The Benefits of Home Ownership?

[Super Dude]

I am now a true homeowner, meaning I just paid it off and own the house free and clear.  I came into some money earlier this year, and once everything cleared the bank, I paid off the mortgage eight years early.

To be honest, I expected a little more fanfare or something.  On the website for the mortgage company it shows a zero balance and a record of my payment, but also shows that my next regular payment is due on May 1.  So I called and talked to a customer service person, and she verified that the loan is completely paid off, and their website just has this glitch where it never clears the "next payment due".  She mused that I could log in three years from now and it will still show my next payment due on May 1, 2021.  But I'll be getting my payoff letter and package in the mail.

The other day FedEx delivered an envelope from them, my payoff package.  Inside was a single sheet of paper, basically an ad for them.  "We hate goodbyes" but call us for any of your future mortgage needs, etc.  Big bold letters saying "Call us at 1-800-bla-blah to see what we can offer you."  It did say that they recently received my payoff and hate to see me go.  I was expecting some kind of confirmation that I'm free and clear, and I thought that since it's mine now, don't I get the title to put in my safe box?  Some kind of document saying that the house is mine?  I feel like there should be more, but I've never done this before, so maybe my mind had created this entire scenario.

Good for you, mang. I'm trying to do like insanity-level payments over the next year, which is supposed to help me pay off completely by 2028. I'm not going to do that, I'm planning to be out of this house long before then, but as I said, I'm hoping it'll help me immensely in paying down house #2.

[gmillerdrake]

I am now a true homeowner, meaning I just paid it off and own the house free and clear.  I came into some money earlier this year, and once everything cleared the bank, I paid off the mortgage eight years early.

That truly is awesome. It feels like I may never see that day    But, we did refinance a few months back and the rate we locked in at changed our payment to where we 'save' $514 a month. All I've done is not alter what I was originally paying and am just putting $500 a month towards principle. It'll be nice to see that principle start to whittle down quicker over the years by doing that.

[Grappler]

I hate the term "starter home," and the common expectation that you're supposed to sell your home and keep moving on to bigger and bigger houses.  My parents have stayed in their 1,600 square foot home for the last 44 years.  They considered moving once when we were younger and chose not to.  I've been in my house, which is a little smaller than theirs, for 12 years, and a year ago we learned that we wouldn't make much money on a sale, so moving didn't make sense.  We keep making improvements to our home and changing things when we can.  There's nothing wrong with staying put.

I'd love a bigger house with more space for my kids.  But it doesn't work financially for us - my wife would have to go back to work full time and my young kids would be in daycare/school for 12 hours every day.  That's not much of a life for them, just for us to feel like we're moving up.

[Podaar]

I am now a true homeowner, meaning I just paid it off and own the house free and clear.  I came into some money earlier this year, and once everything cleared the bank, I paid off the mortgage eight years early.

To be honest, I expected a little more fanfare or something.  On the website for the mortgage company it shows a zero balance and a record of my payment, but also shows that my next regular payment is due on May 1.  So I called and talked to a customer service person, and she verified that the loan is completely paid off, and their website just has this glitch where it never clears the "next payment due".  She mused that I could log in three years from now and it will still show my next payment due on May 1, 2021.  But I'll be getting my payoff letter and package in the mail.

The other day FedEx delivered an envelope from them, my payoff package.  Inside was a single sheet of paper, basically an ad for them.  "We hate goodbyes" but call us for any of your future mortgage needs, etc.  Big bold letters saying "Call us at 1-800-bla-blah to see what we can offer you."  It did say that they recently received my payoff and hate to see me go.  I was expecting some kind of confirmation that I'm free and clear, and I thought that since it's mine now, don't I get the title to put in my safe box?  Some kind of document saying that the house is mine?  I feel like there should be more, but I've never done this before, so maybe my mind had created this entire scenario.

That's awesome, Orbert! It's a good feeling.

I don't know if your experience will be like ours, but the title company sent us our title/deed a few months after the fact. It's currently sitting quietly in our safety deposit box.

[cramx3]

I hate the term "starter home," and the common expectation that you're supposed to sell your home and keep moving on to bigger and bigger houses.  My parents have stayed in their 1,600 square foot home for the last 44 years.  They considered moving once when we were younger and chose not to.  I've been in my house, which is a little smaller than theirs, for 12 years, and a year ago we learned that we wouldn't make much money on a sale, so moving didn't make sense.  We keep making improvements to our home and changing things when we can.  There's nothing wrong with staying put.

I'd love a bigger house with more space for my kids.  But it doesn't work financially for us - my wife would have to go back to work full time and my young kids would be in daycare/school for 12 hours every day.  That's not much of a life for them, just for us to feel like we're moving up.

The term makes sense for people who can't afford what they truly want/need as their family grows.  But for many, your first home doesn't need to be a "starter" home.  I don't see myself leaving my house anytime soon.  8 years in and I could see myself being there forever.

[Skeever]

I haven't read any of the rest of the thread, but the benefit is equity. If you can afford mortgage payments long enough to hold onto a starter house for about 10-15 years, it'll be a huge help to you on house #2. The more you pay into house #1, the lower you can make your mortgage payments on #2, especially if you've done improvements on #1 so that you can sell it at a profit.

All of this assumes a pretty decent and stable income though, be warned. I know a lot of people can't afford to do what I'm describing.

Never liked that argument when I started this thread, because you know what increasing in value way more than the value of my home? The S&P500. Now, that's an assumption that might be getting tested a little bit in the future, though. But given that it generally seems to be true, why not funnel all the home costs into an investment account? The odds of the market taking and your property value tanking don't seem to be that different - heck, last time they both happened at he same time. 

Also I'm dubious over what people consider to be "improvements". Those granite countertops and stainless steel appliances might look tacky in 10 years when you go to sell. Maybe that pool you put in is a liability for someone else. And so on.

Ultimately, I did decide to buy, because 1.) there were several homes in my area that I could live in for around the same monthly cost as renting, 2.) I didn't plan on moving for 5-10 years, and 3.) I could get way more space this way.

I'd say it's working out, though it's had its ups and downs. In terms of financial gain, I do have a bit of equity, but I also opened a 401k 5 years ago and the modest investments I've put into that make it a far larger asset for me than the equity I have in my home. Had I stayed renting and doubled the amount I put into investments, I'd probably be looking at biggest houses today. But I can honestly say that I've enjoyed living in a house, in general my quality of life has been much better than when I was renting 5+ years ago.

[Podaar]

So, I bought a rotary hammer this weekend.

Our home has a crapload of ugly, pale-blue, tile. Part of our current renovation is to remove said tile from the floor where our planned parlor (great-room in modern parlance) will be--basically a sitting space off the kitchen with a big screen TV. The plan is to replace it with bamboo flooring as mentioned earlier in this thread. Saturday morning it was time to get a few rows off the floor to make room for drywalling so that we aren't doing demolition near fresh walls. I figured that the previous owner had put Hardie backer board over the subfloor and then used thinset on top of that to set the tile. But, no! The stupid bastard smeared thin set over the subfloor, laid a layer of fiber mesh and then covered the mesh with a half-inch layer of shower base (I forget what that's called, but it's very much like sanded grout). Then when that dried he used mastic to adhere the tile to that layer.

My original plan, was to cut the grout a few rows from the wall (messy job with an abrasive blade on the circular saw even with dust extraction), get a pry bar under the Hardie board, pry it up enough to get wedges set across a wide section, and the just drive them evenly across. Fail. The effort, noise and mess left behind was just too much. It took us a few hours to remove maybe six tiles and a crapload of thin set was being left behind. We figured there must be a better way, so we watched YouTube videos and the consensus seemed to be we needed a rotary hammer with a thinset removal chisel bit. Looking at the tool rental pages at the box stores, it looked like we'd be spending a minimum of $40 per day, or about $300 for a week.

Mrs. P suggested we go to Harbor Freight and get a cheap one to do the job, but I noticed there were higher powered, better reviewed models at Jeff's Place. So I ordered this one and it arrived yesterday afternoon. I never imagined, as a homeowner, I'd need a rotary hammer but this sucker works like a charm. It removed a dozen tiles in just a few minutes. On the lower setting, using this chisel, it will remove the crap from the subfloor pretty smoothly.

If ya'll need to drill a big ass hole in concrete, you're welcome to borrow this! 

[Orbert]

I am now a true homeowner, meaning I just paid it off and own the house free and clear.  I came into some money earlier this year, and once everything cleared the bank, I paid off the mortgage eight years early.

To be honest, I expected a little more fanfare or something.  On the website for the mortgage company it shows a zero balance and a record of my payment, but also shows that my next regular payment is due on May 1.  So I called and talked to a customer service person, and she verified that the loan is completely paid off, and their website just has this glitch where it never clears the "next payment due".  She mused that I could log in three years from now and it will still show my next payment due on May 1, 2021.  But I'll be getting my payoff letter and package in the mail.

The other day FedEx delivered an envelope from them, my payoff package.  Inside was a single sheet of paper, basically an ad for them.  "We hate goodbyes" but call us for any of your future mortgage needs, etc.  Big bold letters saying "Call us at 1-800-bla-blah to see what we can offer you."  It did say that they recently received my payoff and hate to see me go.  I was expecting some kind of confirmation that I'm free and clear, and I thought that since it's mine now, don't I get the title to put in my safe box?  Some kind of document saying that the house is mine?  I feel like there should be more, but I've never done this before, so maybe my mind had created this entire scenario.

That's awesome, Orbert! It's a good feeling.

I don't know if your experience will be like ours, but the title company sent us our title/deed a few months after the fact. It's currently sitting quietly in our safety deposit box.

Bold mine.  That's what was confusing/disappointing, I guess.  I was expecting the "package" to include the title/deed and some kind of statement that it is now mine, free and clear.  Something to make it official.  Instead, it was just a form letter from the mortgage company saying I'd paid them off.

It makes sense that the title company would handle the transfer of title.  I hadn't thought of that.  And of course it's not really a huge priority for them, so getting it a couple months later also makes perfect sense.

[lordxizor]

I haven't read any of the rest of the thread, but the benefit is equity. If you can afford mortgage payments long enough to hold onto a starter house for about 10-15 years, it'll be a huge help to you on house #2. The more you pay into house #1, the lower you can make your mortgage payments on #2, especially if you've done improvements on #1 so that you can sell it at a profit.

All of this assumes a pretty decent and stable income though, be warned. I know a lot of people can't afford to do what I'm describing.

Never liked that argument when I started this thread, because you know what increasing in value way more than the value of my home? The S&P500. Now, that's an assumption that might be getting tested a little bit in the future, though. But given that it generally seems to be true, why not funnel all the home costs into an investment account? The odds of the market taking and your property value tanking don't seem to be that different - heck, last time they both happened at he same time. 

Also I'm dubious over what people consider to be "improvements". Those granite countertops and stainless steel appliances might look tacky in 10 years when you go to sell. Maybe that pool you put in is a liability for someone else. And so on.

Ultimately, I did decide to buy, because 1.) there were several homes in my area that I could live in for around the same monthly cost as renting, 2.) I didn't plan on moving for 5-10 years, and 3.) I could get way more space this way.

I'd say it's working out, though it's had its ups and downs. In terms of financial gain, I do have a bit of equity, but I also opened a 401k 5 years ago and the modest investments I've put into that make it a far larger asset for me than the equity I have in my home. Had I stayed renting and doubled the amount I put into investments, I'd probably be looking at biggest houses today. But I can honestly say that I've enjoyed living in a house, in general my quality of life has been much better than when I was renting 5+ years ago.

For the most part I agree that the home you live in is not a great investment. I mostly don't enjoy owning because I care too much about the home. When I rent I don't care if the lawn is crappy or if the cabinets need to be repainted. But I've decided that I'm never not going to own a home again because it's a.good hedge against inflation. My mortgage payment is the same for the next 30 years. If the value of the dollar goes way down over that time, my mortgage payment will be dirt cheap while rents will have kept up with inflation.

[Stadler]

BUt the comparison to the S&P isn't entirely apples to apples.   You don't HAVE to invest.  You can if you want, and it makes sense to, but you won't freeze if you don't, you won't die if you don't, your shit won't be stolen if you don't.    You DO, reasonably, need a place to live; to keep you warm and dry, safe and protect whatever it is you're carrying through this mortal coil.   The RENT you pay is a negative investment.  It's not doing ANYTHING for you, economically, and in fact, you're probably OVERPAYING for your space, once you factor in no equity, first/last/security deposit, and any profit your landlord is making. 

In other words, unless you live for free, or in a cardboard box (also free), the money from your HOME isn't likely going directly into a S&P account.   And by owning, you get the equity you build, AND you get any tax write-offs you might get from carrying the mortgage.

[Skeever]

BUt the comparison to the S&P isn't entirely apples to apples.   You don't HAVE to invest.  You can if you want, and it makes sense to, but you won't freeze if you don't, you won't die if you don't, your shit won't be stolen if you don't.    You DO, reasonably, need a place to live; to keep you warm and dry, safe and protect whatever it is you're carrying through this mortal coil.   The RENT you pay is a negative investment.  It's not doing ANYTHING for you, economically, and in fact, you're probably OVERPAYING for your space, once you factor in no equity, first/last/security deposit, and any profit your landlord is making. 

In other words, unless you live for free, or in a cardboard box (also free), the money from your HOME isn't likely going directly into a S&P account.   And by owning, you get the equity you build, AND you get any tax write-offs you might get from carrying the mortgage.

And the closing costs, and the upkeep. The amounts I've paid for a new HVAC and a new roof would probably eat away at any equity I think I've earned. But at the end of the day, buying here is far cheaper than renting where I live, in fact I could not have rented an equivalent property that would have been suitable for me for anything less than maybe my current monthly payment + $300-500.  So, worth it for me, I think.  If just barely, from a financial point of view.

But also, what people want out of a living situation is not always a purely financial decision. That is why I simply do not like when people act like homebuying is a financial imperative. It's not. A dollar into your home can almost always be worth more somewhere else when it comes to finances.

[jingle.boy]

Pretty sure we've had this debate on previous pages.

It's not. A dollar into your home can almost always be worth more somewhere else when it comes to finances.

As an investment alone, you're historically correct.  But you also then have to pay a living expense, and $1 into rent is something that earns absolutely nothing other than a roof over your head.  $1 into your home earns you a piece of an asset, and the roof over your head.  In financial terms, rent is an operating expense, and only that.  Mortgage is financing an asset, while avoiding that operating expense.

Unless rent + investing > mortgage in your area, I see no situation where $1 towards home ownership is less valuable than $1 in rent.

[Cool Chris]

Without judging who is (more) right on this topic, it makes me think of some friends whom I actually worked for. They were (not very successful) real estate investors who viewed their properties as investments, and readily admitted to such. Having known them for as long and as well as I did, I can say with certainty that they never felt like the houses they lived in were ever a home. It was never important to them, but it is important to many, and something that is very hard to quantify.

[Fiery Winds]

The rent vs. buy question is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. I'm single, living in the SF bay area and while I have no plans to move, I'm having a hard time justifying a decision to build equity when it would mean my monthly living expense would increase anywhere from 2-4x (currently renting a house with 2 roommates). As Skeever pointed out, I feel that I would be better served saving/investing that extra cash into the market. As a renter, I didn't have to pay to have the trees trimmed this past winter because it was a danger to the neighbor's roof. I didn't have to pay to replace the fence on either side of us in the backyard. And I also didn't have to pay to replace the dishwasher and replace aging plumbing under the sink last month.

That said, I've considered a longer commute and purchasing a small condo, and that may be what I end up doing if/when my current situation runs its course (landlord's decide to sell, roommates move out, etc.)

[TAC]

The rent vs. buy question is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. I'm single, living in the SF bay area and while I have no plans to move, I'm having a hard time justifying a decision to build equity when it would mean my monthly living expense would increase anywhere from 2-4x (currently renting a house with 2 roommates).

Not sure how old you are, but at what point do we stop living with roommates?

[Fiery Winds]

34. Why the negative view on roommates? When the rent for a 1bd/1ba apt. averages between 1.8-2.2k and you can pay about half that to room with 2 friends, that seems frugal to me.

I've been here for about 8 years now, back when it was literally what I could afford, and now that my career is set and I could technically stretch my paycheck to make the mortgage+everything else, I don't see the rush. I view it as an opportunity to bank the savings as long as I can.

[jingle.boy]

34. Why the negative view on roommates? When the rent for a 1bd/1ba apt. averages between 1.8-2.2k and you can pay about half that to room with 2 friends, that seems frugal to me.

I've been here for about 8 years now, back when it was literally what I could afford, and now that my career is set and I could technically stretch my paycheck to make the mortgage+everything else, I don't see the rush. I view it as an opportunity to bank the savings as long as I can.

Fair points... and I wasn't thinking about those that are single and living with roommates (my bad).  My comments were based on the costs/expenses for families.  To that end, for you, rent+investments is very likely < mortgage+homeowner expenses.

[Super Dude]

34. Why the negative view on roommates? When the rent for a 1bd/1ba apt. averages between 1.8-2.2k and you can pay about half that to room with 2 friends, that seems frugal to me.

I've been here for about 8 years now, back when it was literally what I could afford, and now that my career is set and I could technically stretch my paycheck to make the mortgage+everything else, I don't see the rush. I view it as an opportunity to bank the savings as long as I can.

Fair points... and I wasn't thinking about those that are single and living with roommates (my bad).  My comments were based on the costs/expenses for families.  To that end, for you, rent+investments is very likely < mortgage+homeowner expenses.

True. My post was written from a family perspective.

[TAC]

34. Why the negative view on roommates? When the rent for a 1bd/1ba apt. averages between 1.8-2.2k and you can pay about half that to room with 2 friends, that seems frugal to me.

I've been here for about 8 years now, back when it was literally what I could afford, and now that my career is set and I could technically stretch my paycheck to make the mortgage+everything else, I don't see the rush. I view it as an opportunity to bank the savings as long as I can.

Yeah, that all makes sense. I didn't mean to make it sound so condescending.


I had gotten married and divorced in my mid 20's and when I moved out I moved into a house with three other people (who I did not know, I answered an ad), where my rent was just $250. This was back in '95-'96. I was there for not quite a year. But I viewed it as transitional. I could've never envisioned myself living long term like that.

[Skeever]

Unless rent + investing > mortgage in your area, I see no situation where $1 towards home ownership is less valuable than $1 in rent.

Rent + investing is probably the "cheaper" option for most areas in this country. Especially those cities with big job markets. And especially for a young person who considers being able to pack up and go where opportunity calls as one of their advantages. Sure you get something back from that $1 you put into your house, after you take out the taxes, PMI, insurance, upkeep costs, and so on. Maybe like 20% of my monthly payment goes into equity. You can find another place for your dollar that can beat that, even if you have to rent, and especially if you don't want to be a homeowner or don't want to settle. I don't see it as a financial imperative, or much of a financial benefit, compared to other things, despite being a homeowner personally. And that's good news for young people today because we are experiencing, once again, a historic shortage of affordable housing that is available to them. That's all I'm saying.

[Stadler]

The rent vs. buy question is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. I'm single, living in the SF bay area and while I have no plans to move, I'm having a hard time justifying a decision to build equity when it would mean my monthly living expense would increase anywhere from 2-4x (currently renting a house with 2 roommates). As Skeever pointed out, I feel that I would be better served saving/investing that extra cash into the market. As a renter, I didn't have to pay to have the trees trimmed this past winter because it was a danger to the neighbor's roof. I didn't have to pay to replace the fence on either side of us in the backyard. And I also didn't have to pay to replace the dishwasher and replace aging plumbing under the sink last month.

That said, I've considered a longer commute and purchasing a small condo, and that may be what I end up doing if/when my current situation runs its course (landlord's decide to sell, roommates move out, etc.)

Skeever is right when you're discussing the DIFFERENCE.    If renting, all in, costs $1000 a month, and buying, all in, costs $2000 a month, then sure, there are situations where it makes sense.   No question.    But if the rent and buy are close or identical (forget about if buying is CHEAPER) then it's not an opinion.   It's simply math, and math that has been done by millions of people over decades.    If your dwelling expenses are $1000/month, and you're renting, the "investment" value is negative.  It's cash out (sometimes more than just the rent value) and with zero return.  If you're buying, then when you consider ALL factors, including equity and tax impacts, it's positive (even if markets drop; your value in terms of equity is your base purchase price unless and until you SELL or refinance).  And that doesn't even consider that you likely have greater purchasing power with the house (leveraging). Hell, if you had sure-fire investments that you knew would return, you could even take a home equity line and invest THAT, if you're feeling bold, and come out even further ahead (I'm a shade too old and conservative for that move). 

The way Skeever first wrote it, it seemed to imply that dwelling expenses were a discretional spend, and that's only true after a certain point or in extenuating circumstances (I'm not considering those that squat on their freind's couches, or opt to live with their parents, though even in those scenarios, I think there are benefits to home ownership). 

[lordxizor]

You gotta make sure you include upkeep and repair expenses in your comparison though. Many forget that and think that their mortgage is $200 cheaper than rent so they're saving money. We've averaged around $400 a month in repairs,  renovations, and random small expenses since we've moved in. None of those expenses would have been present if we were renting. Still makes sense for us to own, but not by that much. If we'd seen average home value gains instead of crazy big gains over the last few years we'd be about breaking even. Basically we're only ahead because we got lucky with home value increases.

[Chino]

You gotta make sure you include upkeep and repair expenses in your comparison though. Many forget that and think that their mortgage is $200 cheaper than rent so they're saving money. We've averaged around $400 a month in repairs,  renovations, and random small expenses since we've moved in. None of those expenses would have been present if we were renting. Still makes sense for us to own, but not by that much. If we'd seen average home value gains instead of crazy big gains over the last few years we'd be about breaking even. Basically we're only ahead because we got lucky with home value increases.

In the 30 years my parents have owned their house (original owners), they've had to:

Get a driveway done twice - $25K
30 years of lawn mowing service - $18K give or take
30 years of snow plowing the driveway - $18K give or take
New well - $15K
All new windows front and back - $12K
New septic tank - $5K
Furnace replaced - $6K
Central air install - $6K
Two roofs - $25K
4 stain jobs - $20K

Those are just the big jobs I can think of off hand. I'm sure my father could give me a have dozen more. Since buying the house, they've also converted every room and hallway from carpet/linoleum to hardwood. Multiple refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, and water purifiers in the basement have been replaced throughout the years.

Just the basic shit has cost them $150K over 30 years, on top of the $220K they bought the new house for.

I often have the talk with my father about whether or not buying makes more sense financially. It's really entirely circumstantial. In my parents' case, they are not going to come out that far ahead if you ended up doing all the math. But my dad always said "I bought this house because it's where I wanted to live and was a good place to raise a family, not as an investment". I'm sure plenty here will point out the unnecessary expenses of paying someone to mow the lawn or pay someone to do the driveway, but my dad's time was more important to him (there was also a zoning rule that prohibited a shed, and he didn't want to give up the garage to lawn equipment). He could have done the lawn after work on his own, but he wanted to help coach my baseball team and my sister's soccer team, or make music or something instead. The premium that came with the cost of owning that house gave him the life he wanted. He made plenty of other investments elsewhere. Never saw the house as one.

[Skeever]

The rent vs. buy question is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. I'm single, living in the SF bay area and while I have no plans to move, I'm having a hard time justifying a decision to build equity when it would mean my monthly living expense would increase anywhere from 2-4x (currently renting a house with 2 roommates). As Skeever pointed out, I feel that I would be better served saving/investing that extra cash into the market. As a renter, I didn't have to pay to have the trees trimmed this past winter because it was a danger to the neighbor's roof. I didn't have to pay to replace the fence on either side of us in the backyard. And I also didn't have to pay to replace the dishwasher and replace aging plumbing under the sink last month.

That said, I've considered a longer commute and purchasing a small condo, and that may be what I end up doing if/when my current situation runs its course (landlord's decide to sell, roommates move out, etc.)

Skeever is right when you're discussing the DIFFERENCE.    If renting, all in, costs $1000 a month, and buying, all in, costs $2000 a month, then sure, there are situations where it makes sense.   No question.    But if the rent and buy are close or identical (forget about if buying is CHEAPER) then it's not an opinion.   It's simply math, and math that has been done by millions of people over decades.    If your dwelling expenses are $1000/month, and you're renting, the "investment" value is negative.  It's cash out (sometimes more than just the rent value) and with zero return.  If you're buying, then when you consider ALL factors, including equity and tax impacts, it's positive (even if markets drop; your value in terms of equity is your base purchase price unless and until you SELL or refinance).  And that doesn't even consider that you likely have greater purchasing power with the house (leveraging). Hell, if you had sure-fire investments that you knew would return, you could even take a home equity line and invest THAT, if you're feeling bold, and come out even further ahead (I'm a shade too old and conservative for that move). 

The way Skeever first wrote it, it seemed to imply that dwelling expenses were a discretional spend, and that's only true after a certain point or in extenuating circumstances (I'm not considering those that squat on their freind's couches, or opt to live with their parents, though even in those scenarios, I think there are benefits to home ownership).

This is a good thought I hadn't considered. Until you sell or refi (or I guess get reassessed?) you could always borrow against what you have in the value of your home, even if the neighborhood has tanked, and even if someone on the pedo watch list moved in next door.

But I made my initial comment in response to another poster who said they were doing everything they could to aggressive pay down their mortgage as fast as they could. I've gotten in the habit of paying a little extra principal each month myself, but I still feel it's a relatively bad way to invest a dollar. Although, who knows. Maybe you're money's best in an emergency fund these days. And maybe that emergency fund is best in a safe. I know absolutely nothing, at the end of the day.

I also agree with Chino. And, a lot of times, people aren't being realistic about what their house really cost them. The thing is, it's about what YOU want. The number of neighborhoods where you could "own" it for close to what you needed to pay on a monthly basis to rent it are diminishing. And for some people, having to deal with surprising to the order of 5-20k every few years is just going to be added stress and pressure. Not everyone wants to deal with that, and I just want people to know that if they feel home ownership is not something they're interested in, they aren't really missing out on some singular financial opportunity. There are many ways to invest, and home ownership can be a high maintenance and stressful way to to it where you might not come out ahead.

[Stadler]

If the landlord knows what they're doing, you're paying some or all of that in your rent too.    I don't mean to be snarky or insensitive, but if it didn't make sense to own over rent there would be no landlords. 

[Skeever]

If the landlord knows what they're doing, you're paying some or all of that in your rent too.    I don't mean to be snarky or insensitive, but if it didn't make sense to own over rent there would be no landlords.

You're not being snarky or insensitive, you're just doing a lot of "yea, but!" and selectively picking out things I have said to  do your best in making something into a debate. I guess it's fun for you to never let any other post stand without being subject to your personal scrutiny. Have at it, but I've got other things to do today, and this is my last post on the topic for the foreseeable future, so the fun will end for your soon unless someone else wants to provide the free entertainment.

All I said is people need to look at their own situation and what makes sense for them. A dollar into a mortgage might not be as good as a dollar elsewhere. A dollar in a mortgage is not surefire thing, and certainly not surefire enough to impose upon young renters faced with a historically terrible housing market as some kind of financial no-brainer. I think I am lucky to find what I found, when I found it. Faced with the same decision today, I'm not sure what I would do.

[Stadler]

If the landlord knows what they're doing, you're paying some or all of that in your rent too.    I don't mean to be snarky or insensitive, but if it didn't make sense to own over rent there would be no landlords.

You're not being snarky or insensitive, you're just doing a lot of "yea, but!" and selectively picking out things I have said to  do your best in making something into a debate. I guess it's fun for you to never let any other post stand without being subject to your personal scrutiny. Have at it, but I've got other things to do today, and this is my last post on the topic for the foreseeable future, so the fun will end for your soon unless someone else wants to provide the free entertainment.

All I said is people need to look at their own situation and what makes sense for them. A dollar into a mortgage might not be as good as a dollar elsewhere. A dollar in a mortgage is not surefire thing, and certainly not surefire enough to impose upon young renters faced with a historically terrible housing market as some kind of financial no-brainer. I think I am lucky to find what I found, when I found it. Faced with the same decision today, I'm not sure what I would do.

Thanks for the personal comments, I'll take them into consideration.  But this isn't about "me" or my debating style; what I've tried to do is be as considerate and gentle as I could, and still point out that you're calling out very specific, very narrow exceptions to the rule, looking at very limited data (and thereby not comparing apples to apples) and I'm trying to as kindly as I can point out that "yeah, sure, you MIGHT be right IN THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE", but in the VAST majority of cases, it's not a close call.   

You do you.  Rent, buy, squat.  Invest where you feel most comfortable.   Don't care.   But let's not pretend that the math that has been done millions of times over the better part of a century is "50-50" or "case-by-case".   It's not.   

[jingle.boy]

Unless rent + investing > mortgage in your area, I see no situation where $1 towards home ownership is less valuable than $1 in rent.

Rent + investing is probably the "cheaper" option for most areas in this country.

Wow.  I'm surprised at this.  Not challenging the statement, just surprised.  I'm not sure how that can be the case for anyone renting a standalone dwelling (ie, "rent" is simply someone else's mortgage + uplift)

I guess in my own personal experience, my house was an excellent investment (all expenses considered), AND it paid for my (family's) shelter over the last 22 years.  If I'd dumped my cost of shelter into rent - being the only income earner to absorb that rent - I see no possibility how I would have been able to invest enough of a surplus to earn the current equity I have in my home (not to mention the quality of dwelling I would have been able to afford).  Again, for single folks who can spread the cost of rent across room-mates, there's likely some merit in Skeever's point.

[Stadler]

Unless rent + investing > mortgage in your area, I see no situation where $1 towards home ownership is less valuable than $1 in rent.

Rent + investing is probably the "cheaper" option for most areas in this country.

Wow.  I'm surprised at this.  Not challenging the statement, just surprised.  I'm not sure how that can be the case for anyone renting a standalone dwelling (ie, "rent" is simply someone else's mortgage + uplift)

I guess in my own personal experience, my house was an excellent investment (all expenses considered), AND it paid for my (family's) shelter over the last 22 years.  If I'd dumped my cost of shelter into rent - being the only income earner to absorb that rent - I see no possibility how I would have been able to invest enough of a surplus to earn the current equity I have in my home (not to mention the quality of dwelling I would have been able to afford).  Again, for single folks who can spread the cost of rent across room-mates, there's likely some merit in Skeever's point.

But at the risk of incurring Skeever's wrath again, that's not apples to apples.   You can get roommates to spread across a mortgage too.

[cramx3]

My Mom and I often talk about this (she's a real estate agent and found/sold me my house) that buying that house and keeping it after breaking up with my x who wanted to sell it badly was the best financial decision I've ever made.  I still thank her for pushing me in that direction to buy and not rent anymore.  Even as a single dude, it's cheaper than renting an apartment here in terms of mortgage vs. rent.  Obviously the house upkeep comes at a cost, but my gains from the market so far have really outpaced any of my expenses.  I definitely have not spent $100k on my house in the last 8 years, but apparently that's the amount it's value has increased by. 

[kirksnosehair]

I have never received a financial benefit of any kind from renting anything.   

[jingle.boy]

Unless rent + investing > mortgage in your area, I see no situation where $1 towards home ownership is less valuable than $1 in rent.

Rent + investing is probably the "cheaper" option for most areas in this country.

Wow.  I'm surprised at this.  Not challenging the statement, just surprised.  I'm not sure how that can be the case for anyone renting a standalone dwelling (ie, "rent" is simply someone else's mortgage + uplift)

I guess in my own personal experience, my house was an excellent investment (all expenses considered), AND it paid for my (family's) shelter over the last 22 years.  If I'd dumped my cost of shelter into rent - being the only income earner to absorb that rent - I see no possibility how I would have been able to invest enough of a surplus to earn the current equity I have in my home (not to mention the quality of dwelling I would have been able to afford).  Again, for single folks who can spread the cost of rent across room-mates, there's likely some merit in Skeever's point.

But at the risk of incurring Skeever's wrath again, that's not apples to apples.   You can get roommates to spread across a mortgage too.

I'm not quite following you.  What's not apples-to-apples?  On your latter point, are you suggesting 3 dudes purchase a house together, and 3-way co-sign a 25-year mortgage?  Does that actually happen?  I'm not sure if I'm being facetious or not!

[kirksnosehair]

I've known a few unmarried couples who have bought houses together but in 57 years I've never met 3 dudes or 3 gals or any combination thereof who went in 1/3 each on a 30-year mortgage.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think a three-way mortgage (mortgagoutwoi?) is too common 

[cramx3]

Unless rent + investing > mortgage in your area, I see no situation where $1 towards home ownership is less valuable than $1 in rent.

Rent + investing is probably the "cheaper" option for most areas in this country.

Wow.  I'm surprised at this.  Not challenging the statement, just surprised.  I'm not sure how that can be the case for anyone renting a standalone dwelling (ie, "rent" is simply someone else's mortgage + uplift)

I guess in my own personal experience, my house was an excellent investment (all expenses considered), AND it paid for my (family's) shelter over the last 22 years.  If I'd dumped my cost of shelter into rent - being the only income earner to absorb that rent - I see no possibility how I would have been able to invest enough of a surplus to earn the current equity I have in my home (not to mention the quality of dwelling I would have been able to afford).  Again, for single folks who can spread the cost of rent across room-mates, there's likely some merit in Skeever's point.

But at the risk of incurring Skeever's wrath again, that's not apples to apples.   You can get roommates to spread across a mortgage too.

I'm not quite following you.  What's not apples-to-apples?  On your latter point, are you suggesting 3 dudes purchase a house together, and 3-way co-sign a 25-year mortgage?  Does that actually happen?  I'm not sure if I'm being facetious or not!

My brother lived with me for a few years.  He paid me rent.  I think, technically, I should have reported that to the IRS, but who's going to notice?

Or you can do the ole silicon valley tv show way where one guy owned the house and rents it out to aspiring tech geeks who give him a % of their apps they develop while living there.

But seriously, I'm sure there's plenty of instances of one owner renting out rooms in their house.

[TAC]

I've known a few unmarried couples who have bought houses together but in 57 years I've never met 3 dudes or 3 gals or any combination thereof who went in 1/3 each on a 30-year mortgage.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think a three-way mortgage (mortgagoutwoi?) is too common