patrick.net

You should rent where it makes you happy and where you find a balance of income vs living quality(if you can afford it).

I pay 20% of my gross, 33% of my net and live in a trendy upscale area.

I could afford more, but then I'm very happy where I am, and I'd have to save and spend less on other stuff.

i pay about 11% gross salary in a nice area (low crime, 900+ api schools, walking distance to downtown and a couple of parks, we feel safe going for a walk late at night of, also lots of parking).

if you include cap gains, interest and dividends, the percentage is less.

Nice. Dinks ? What city ?

Our mortgage(PITI) is 8.9% of gross, 13% of after taxes. 2800 sq ft home. 940 API K-8 school 1 block away. Asian makeup is 17% which is higher than the California average but lower than your bay area/irvine schools that get that API. >70% whites for you asian phobes who are scared to compete. 1/4 mile away from YMCA and restaurants. 1/2 mile from 2 parks. Another 3 softball field park planned for this year 1 block away. 1 mile from a state/national park which abuts the pacific ocean.

As little as possible.

I pay about 11% of gross, depends on the year because income has gone up and down. I think it has been as low as 7.5-8% in the past. Even when we had what we considered the "super-expensive" place, it was 11% of gross income or less.

If you compare to home purchases, the traditional 30-year fixed loan with 20% down required 28% of gross as a maximum PITI.

Very funny reading this thread.

One of the arguments bulls seem to pound out so loudly is that by renting, one is making a landlord rich. Aside of that being entirely irrelevant, the implication is that by "enriching" a landlord, a renter is somehow becoming poor.

And yet here you have a thread full of renters who are paying a minimal portion of their income as rent.

Hillarious.

no more than 10%. Around there is considered safe. And again that really depends on your income.

If you are making millions you probably aren't going to spend 100k renting.

zzyzzx says

As little as possible.

bingo. thats what you should aim for in all expenses related to housing.

burritos says

Our mortgage(PITI) is 8.9% of gross, 13% of after taxes. 2800 sq ft home. 940 API K-8 school 1 block away. Asian makeup is 17% which is higher than the California average but lower than your bay area/irvine schools that get that API. >70% whites for you asian phobes who are scared to compete. 1/4 mile away from YMCA and restaurants. 1/2 mile from 2 parks. Another 3 softball field park planned for this year 1 block away. 1 mile from a state/national park which abuts the pacific ocean.

Also Newbury Park is miles away from civilization.

Meaningless question. You should ask, "what percentage of the median income should be the median rent." Otherwise, you're grouping people with high incomes and simple 1 bedroom apartments with low-income families renting 4 bedroom houses to support their six kids. Obviously, the later will have to spend a far greater percentage of their income on rent.

Even then, why is it fair to determine rents based on income? Perhaps based on the cost-of-living adjustments for a city, which may relate to income, but not directly on income. After all, a young person may choose to live in NYC and rent for a few years to build up wealth and then move someplace cheaper and slower for the rest of his career.

In South Florida, I'd say the fair market prices for rents in absolute dollars, rather than by percentage of income, are about the following:

1 bedroom apt: $700
2 bedroom apt: $800
3 bedroom apt: $900
2 bedroom house: $1200
3 bedroom house: $1500
4 bedroom house: $1700

10% for housing (does not matter rent or ownership) is normal.
15% is bearable.

20% is a severe drag on your recreation, self development, education , health, etc.

Anything above 20% destroys society and economy.

Indeed, there is absolutely no reason why we should spend on housing more than what we spend on food in America.