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

©2025 Poal.co

428

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (8).
[–] [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?