71–80 of 497 posts
Article assumes that if you're a renter, you don't pay insurance. Which is true for a lot of renters; but they will lose everything if the place burns down. The landlord's policy will not cover the belongings of the renters. Comparing insured versus uninsured is stupid.
The “pro renting” crowd has a lot of consistent falacies in arguments: - Financial calculations ignore the leveraged nature of buying a home. Small increases in property value are multipled relative to your initial investment. - Calculations also often assume someone just pays the minimum mortgage payment for the full term of the loan. Even small additional principal payments (which most mortgages allow without penal…
With the recent tax changes including increased standard deduction, SALT cap and mortgage deduction cap, this bias is greatly reduced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what's simple or understandable about a basic staple of life whose real value is skyrocketing. It's not at all clear whether the next generation will actually be able to afford housing at anywhere near current valuations. Maybe future Americans can afford to allocate a greater share of their incomes to housing, but the economic effects of the disappearance of all non-housing consumer spending (as mortgag…
Wholesale housing policy reform is what's going to happen. It might take a decade or so, but it's gonna happen.
These articles always ignore leverage. Generally, with 20% down you are leveraged 5:1. So even if your home is just keeping pace with inflation of 3%, you actually experience 15% growth on your investment. To use the example in the article, if your investment doubled between 2009 and now, your $200k in a $1M home just became 1.2M. 6x growth beats out 3x growth in stocks in the same period. Sure, you can be leveraged…
A leveraged return L = (asset return - ((1- %down) x loan) rate)/%down. With a 4% mortgage that's (3% - ((1 - 20% ) x 4%))/20% = -1%
> You hold a 5 percent fixed-rate 30-year mortgage. Is that really so? I've read that the mortgage interest rates are around 2-3% in Europe (by the way, in Russia they start from 9%-11% and can be as high as 15%). > A house in 1897 cost the same as a house in 1997, adjusted for inflation. It is hard to believe, given new technologies that are supposed to make it cheaper. Also what the author didn't take into account…
> But if you own a house then you can live there even if your income drops. This is assuming you payed off the mortgage, no? Otherwise, at least by the 10 year example given on the article, you’re busted since you can’t make mortgage payments...
The “pro renting” crowd has a lot of consistent falacies in arguments: - Financial calculations ignore the leveraged nature of buying a home. Small increases in property value are multipled relative to your initial investment. - Calculations also often assume someone just pays the minimum mortgage payment for the full term of the loan. Even small additional principal payments (which most mortgages allow without penal…
Please show me how the small increases in property value multiplies my initial investment. The problem is most people don't move sideways or down... they move up, thus negating any windfall in investment prowess. Timing, once again, can make or break you and timing is a fool's errand.
Renters don't always pay the taxes. There are several rentals in my neighborhood that are less than the mortgage. Once you cross a threshold of monthly rent, the market for available renters shrinks rapidly (Unless we are talking bay area). I mean... there are very few people spending $3000 a month in Phoenix renting.
I agree about the tax system bias toward home ownership... but there are ways to beat that. Starting or having a small business being #1. We could get into many ways to beat the tax system... but lets suffice to say that homeownership isn't really "beating" the tax system.
That "savings" on tax isn't savings... it is rent on top of rent... let that sink in.
Since your house and that cash are (sorta definitionally) worth the same amount, which you do makes less of a difference than you would think. (And no, it doesn’t matter that the mortgage money is “rent to own”- as the article points out, a home-renter could have just as easily been putting that extra cost into stocks the whole time.)