soaks a lot of the walls, causes rot and flooding to different areas of the house). I don't know what kind of shit one would get into doing this, but something to think about if you have nothing to lose.

[–] • 0 pt

(((OP)))

putting 20% down is bad!!!!

Nice way to align (((yourself))) with the new (((FED))) standards that punish people (Whites) who plan ahead and save to be able to put 20%+ down on their home.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

in a SOUND money world, putting 20% down would make sense. However, we don't live in this world. The 20% you put down is collateral on the loan, but the bank owns the equity. And on top of this, your loan gets sold off repeatedly to new vendors, making that equity leveraged multiple times over. If the bank owns the primary lien on your house, and you give them 20% of the value of the purcahse price, how is that not anything else but giving the bank free money to gamble with?

[–] • 0 pt

You didn't do a very good job of refuting his argument bud. Reeing and calling him a kike isn't a good rebuttal.

[–] • 0 pt

He had zero argument, that's why. There was nothing to 'refute'.

[–] • 0 pt

He wasn't making an argument. He made a statement. You rebutted his statement by telling him his statement was wrong because you said so.