So you're gonna post a link to one article of argument of a dude and then act like this one article is a fact and decides how the subject really is.
Good for you, I'm personally not buying it.
Hair is actually an overrated trait
- Thread starter marco75
- Start date
So you're gonna post a link to one article of argument of a dude and then act like this one article is a fact and decides how the subject really is.
Good for you, I'm personally not buying it.
from what I see, after reading some into both articles, renting vs buying depends on where you live in and how long you're planning on staying in the area you live in.
- Reaction score
- 5,209
Being someone that has bought, rented and sold over 30 homes, I have to completely disagree with this. You should only rent when you absolutely have to ( financial reasons or needing to move in a few years). Otherwise, and especially here in the states, remodeling foreclosures is 100% the way to go (don't know much about real estate in Belgium). It was definitely the way to go eight plus years ago. I bought my home for 60k. It's almost paid off and after a few remodels here and there, I could sell it tomorrow for 180k. Renting is just throwing your money away.
- Reaction score
- 5,209
It's different given your location and life situation obviously. For example, where i live, I would have to pay 1200/mo to rent my house. I pay the bank $480, the city $200 in taxes and about $70 a month in insurance. Ever premium goes towards me owning the house as well. I am essentially paying half what I would if I rented AND paying the house off.
I struggle to find a situation where renting is more efficient than buying, unless you absolutely have to.
EvilLocks
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 5,530
Because I can sell my apartment anytime and get my money back if I so wish, and since I am renovating the place top to bottom I'll actually earn money if I choose to sell. It's pretty simple really. If I rented the place I would pay as much monthly as I do today with my loan, but I wouldn't get any money back if/when I decide to move into another place and sell my apartment.
Edit: I should have clarified that I already had some money saved up that I inherited from my grandparents, so therefore I will end up with that amount of money if I sell my apartment + the new value of the place when it's been renovated = I will end up with more money than I started with if I sell my place, in contrast to what I would end up with if I rented = 0$
Eren
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 173
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 11,938
Honestly that wouldn't prevent me from taking finasteride ... gunecomastia is a disease with a cure.
Post-finasteride syndrome has no cure.
- Reaction score
- 11,938
That actually depends on the specific real estate market. The cost of an average home divided by the cost of average monthly rent actually varies significantly, as do the tax incentives. A renter is also not liable for damages and has more mobility.
Yes, an owner keeps the money if the market is stable. But the cost of a mortgage will often vastly increase the cost of renting, and you can invest the difference in the stock market which will often do better.
It's not really.
1) It's like a wig. It isn't real and isn't quite the same.
2) I don't know about Norway or Belgium, In the UK it's actually taboo. The abuse you would get would be beyond belief. I think I'd have to emigrate and start a new life if I got a hair transplant.
- Reaction score
- 5,209
dude, I have become a millionaire investing in houses. I really don't understand what you're talking about. Are you saying that buying homes is always a bad investment? When the market collapsed I bought homes for 5-20k that I recently sold for 60-80k. I rented them out for 700-900/mp for like seven years as well. Like I said, I could return almost a hundred grand on my own house. Let me do the math... yup, i am right. Even with interest, principle, insurance, and Propecia tax, I pay less than $900 a month for my own house, WHILE paying it off. If I rented it, it would easily be 1200/mo... while NOT paying it off. I am sorry, but as an investor and licensed real estate agent, I am missing your logic on this one. renting is a bullsh*t waste of money, UNLESS you absolutely have to. No business man EVER has said, yeah renting is better than buying. ever.
- Reaction score
- 11,938
It's a good investment to take part in, but I want to point out that this is bad for the economy.
Let's leave aside the fact that the 2007 housing crashed hurt more homeowners than it helped.
The economy in the united states is disproportionately focused on real estate and that's very damaging. The goverment goes out of its way to inflate housing prices as much as possible, it's a government-backed bubble not based on anything so in the long run it will be devastating. The rising costs of housing, along with the rising costs of education, mean that younger generations in the USA are being destroyed. Asking a 30-year old couple just starting out to fork over money for a 30-year mortgage at 1 million dollars, when their first kid is born soon and they still have 200,000 in student loans, is national economic suicide.
The government should not be inflating housing prices.
But since it is, good for you for taking advantage. You're not responsible for this situation so you might as well take advantage.
- Reaction score
- 5,209
I understand... but, the majority of the houses I bought when I started where in low income areas.. most of which would have been set for demolition. I then rented them to low income families, quite a few that had been foreclosed on when the crash occurred. For example, three of them, I sold on land contract to the same families. A 30 year mortgage at one million dollars is a different story and is very wreckless. Responsible lending and responsible buying is good for the economy. People buying foreclosed homes in poorer neighborhoods, rehabbing them and renting them back out to the people in those neighborhoods, working people is a good thing. A bank providing a 300k mortgage to a cleaning lady is not and this is what caused this mess.
- Reaction score
- 11,938
What caused the mess is basing the whole economy on real estate.
Banks providing 300k to a cleaning lady is an effect, not a cause. The US government wants the economy to be based on housing. George Bush the Second called it "The Ownership Society". The idea is that if someone aged 25 takes out a 40-year mortgage and spends 45% of their income during that span on mortgage payments, property taxes, rennovations, etc, then they will be "owners" even though the bank owns the house, and be vested in capitalism. At the end they will be 65 years old and "rich". However, their money will be tied into the house. If they actually want to use that money, they need to sell their home ... but then they have nowhere to live.
30-year mortgage at 1 million dollars is the only option in large parts of the country. You might respond "Just don't live in New York Boston San Francisco Miami Los Angeles Seattle Dallas Houston Honolulu Chicago" but that's not practical advice. We can't all live in rural New Hampshire or Alaska.
There's only one solution to this mess: A major housing crash. The government should stop propping up housing by any means necessary. If it happens, it's going to be ugly. As painful as vomiting is when you've drunk too much liquor.
- Reaction score
- 5,209
I agree, to some extent. Huge investors. I am a small investor. I buy really run down houses cash and remodel them myself and with the two, formerly jobless workers I employ. The banks and wall street are the problem. People like me are just the vultures who feed off their scraps and work to turn over run down areas and make them nice again. Must I still be involved with the banks and Fannie mae and all those who caused this sh*t? of course, but there is a way to do that as minimally as possible and there is a way to borrow, at low interest from smaller, more responsible banks. I just think there IS definitely a way to responsibly borrow money, with a plan to pay it back. and I don't understand how irresponsible lending was an effect? not a cause?
- Reaction score
- 11,938
@buckthorn , Irresponsible lending and borrowing were inevitable given that the government decided to Propecia up housing indefinitely several decades ago. Once there's a popular belief that you're guaranteed to make 15% annual returns off real estate, which is impossible without government backing, there will be vultures and parasites crowding in.
The banks had an incentive to be irresponsible lenders and thus they lend irresponsibly. If the owners pay them back, they make money. If the owner doesn't pay them back, they still make money because:
1) They evict the owner and keep the property;
2) The government buys the mortgage off them;
How many people have gone to jail and acquired criminal records off the housing crash? Zero. Zero criminal convictions for all that fraud. Meanwhile, if you were to steal bread from the bakery you might spend a year in jail or more off a "three-strikes" law. There is no incentive against fraud. There are a lot of incentives for fraud. So fraud happens. Human beings respond to perceived incentives: that's a law of human nature. As far as I can tell, both Trump and Clinton supporting hitting the accelerator on the real estate bubble.
In the USA:
- Interest on mortgages is 100% tax deductible;
- Interest on student loans is deductible up to $2,500, and not deductible if you make more than 80,000/year;
- Interest on consumer credit card debt is 0% tax deductible;
Most other countries don't have such a lopsided incentive for home ownership.
The other factor is the spending on roads and public transportation. Buses, metros, trains, are scorned upon throughout the USA. Buses are seen as being "for losers". Meanwhile, there is lavish spending on highways, toll roads, expressways, and so on. This is a massive distortionary economic incentive, unique in the western world, encouraging people to buy homes in the suburbs rather than rent apartments in the city.
The banks had an incentive to be irresponsible lenders and thus they lend irresponsibly. If the owners pay them back, they make money. If the owner doesn't pay them back, they still make money because:
1) They evict the owner and keep the property;
2) The government buys the mortgage off them;
How many people have gone to jail and acquired criminal records off the housing crash? Zero. Zero criminal convictions for all that fraud. Meanwhile, if you were to steal bread from the bakery you might spend a year in jail or more off a "three-strikes" law. There is no incentive against fraud. There are a lot of incentives for fraud. So fraud happens. Human beings respond to perceived incentives: that's a law of human nature. As far as I can tell, both Trump and Clinton supporting hitting the accelerator on the real estate bubble.
In the USA:
- Interest on mortgages is 100% tax deductible;
- Interest on student loans is deductible up to $2,500, and not deductible if you make more than 80,000/year;
- Interest on consumer credit card debt is 0% tax deductible;
Most other countries don't have such a lopsided incentive for home ownership.
The other factor is the spending on roads and public transportation. Buses, metros, trains, are scorned upon throughout the USA. Buses are seen as being "for losers". Meanwhile, there is lavish spending on highways, toll roads, expressways, and so on. This is a massive distortionary economic incentive, unique in the western world, encouraging people to buy homes in the suburbs rather than rent apartments in the city.
- Reaction score
- 4,504
Despite Rooney? I thought his "success" had helped shed a new light on this matter.
When I got my first transplant, my own parents said "oh but what were you waiting for?"
- Reaction score
- 5,209
but yes, I was not considering huge cities, as I am ignorant of them! haha.. I just got back from SFO, where even the poorer surrounding areas the houses sell for at least $400k and it's only cash. I think small investors in low to middle income areas that rehab houses WITHOUT directly or indirectly inducing any form of gentrification is a great thing. By "making nice" I would never imply
dang man! economics major? or just well read?
dang man! economics major? or just well read?
- Reaction score
- 11,938
I'm just well-read.
Majored in physics and mathematics, then PhD in Astronomy.
Interests in history, politics, economics, sociology, film, literature. I was voted most likely of my high school class to become prime minister, but that ain't happening.
If I can end up anywhere in the USA, I'd prefer to end up in a city of 50,000 to 250,000. That will maximize my quality of life as I'll be a white collar worker (academic). Larger cities are wonderful for ... visiting. And meeting women arguably. But the more expensive housing and time spent in traffic really reduce quality of life.
Majored in physics and mathematics, then PhD in Astronomy.
Interests in history, politics, economics, sociology, film, literature. I was voted most likely of my high school class to become prime minister, but that ain't happening.
If I can end up anywhere in the USA, I'd prefer to end up in a city of 50,000 to 250,000. That will maximize my quality of life as I'll be a white collar worker (academic). Larger cities are wonderful for ... visiting. And meeting women arguably. But the more expensive housing and time spent in traffic really reduce quality of life.
- Reaction score
- 11,938
Was out with three women and a man for dinner tonight. Discussed a lot of things. I did ask what they type was.
The first one said she likes height, broad shoulders, a toned build, every man she dated from 18 to 25 was 6'3 and had very broad shoulders. As she got older she started to care more about brains.
Second one said she likes powerful arms. She didn't even realize it until her friends pointed out to her that every man she's ever been with has powerful arms.
Third one was more quiet. I'm not sure, but I think she married young and has not been with many men so her "type" is not well defined.
The first one said she likes height, broad shoulders, a toned build, every man she dated from 18 to 25 was 6'3 and had very broad shoulders. As she got older she started to care more about brains.
Second one said she likes powerful arms. She didn't even realize it until her friends pointed out to her that every man she's ever been with has powerful arms.
Third one was more quiet. I'm not sure, but I think she married young and has not been with many men so her "type" is not well defined.