<div style='font: bold 9pt ; text-align: left; '>I got a call from my real estate agent tonight and the house I bid on (#4) got accepted. Buying my first house. Settles end of April (assuming all goes well from here on out) Woohoo!</div>
True, no one said that. That was the feeling was getting though and I find it's a feeling that a lot of people have.All I wanted to do was clarify what went on with the whole "interest as tax break" thing, and I don't think anyone here - least of all me - made any claim as stupid as tax savings ALONE being a sufficient reason to buy a house instead of rent.
My example was bad, but not quite for the reason you gave. The bad part as you mentioned is that it assumes a cost of living of zero, which is crazy. You'd (presumably) still be paying rent somewhere else (though performing acts of sexual deviance for hot dominatrices can be tough because not many dominatrices are very hot :) ).However, I must point out that when you made your little "you would have had $13000 to invest elsewhere" argument, you forgot one very, very important thing - <i>my interest + principal payments are integrated into my cost of living.</i> That means I get tax breaks and build equity *while* I'm paying to live in my house! Your argument only works if you figure my hypothetical alternative cost of living to be zero, like if I was living at my parents' house or performing various acts of sexual deviance for hot dominatrices in exchange for rent payments.
No it's not. You get a roof over your head and annoying issues around the house dealt with by a landlord. And as I said before, if you're good with investing your money, it's possible you could invest the difference between rent and mortgage interest payment deductions to more than make up the money you'd get for any possible tax deductions.And to get back to the post you made that originally started this whole argument, there is some truth to the argument that paying rent is like throwing your money away, because once you give that check to your landlord, you will never see any portion of that money again. It's as simple as that.
The principle part of mortgage payements are the investment. The interest is what you pay the loaning institution for the pleasure of borrowing their money. Sure you get a tax break, but like I've said many times before -- that only matters money from the tax break doesn't beat the money you could have earned on another investment. But you do mention a lot of other good points.But, it's equally as valid that buying is not a viable option for a lot of people. While it's true that mortgage payments are an investment and rent payments are not, you sacrifice a lot of things in order to get a return on that investment. Closing costs (which you pay when you buy, refinance, or sell, and you don't get any return on them) are pretty big chunks of change, not to mention the fact that you lose a lot of flexibility when you buy a house (moving is nowhere near as simple as finding a new place before the lease runs out). And, it's true that you probably only want to buy if you're going to stick around somewhere for a long time - at least five years - because it's not really worth the hassle otherwise.
Myself, I figured that I was in a situation where I was planning to stick around one place for a while, so I lived at home and went into major saving mode for a year before I was able to swing a big enough down payment (which I'll get back in its entirety someday, plus whatever else I've put into the principal). Now every payment I make is mostly the bank making sick amounts of money off of me, but at least the tax benefits take some of that sting away, and as the years go by more and more of my payment will be going towards the principal- which reminds me of the last thing I'm going to mention. When you buy a house, there's the possibility - however remote, however unlikely - that someday the entire thing will be paid off and you won't have to pay for the privelege to have a roof over your head any more.
Yes it's true that in 30 years you may actually own "your" house while a renter will never own their apartment. Touche and nice way to end a post. ;)A renter doesn't have that chance.
True, no one said that. That was the feeling was getting though and I find it's a feeling that a lot of people have.All I wanted to do was clarify what went on with the whole "interest as tax break" thing, and I don't think anyone here - least of all me - made any claim as stupid as tax savings ALONE being a sufficient reason to buy a house instead of rent.
My example was bad, but not quite for the reason you gave. The bad part as you mentioned is that it assumes a cost of living of zero, which is crazy. You'd (presumably) still be paying rent somewhere else (though performing acts of sexual deviance for hot dominatrices can be tough because not many dominatrices are very hot :) ).However, I must point out that when you made your little "you would have had $13000 to invest elsewhere" argument, you forgot one very, very important thing - <i>my interest + principal payments are integrated into my cost of living.</i> That means I get tax breaks and build equity *while* I'm paying to live in my house! Your argument only works if you figure my hypothetical alternative cost of living to be zero, like if I was living at my parents' house or performing various acts of sexual deviance for hot dominatrices in exchange for rent payments.
No it's not. You get a roof over your head and annoying issues around the house dealt with by a landlord. And as I said before, if you're good with investing your money, it's possible you could invest the difference between rent and mortgage interest payment deductions to more than make up the money you'd get for any possible tax deductions.And to get back to the post you made that originally started this whole argument, there is some truth to the argument that paying rent is like throwing your money away, because once you give that check to your landlord, you will never see any portion of that money again. It's as simple as that.
The principle part of mortgage payements are the investment. The interest is what you pay the loaning institution for the pleasure of borrowing their money. Sure you get a tax break, but like I've said many times before -- that only matters money from the tax break doesn't beat the money you could have earned on another investment. But you do mention a lot of other good points.But, it's equally as valid that buying is not a viable option for a lot of people. While it's true that mortgage payments are an investment and rent payments are not, you sacrifice a lot of things in order to get a return on that investment. Closing costs (which you pay when you buy, refinance, or sell, and you don't get any return on them) are pretty big chunks of change, not to mention the fact that you lose a lot of flexibility when you buy a house (moving is nowhere near as simple as finding a new place before the lease runs out). And, it's true that you probably only want to buy if you're going to stick around somewhere for a long time - at least five years - because it's not really worth the hassle otherwise.
Myself, I figured that I was in a situation where I was planning to stick around one place for a while, so I lived at home and went into major saving mode for a year before I was able to swing a big enough down payment (which I'll get back in its entirety someday, plus whatever else I've put into the principal). Now every payment I make is mostly the bank making sick amounts of money off of me, but at least the tax benefits take some of that sting away, and as the years go by more and more of my payment will be going towards the principal- which reminds me of the last thing I'm going to mention. When you buy a house, there's the possibility - however remote, however unlikely - that someday the entire thing will be paid off and you won't have to pay for the privelege to have a roof over your head any more.
Yes it's true that in 30 years you may actually own "your" house while a renter will never own their apartment. Touche and nice way to end a post. ;)A renter doesn't have that chance.
While your argument has a lot of merit to it, here's where I disagree with you, insofar that I don't believe that it is necessarily true that one will spend more money (or, at the very least, substantially more money) in mortgage payments than one would in rent.But the part that hasn't been mention is that you'll be paying more in mortgage payments than you would in rent, thus leaving you with less disposable income, even after tax deductions are taken into account. As you said though, my earlier example assumed a cost of living of zero, but the point is the same (less disposable income). However, now you'd only be able to buy small room full of 57" TVs, instead of garage full. :)
True - you've mentioned this several times now. What you haven't yet seemed to consider is that this is a double-edged sword.You get [...] annoying issues around the house dealt with by a landlord.
Of course it's not as cut and dry as people think it is. And I'm not arguing against renting either, it has its merits. But there weren't enough perceived benefits in it for me to continue doing it.I'm not arguing against home ownership. For a lot of poeple (maybe most) it's probably the way to go. I just think people think it's more cut and dry than it really is.
While your argument has a lot of merit to it, here's where I disagree with you, insofar that I don't believe that it is necessarily true that one will spend more money (or, at the very least, substantially more money) in mortgage payments than one would in rent.
99.9% of the time, you're not going to find apartments in the same area as houses renting for only $150 less than mortgage payements. Everybody would just buy a house!The apartment I lived in previous to moving home was a 2 bed, 1 bath with a non-private deck, driveway parking that I shared with two other cars, I lived underneath a family with two kids, and it cost $1500/month. Currently, I live in a 2 bed, 1.5 bath townhouse with private deck, garage, and nobody above or below me for $1655/month (including condo fee which includes snow removal, which is quite important up here).
Of course it's not. It depends on how much you're willing to give to find a place where you'd pay a similiar mortgage. However, I am assuming most people want to live in a house/neighboorhood/location similiar to what they're used to with their apartments. In that case it *is* universally more expensive.All I'm trying to say is that I do not agree with your assumption that renting is unilaterally cheaper than paying off a mortgage.
You get [...] annoying issues around the house dealt with by a landlord.
Actually it was twice in like 50 posts of 8,000 words each, but who's counting? :)True - you've mentioned this several times now. What you haven't yet seemed to consider is that this is a double-edged sword.
For example, the landlord I had at my last apartment was a complete and utter pain in the ass to even get a hold of, let alone deal with once I finally did so.
Sure you have rights. There are laws protecting your rights as a renter and forcing landlords to do the job they're supposed to do as landlords.And what happens if something major breaks like a refrigerator, a stove, or a heater? You're stuck until your landlord gets around to fixing the problem or buying a new one, and in that case you don't have a single say in the matter of what they end up getting.
If I lived in the same real estate wormhole as you, I'd disagree with me too.You also had a cute way of ending your post, but since I disagreed with the principle you based your entire post on from the very beginning, there isn't much of a way for me to reply to it now. =)