patrick.net

BoomAndBustCycle says

And you have to pay the government atleast 25% of your profits (15% federal, 10% CA state tax)...when you sell your stock... And if Obama gets his way, that rate may increase!

If you don't invest you won't retire. Plain and simple. They saying these days is that you will need anywhere from 1 million dollars in 'normal' areas and 2 million in higher cost areas, per person, from age 60-100, which isn't out of the question. That's still not a ton of money per year. That won't come from buying a house. You have to live in something.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

My bad, I thought it was math. Your right. Lets not use math here. Lets just use words and gestures.

Yes, it was your bad. Knowing what a house rents for doesn't require math. It requires a thorough knowledge of the local area supply and demand situation for rental properties. Further, for his exercise, it would require knowledge of the rental market for the last 20 years.

I guess you need math to adjust for the differences between comps and the house he was living in. I'm pretty sure he could handle that.

So, if the mortgage holder is really just renting from the bank, what makes them better than someone who rents from an actual owner of a property....

There are a few differences, and some of them may not matter to some people, but to me they are substantial differences:

1. IF you pay your monthly nut, you cannot get kicked out. I have paid my rent dutifully and on time for many years and have still been kicked out of 2 rentals due to owner-occupied move-in after the house sold. (OK eminent domain excepted, but really what are the odds?)

2. If you are an animal lover it can be very hard to find a place to rent. Trust me, I know from experience. I have been turned down for rentals even after offering a $3,000 security deposit.

3. At the end of 30 years of being a permarenter, you have spent X amount on housing, and will continue to do so until the day you die. If you borrow money to buy a house, at the end of 30 years you will have paid X amount for housing and then only pay taxes and maintenance. That's why elderly folks getting evicted when they are on a fixed income is such a big deal.

I agree that home ownership isn't for everyone, and the idea that everyone should buy is ridiculous. But the idea that owning is always a bad idea is equally farcical.

I've been a renter for 30 years and do not intend to rent for the rest of my life.

edvard2 says

Houses simply do not make the best investment. Period

Yeah, but they make darn good shelter.

Call it Crazy says

and when the mortgage payment is less, they think they are WINNING...

That's because usually they are correct. Unless they know they are going to move within a short time period, if the monthly payment is less to own, it usually follows that it's cheaper to own.

BoomAndBustCycle says

And you have to pay the government atleast 25% of your profits (15% federal, 10% CA state tax)...when you sell your stock... And if Obama gets his way, that rate may increase!

Makes the 4.5% redfin commission for sale of your home look less painful. (Well, unless you didn't make any profit on your home.. then I'll admit, it sucks).

A totally different tax. The 4.5% is charged regardless of gains. The 25% is on gains and not on the purchase price of the investment.

1sfrenter says

So, if the mortgage holder is really just renting from the bank, what makes them better than someone who rents from an actual owner of a property....

Not many of the houses in the BA. I think you are safer under a tree sometimes. Most of the BA is just crap houses on crap land. Liquefaction anyone?

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/sfgeo/liquefaction/susceptibility.html

Call it Crazy says

tatupu70 says

Unless they know they are going to move within a short time period, if the monthly payment is less to own, it usually follows that it's cheaper to own.

Can I ask a serious question?? How long have you been a home owner??

I first bought a condo in ~ 1994. I've owned a townhouse and two SFRs since, and rented for 5 years in between. I've had to move several times for job changes or transfers, but I've gotten relocation packages so I've always came out OK. My problem with renting is that it's usually been very difficult to find SFRs that aren't complete dumps. Except when I lived in CA. There were lots of nice rentals there.

And I agree. Houses are NOT an investment in that you don't buy them to make money on the appreciation.

The whole - freedom to move is an illusion if you have a family and home office.

I used to say, I am free to go wherever at any time, except I said that for 5 years and never moved because with a family and pets and home office its a total PITA to move and also costs money.

If you are single, live alone and want to browse around different neighborhoods, don't have much furniture, have a job that needs flexibility = renting is the way to go. More of a lifestyle question than anything.

Some people love living in the oakwood furnished apartments...they are very nice, pool, BBQ area, conference room and furnished. And expensive :)
But if you have money to blow and love that carefree lifestyle all the power to you.

SubOink says

The whole - freedom to move is an illusion if you have a family and home office.

I used to say, I am free to go wherever at any time, except I said that for 5 years and never moved because with a family and pets and home office its a total PITA to move and also costs money.

+1

And that's also assuming that chasing and finding cheaper rentals is possible. Not here in San Fran.