Live data from Hacker News

Renting vs. buying a home

khanacademy.org

101–110 of 155 posts

Re: Renting vs. buying a home

#101
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except your example conveniently leaves out: 1) Property Taxes Between 0.18% to 1.89% in the US. Let's assume the mean of the two for 1.035%. In the first year, that would be a payment of $5,175. Over 30 years, using the same 3% inflation to calculate the future value of an annuity, that works out to $246,202.78 2) Opportunity cost of down payment. Assuming a 20% down payment of $100,000, the future value of that mon…

... And in the end, for that trivial difference of $125,000 over 30 years ($350 a month) - you get to stop making mortgage payments on the house . And you can sell your investment in the house at any point during or after those 30 years. You never stop making rental payments. Worth it.

Or you can gift it to your children who never have to pay anything but property taxes on the property for their entire lives. Or they could sell it as part of your estate and buy a house somewhere else. Home ownership can lead to generational wealth.

Re: Renting vs. buying a home

#102
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except your example conveniently leaves out: 1) Property Taxes Between 0.18% to 1.89% in the US. Let's assume the mean of the two for 1.035%. In the first year, that would be a payment of $5,175. Over 30 years, using the same 3% inflation to calculate the future value of an annuity, that works out to $246,202.78 2) Opportunity cost of down payment. Assuming a 20% down payment of $100,000, the future value of that mon…

To your points: Property tax is factored into rent so you are paying it one way or another. Your return on your 'down payment' has to be well above average to make up for your otherwise 100% loss on rent. And there is insurance you can buy at about $400/yr that will take care of most of your maintenance and upkeep.

Right, property tax is already included in rent, as is upkeep/maintenance. Therefore, those needed to be added to the ownership costs to make it an apples to apples comparison.

Interest is 100% loss also, so what's your point? The cost of both are already factored into the calculations.

$400/yr insurance is not going to cover anywhere near the full cost of maintenance and upkeep.

Re: Renting vs. buying a home

#103
post #78
post #61

The numbers here are weird at least in my area, so it's hard to compare. But in general, in most places, over a 30 year comparison, buying is better than renting unless you get very lucky with your alternative investment decisions. A couple things to add, house payments stay exactly the same over a very long time. They don't increase at all . The absolute dollar amount is fixed. So while rent in an area might triple…

Except your example conveniently leaves out: 1) Property Taxes Between 0.18% to 1.89% in the US. Let's assume the mean of the two for 1.035%. In the first year, that would be a payment of $5,175. Over 30 years, using the same 3% inflation to calculate the future value of an annuity, that works out to $246,202.78 2) Opportunity cost of down payment. Assuming a 20% down payment of $100,000, the future value of that mon…

If you're going to do a complete calculation, you also need to factor in the value of the tax write-off from the buy side. Depending on your income and marginal tax bracket, that could be significant enough to swing this equation in favor of the buyer.

Re: Renting vs. buying a home

#104
post #98
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except your example conveniently leaves out: 1) Property Taxes Between 0.18% to 1.89% in the US. Let's assume the mean of the two for 1.035%. In the first year, that would be a payment of $5,175. Over 30 years, using the same 3% inflation to calculate the future value of an annuity, that works out to $246,202.78 2) Opportunity cost of down payment. Assuming a 20% down payment of $100,000, the future value of that mon…

Oh, and one more thing, the $783,370 figure doesn't take the time value of money into account, but your total rent paid figure does. In order to balance this out, we'd need to take a look at the future value of an annuity for your mortgage payments of $2176.03/mo or $26,112.36/yr, which actually works out to $1,293,862.17, bringing the total cost of ownership to $1,635,215.78.

So you're kind of just tossing all kinds of big numbers out. Would you mind walking through your calculations?

$26,112.36/yr * 30 years = $783,370 not 1,293,862. And then suddenly we're at $1,635,215? Where in the world did $341,353 come from?

Rent takes into account time-value because rent goes up, mortgage payments don't and it's very easy to make them go down. Mortgages actually stay fixed today and into the future at a worst case, and can actually become cheaper over 30 years, while rent almost never does.

edit are you comparing the cost of buying a home vs. the cost of starting an annuity at the same price as a home? If I had $500,000 to start with I'd just buy the house outright and not mess with a mortgage at all. Now I can pump up whatever investment instrument I want.

More importantly, you typically can't withdraw from an annuity until you hit 59 1/2. If you're at that age and have spent the last 40 years paying rent, you've already made some bad investment decisions.

Re: Renting vs. buying a home

#105
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your points: Property tax is factored into rent so you are paying it one way or another. Your return on your 'down payment' has to be well above average to make up for your otherwise 100% loss on rent. And there is insurance you can buy at about $400/yr that will take care of most of your maintenance and upkeep.

Right, property tax is already included in rent, as is upkeep/maintenance. Therefore, those needed to be added to the ownership costs to make it an apples to apples comparison. Interest is 100% loss also, so what's your point? The cost of both are already factored into the calculations. $400/yr insurance is not going to cover anywhere near the full cost of maintenance and upkeep.

> Interest is 100% loss also, so what's your point? The cost of both are already factored into the calculations.

Everybody knows that. That's why you can take positive action to minimize interest outlay over the lifetime of the loan and reduce that loss. From refinancing, to shorter loan terms, to early principal pay down. You can't do anything analogous as a renter. Interest is only a small part of the total mortgage payments, while rent is a 100% loss always.

> $400/yr insurance is not going to cover anywhere near the full cost of maintenance and upkeep.

Maintenance and upkeep on my house costs way under $400/year.

Re: Renting vs. buying a home

#106
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except your example conveniently leaves out: 1) Property Taxes Between 0.18% to 1.89% in the US. Let's assume the mean of the two for 1.035%. In the first year, that would be a payment of $5,175. Over 30 years, using the same 3% inflation to calculate the future value of an annuity, that works out to $246,202.78 2) Opportunity cost of down payment. Assuming a 20% down payment of $100,000, the future value of that mon…

... And in the end, for that trivial difference of $125,000 over 30 years ($350 a month) - you get to stop making mortgage payments on the house . And you can sell your investment in the house at any point during or after those 30 years. You never stop making rental payments. Worth it.

See my follow-up comment, the difference is actually $1,635,215.78 - $999,083.727 = $636,132.053

Depending on the residual value of the building and the land value in 30 years, that may or may not be worth it. My point was just that the example was highly biased, not whether it's better to rent or to buy.

Note also that if you sell, you will have to pay realtor commissions and a capital gains tax on the nominal value.

Re: Renting vs. buying a home

#108
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent is largely a function of house prices and house prices haven't been going up constantly, in most US cities house prices are still below-2006 prices. S&P House Price index: http://us.spindices.com/indices/real-estate/sp-case-shiller-... Investing in a house is a gamble on house prices going up, which if you're going to make it you should do with a full understanding that historically there have been many house pr…

I think most people in this thread are not talking about buying a house as an investment, but rather, as a value store compared to rent.

The two are inseparable, buying a house to avoid variable rent prices doesn't reduce your exposure to the housing market, it actually increases it because you're leveraging against it (because you're borrowing money to do it).

If house prices drop you can be stuck in negative equity whereby you owe more money on your house than it's worth which can easily bankrupt you. If you're renting that's obviously a problem you're not exposed to and you actually benefit from a declining market as your rent decreases.

Re: Renting vs. buying a home

#109
Homeownership is about psychology. Taking out reckless drug use, the #1 predictor of whether a person will have mental health issues (from depression to schizophrenia) is the number of involuntary moves due to adverse economic circumstances. That feeling of being "chased", when coupled with low social status and economic failure, does psychiatric harm that takes decades to recover from-- especially in children.

Owning a home makes people feel safe. Renters know they can be priced out at the end of a lease cycle. (Most of the yuppie "luxury" buildings, because they target people who work obscene hours, pack an automatic 15-20% increase in the first year, just because people hate moving.) Owning may be a worse deal on average (expectancy) but it doesn't pack as much volatility.

The error is in the idea that homeownership provides protection. As the OP points out, a mortgage is just renting from a bank. If you have a catastrophic income loss, you're just as exposed to eviction. This can even be true if your mortgage is paid off-- if you lose the ability to pay property taxes.

I don't like being an involuntary renter (read: I made too many bad calls in my 20s) but homeownership in a city is almost always a bad idea. It's an investment that (a) you cannot move and (b) other people can fuck with by, say, building ugly things near it. The obscene cost of housing in most cities has far more to do with NIMBYism than natural supply/demand issues, when the real problem is just that urban homeownership is a pretty raw deal.

This analysis didn't even cover upkeep and transaction costs, or (even worse) the career-altering loss of geographic mobility. Urban homeownership is entirely about prestige and emotion; it makes no sense otherwise. But it's an enormously expensive hobby, making boats and cars look like childrens' toys.

Renting is throwing money away, but so is owning in most cases. The best we can do is to make housing a commodity (what suburbia originally intended to accomplish, but at horrific costs) or, more accurately, to accept the fact that that's what it is. That is, we need to tell the NIMBYs to choke on a dick and build high-rises (i.e. solve the supply crisis that is making housing more expensive than the natural $125-175/ft^2 level-- price of new house construction-- at which it belongs) yesterday.

Re: Renting vs. buying a home

#110
post #104
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, and one more thing, the $783,370 figure doesn't take the time value of money into account, but your total rent paid figure does. In order to balance this out, we'd need to take a look at the future value of an annuity for your mortgage payments of $2176.03/mo or $26,112.36/yr, which actually works out to $1,293,862.17, bringing the total cost of ownership to $1,635,215.78.

So you're kind of just tossing all kinds of big numbers out. Would you mind walking through your calculations? $26,112.36/yr * 30 years = $783,370 not 1,293,862. And then suddenly we're at $1,635,215? Where in the world did $341,353 come from? Rent takes into account time-value because rent goes up, mortgage payments don't and it's very easy to make them go down. Mortgages actually stay fixed today and into the futur…

It's a future value of an annuity calculation. http://www.ultimatecalculators.com/future_value_annuity_calc...

You do have to take into account the time value of money with the mortgage payments still, because $1 today is worth much more than $1 30 years from now. It's the difference between nominal dollars and real dollars.

Conversely, even though rent goes up in nominal dollars, it stays the same in real dollars (or even goes down as a house becomes less marketable over time).

Post reply on HN