bullshit. Sorry but this is the typical talk of the dummies (not suggesting you are one). a) why is debt free living difficult without super high income? Nonsense. If you did not purchase your big ass LCD TV, 300 movie channel subscription, this here, that there, then you would be debt free even as an average schmuck. b) yes, your math is correct, well in fact you would have to work for more than 2 years to buy such home cause you also need to eat. But that aside, what is your point? That you have to wait two (eternal) years to buy a home? Are Americans on average really that impatient? Shocking...
It is since your credit history WAS short AT THAT TIME if my understanding is correct. A few years living in states with accumulating credit history gives you 10K credit cards and later car with no down payment.
I agree middle class can live WITHOUT any debt, even lower class. Before signing any loan, we have to calculate entire interest for the contract period. Always banks makes money as same as you shall lose, based on zero-sum principle. It is like very healthy life, such as bikers running with their own energy every day. Middle or lower class can ride a bike too.
I lost you right there: Why do I need a credit card. Most every insurance company at that time and today accepts aside credit cards also cheques and electronic transfer. Again, where does my credit or lack of credit history factor into this transaction? I can prepay my next month's premium in the same way by cheque than anyone else by credit card. P.S.: By the way I had a US issued credit card at that time which was not the issue. The issue was that the insurance company refused me for lack of sufficient credit history. Only now, according to what I read, do companies and legislators wake up and question the extensive use and reliance on credit scores.
My personal guess is that they want to watch your location where you purchase what you buy. That is why they like to give you credit card desperately. You have to show your location and behaviour of living style to them sufficiently. I also hate to show my personal matters like you. For example, if you use CC at a bar often, then you are more likely to drive drunken. If so, you premium should be higher than average, for company's long-term profit.
Having a mortgage is not the same as not being able to afford an asset. Unless you are completely incapable of investing, you should borrow and invest the proceeds. 3% interest tax deductible is a very low hurdle rate to beat. In the end you did get an insurance policy, right? Insurance companies like credit scores because better drivers usually have better credit scores. So, while you specifically were probably not a risk, your lack of credit history put you in a high risk bucket that most carriers didn't want to deal with.
In the US, he would get a loan from a bank willing to hold the mortgage inhouse (that is not package it up and sell it to an investor). In that situation, the bank can do almost anything they want. He probably has a good relationship with a bank from his medical practice who knows his business is sound and probably won't fail.
There are way better ways to gauge driving ability. How about driving records. I am not sure there is a national database of driving history but it makes much more sense. Insurance companies can as well place those into lower risk brackets that are vegetarians. Imho a pretty stupid approach to gauge risk. I disagree on the mortgage issue. You omit all the risk factors that go along with being in mortgage debt. And its one of the worst advice to take on a mortgage if you can pay up in cash. Makes zero sense.