patrick.net

All I know is that I dont like to rent. I dont like shuffling around my belongings. I have stuff that'll be in the same place for 30 years if i want.

Thats without even considering the paying somebody elses mortgage part.

Actually owning is so worth it to me that I would be willing to pay double what it would cost to rent each month as long as I have a guarantee that at some point the amount I owe goes to zero.

toothfairy says

as long as I have a guarantee that at some point the amount I owe goes to zero.

But isn't that the point? In many of the nicer suburbs around Boston [ towns with the 'good' brand name school systems and low crime ], that's $600K to $800K, whereas in central or western MA, it's $200K to $300K. A person could easily pay back the latter mortgage, even if he's forced to temporarily move around for contract work, in other parts of the country. In a 'name' suburbs, one layoff could lead to foreclosure.

toothfairy says

All I know is that I dont like to rent. I dont like shuffling around my belongings. I have stuff that'll be in the same place for 30 years if i want.

Thats without even considering the paying somebody elses mortgage part.

Actually owning is so worth it to me that I would be willing to pay double what it would cost to rent each month as long as I have a guarantee that at some point the amount I owe goes to zero.

It will never go to zero. You will always have property taxes, insurance and maintenance.

New Renter says

It will never go to zero. You will always have property taxes, insurance and maintenance.

That part is not so bad, once you're out of bubbleland-ed suburbs of brand name chic cities.

In a way, it's good to own, if one's nearing retirement. The problem is that given the way things are in areas like greater Boston, NYC, SF, etc, those outside of high paying fields/tracks will never see that day.

toothfairy says

All I know is that I dont like to rent. I dont like shuffling around my belongings. I have stuff that'll be in the same place for 30 years if i want.

The only reason people wouldn't stay in a rental 30 years is their own choice. It's just not acceptable in the U.S. so people don't do it thinking that a rental is just a stepping stone lifting them up to their eventual ownership dreamy heaven.

It would be interesting to know how many people who own houses shift their belongings because of washing machine floods, improvements, fires, and just plain moves. Several have written at patrick.net that the average time in a house is only 7.5 years.

I get what you're saying, though, you're saying you personally think of owning as having the potential to deliver stable, unshuffled belongings for 30 years. Maybe you could rent with the same stability if it weren't for your thoughts?

When the Democratic Supermajority in California votes to override proposition 13 even renters will be paying more taxes.

inflection point says

When the Democratic Supermajority in California votes to override proposition 13 even renters will be paying more taxes.

Not likely.