Owning a home or a house

[sparky]

Look, those who claim home ownership results in a break even or net loss due to all factors are the ones you need to argue with

Indeed so, folks like me who dumpster dive on jobs ,and then nail it all together are no metric

Nice, my wife is from Wisconsin farm country. I always like to check out the farms. I've never seen one setup like that.

i'm rather infatuated myself Mike

My farm is one of my my retirement delusions

i probably watched to many green acres episodes

~S~

 

[Uncensored2008]

Depends on your stability

Financially, geographically and emotionally

Owning a house is cheaper than renting and gives you the satisfaction of ownership and a long term financial investment

Not necessarily when one considers property taxes and interest not to mention maintenance which statistics show usually offsets anything that can be deducted from taxes. As for the investment question real property doesn't always keep up with inflation often resulting in a net loss over time.

Rent goes up, house payments don't. Simple as that.

Soooooo, home repair costs, contractor costs, taxes and all other associated costs remain static.......... Look, those who claim home ownership results in a break even or net loss due to all factors are the ones you need to argue with. If I was one of them I wouldn't have bought a house............

Taxes do unless the house is revalued. Home repair is always a question, but nowhere near the cost of rent increases.

I live in Southern California. Rent for a 2 bedroom apartment averages about $6,000 a month here. My house, bought in 93' runs about $2,000 a month, all told. $4,000 a month buys a LOT of repairs.

 

[sparky]

Rent for a 2 bedroom apartment averages about $6,000 a month here

seriously....?

~S~

 

[Ringel05]

Depends on your stability

Financially, geographically and emotionally

Owning a house is cheaper than renting and gives you the satisfaction of ownership and a long term financial investment

Not necessarily when one considers property taxes and interest not to mention maintenance which statistics show usually offsets anything that can be deducted from taxes. As for the investment question real property doesn't always keep up with inflation often resulting in a net loss over time.

Rent goes up, house payments don't. Simple as that.

Soooooo, home repair costs, contractor costs, taxes and all other associated costs remain static.......... Look, those who claim home ownership results in a break even or net loss due to all factors are the ones you need to argue with. If I was one of them I wouldn't have bought a house............

Taxes do unless the house is revalued. Home repair is always a question, but nowhere near the cost of rent increases.

I live in Southern California. Rent for a 2 bedroom apartment averages about $6,000 a month here. My house, bought in 93' runs about $2,000 a month, all told. $4,000 a month buys a LOT of repairs.

Soooooo, you're basing the nationwide differences between renting and owning on your microscopic locality?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Owning a home isn't for everyone. The housing bust of 2008 proved that.

Don't buy more than you can afford. But if you can, buy, don't rent. Usually what you pay in rent for a POS place you can get a nice house for the same monthly payment. And always remember your property value will ALWAYS go up over time. Unlike a car that loses value. In fact. Get an old junker car that has cheap insurance so you can spend your money on a house. I did. I drove a motorcycle and scooter to work for 8 years to save on insurance. I paid off my house 23 years early.

Just remember renting is wasting money. You mine as well flush it down the toilet. It does nothing to build credit or equity.

 

[sparky]

mmmmm--mm-m-m-m-maybe....but then who shouldered a gun to protect a rental?
~S~

 

[rightwinger]

So like a lot of things, it depends on the person.

yes it does.....
having spent the last decade building my farm took a lot of time/effort

it's definitely a 'lifestyle' thing...


~S~

Do you say E I E I O a lot?

 

[sparky]

Neither

As I have said before, it is time for armature hour to be over.

yes it is......plan please!


war."

Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.

Neither was the North Vietnamese.[/QUOTE]

Do you say E I E I O a lot?

oh sure...
more w/ a cocktail or two in me....~S~

 

[Uncensored2008]

Rent for a 2 bedroom apartment averages about $6,000 a month here

seriously....?

~S~

I'm a little high, but not that much.

Stadium House

 

[MarathonMike]

Neither

As I have said before, it is time for armature hour to be over.

yes it is......plan please!
Is the open part of the barn intentionally open or still under construction?

war."

Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.

Neither was the North Vietnamese.

Do you say E I E I O a lot?

oh sure...
more w/ a cocktail or two in me....~S~[/QUOTE]

 

[Andylusion]

Young married couples who have kids should not carry a mortgage payment.

I actually agree somewhat with this statement.

I have seen people buy a house, and being young, they end up switching jobs, and now they have to sell the house a loss. It is costly to do this. Another problem is sometimes you end up needing to move closer to family, and other times farther from family, in order to protect your marriage.

I think it is the absolute worst idea, to get married, and jump straight into a house. This is a terrible idea.

Better to spend a year, to two years, renting a cheap place. That way you can make wiser choices on what you really need.

And you should always buy the least expensive you can get. One of the biggest break downs in marriage, is stress over the money.

But when young couples buy a house, they buy the biggest nicest house they can afford, which puts them in a money bind.

After you have been together a few years, after you have some clue as to your future career, and where you want to live... then buy a house.

 

[Fueri]

There are calculators online which deal with this exact question....

 

[Andylusion]

Depends on your stability

Financially, geographically and emotionally

Owning a house is cheaper than renting and gives you the satisfaction of ownership and a long term financial investment

Not necessarily when one considers property taxes and interest not to mention maintenance which statistics show usually offsets anything that can be deducted from taxes. As for the investment question real property doesn't always keep up with inflation often resulting in a net loss over time.

When you consider mortgage rates below 4 percent and the deductibility of interest and taxes......owning is cheaper

Maintenance is paid through your rent whether you know it or not

Paying rent is ALWAYS a net loss

I'm just pointing out there are two schools of thought on this subject and the argument continues to this day.

Which is what I said in my first post. Depends on your stability

If you are not going to be in the house at least five years it may be cheaper to rent

Not what I'm saying. There are studies that claim it's cheaper to rent when all the costs are factored in, some economists claim owning a house even over a long period still results in a net loss over renting.

That depends entirely on two things.
1. Your mortgage.
2. Appreciation.

Obviously during the crash, property prices fell and some have not really recovered.
In those areas, yes, obviously it's a break even, or possibly a loss.

Also too many people are still even today, taking out zero down mortgages, and some have high interest rates.

Both make owning less likely to pay off. No one should have a 30-year mortgage. Everyone should have their house paid off in 15 years, less if possible.

The less you pay to the bank, obviously the more of a net gain you have from owning.

There is one last variable that can effect whether it's a gain or loss... and that is the quality of the house, and the quality of the location.

 

[Ringel05]

Not necessarily when one considers property taxes and interest not to mention maintenance which statistics show usually offsets anything that can be deducted from taxes. As for the investment question real property doesn't always keep up with inflation often resulting in a net loss over time.

When you consider mortgage rates below 4 percent and the deductibility of interest and taxes......owning is cheaper

Maintenance is paid through your rent whether you know it or not

Paying rent is ALWAYS a net loss

I'm just pointing out there are two schools of thought on this subject and the argument continues to this day.

Which is what I said in my first post. Depends on your stability

If you are not going to be in the house at least five years it may be cheaper to rent

Not what I'm saying. There are studies that claim it's cheaper to rent when all the costs are factored in, some economists claim owning a house even over a long period still results in a net loss over renting.

That depends entirely on two things.
1. Your mortgage.
2. Appreciation.

Obviously during the crash, property prices fell and some have not really recovered.
In those areas, yes, obviously it's a break even, or possibly a loss.

Also too many people are still even today, taking out zero down mortgages, and some have high interest rates.

Both make owning less likely to pay off. No one should have a 30-year mortgage. Everyone should have their house paid off in 15 years, less if possible.

The less you pay to the bank, obviously the more of a net gain you have from owning.

There is one last variable that can effect whether it's a gain or loss... and that is the quality of the house, and the quality of the location.

Obviously.

 

[Paulie]

Depends on your stability

Financially, geographically and emotionally

Owning a house is cheaper than renting and gives you the satisfaction of ownership and a long term financial investment

Not necessarily when one considers property taxes and interest not to mention maintenance which statistics show usually offsets anything that can be deducted from taxes. As for the investment question real property doesn't always keep up with inflation often resulting in a net loss over time.

When you consider mortgage rates below 4 percent and the deductibility of interest and taxes......owning is cheaper

Maintenance is paid through your rent whether you know it or not

Paying rent is ALWAYS a net loss

Again not true.
And BTW, I own and have owned, except for one year since I was 24 years old.

Scenario 1 - Person needs a place to live, but their relationship ends after 2 years.

RENT. $1200/mo for 24 months = $28,800. That money is gone.

PURCHASED HOME
Closing costs - $5000
Monthly taxes and insurance for 2 years - $15,600
Mortgage payment $1200/mo for 2 years - $28,800
Repair costs - $$, Improvements - $$
Selling the home after only 2 years of ownership it is unlikely they will sell much more than what they paid or worse - at a loss. And any money left over is split.

Who makes a decision to buy a house on the chance of divorce?

Wasn't suggesting that. I just presented a scenario that shows buying is considerably more expensive than renting in the short run.
Of course buying is exponentially better than renting.... long term.

All depends on what you’re paying for the house. I buy and flip bank owned properties. I will never buy a house at or over market value. I only buy if there’s equity from day 1