Rent they said. It’s cheaper they said.

[UpNext]

Man I don’t even know what I’d do if I had to buy a house in this market. I was stressed the fukk out 7 years ago going through the process and felt like saying fukk it at least 20 times.

Also this being the Coli, a lot of the people in here arguing the hardest about home ownership are either renting or living with their parents…

nikkas stay thirsting for that e-clout…

You'd prolly be on Thecoli tryna convince nikkas about the viability of renting over homeownership

 

[Conan]

Are there any losers in either scenario?

Not really. Both renter and buyer end up near millionaires/actual millionaires in net worth. Both are fulfilled. The buyer has a home, a tangible asset he/she can pass on to his heir(s) if so desired. The renter has a bulging bank account and can do whatsoever he pleases. He can buy a property straight cash, or live off the interest from his investment account.

Can the numbers change, depending on the assumptions? Yes. If you believe over 30 years your home will appreciate faster than history has suggested, closer to the stock market, then these numbers would skew towards buy. If you believe more in the stock market, you'd rather have the opportunity to plow money into your investment account instead of a house in these early years, and then watch the magic of compound interest.

Are you a dummy for buying a house? Absolutely not. And with the right situation it can be good for you financially.

Are you a dummy for renting? Absolutely not. And with the right situation it can be good for you financially.

Should you rent or buy?

It depends.

Are "always buy" and "always rent" proponents absolute retards and morons? Yes.

 

[Conan]

Or, pay someone else's mortgage, invest the cash you save in taxes, maintenance, and reduce home expense in an index fund, and enjoy having a relatively more liquid asset that may rival the value of the home that you would have bought without having to deal with maintenance or tenants.

The analysis I did is just a clear demonstration of @Turbulent's logic.

 

[Uitomy]

Are there any losers in either scenario?

Not really. Both renter and buyer end up near millionaires/actual millionaires in net worth. Both are fulfilled. The buyer has a home, a tangible asset he/she can pass on to his heir(s) if so desired. The renter has a bulging bank account and can do whatsoever he pleases. He can buy a property straight cash, or live off the interest from his investment account.

Can the numbers change, depending on the assumptions? Yes. If you believe over 30 years your home will appreciate faster than history has suggested, closer to the stock market, then these numbers would skew towards buy. If you believe more in the stock market, you'd rather have the opportunity to plow money into your investment account instead of a house in these early years, and then watch the magic of compound interest.

Are you a dummy for buying a house? Absolutely not. And with the right situation it can be good for you financially.

Are you a dummy for renting? Absolutely not. And with the right situation it can be good for you financially.

Should you rent or buy?

It depends.

Are "always buy" and "always rent" proponents absolute retards and morons? Yes.

With this, /thread

 

[Sir Richard Spirit]

Thanks for posting this. I'm going to use these 2 houses you've posted.

Here is what we are going with. We assume both individuals have the same resources. And we assume both individuals are "throwing money away".

Buyer throws away the closing costs, mortgage interest, property taxes, home maintenance/repairs, home insurance, PMI insurance (if any) every month. He/she will never see those costs again. The buyer is primarily dependent on appreciation of his house for profit. If his total monthly expenses are less than what an equivalent renter would pay in a certain month, he invests the delta in the market.

Renter throws away the rent, rental insurance, and interest he/she could have accrued from the security deposit if it was in the stock market. He/she will never see those costs again. The renter is primarily dependent on investing a would be down payment for profit. If his total monthly expenses are less than what an equivalent home owner would pay in a certain month, he invests the delta in the market.

We will see where the buyer/renter ends up after 30 years, for both houses. Leggo....

no disrespect, but all that typing you did is worthless..

 

[Conan]

no disrespect, but all that typing you did is worthless..

None taken. No disrespect, but the post was meant for brehs with higher comprehension levels than you possess currently

 

[Sir Richard Spirit]

None taken. No disrespect, but the post was meant for brehs with higher comprehension levels than you possess currently

if we talking reality.. owning a home bigger than some investment.. I’ll let dudes cook, rambling on about investment and assets, but it’s a such a larger picture people are missing..

 

[Conan]

if we talking reality.. owning a home bigger than some investment.. I’ll let dudes cook, rambling on about investment and assets, but it’s a such a larger picture people are missing..

What on earth are you talking about? Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a troll, answer me this:

1. How is a home bigger than "some investment"? That's the biggest reason touted to buy a house, the financial aspect.
2. What larger picture am I missing?