|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
Rod Speed wrote:
Les Cargill wrote Rod Speed wrote Les Cargill wrote SoCalMike wrote Les Cargill wrote ********. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well, the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what. This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly. Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income. But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of ownership. all depends. if you can get a fixed rate mortgage for less than what your rent payments are, and are willing to fix most things on your own its probably worth it. I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much maintainence costs for a home. I know I didnt. Its cost sweet **** all over 35 years now. That's completely ridiculous. Nope, fact. No new roof, Nope, it metal, raised ridge, its as good as it was new. no plumbing issues? Only very trivial stuff, tap washers. No paint? Nope, the outside isnt painted, concrete block, the inside is washable paint. No carpet? Nope, hard floors, quarry tiles. As good as when they were laid. Two of the three houses I've bought were rehabs. I know what happens to a house that goes unmaintained. Depends on the construction. Fair enough, then. You specifically selected materials for indestructibility. Cripes, my parent's house, build in the late '60s, they had to replace the linoleum flooring because of 40 years of traffic wear. The last rehab was $6k materials, but it would have been close to $25k if we'd hired it done. And it's completely, totally different if you can stay in the same house for 35 years. Yes, and few can do that with rentals. I wouldn't rent the same property for 35 years. We'll probably settle down in about ten years. The average tenure is closer to five, You dont have to keep changing the house you own and no one I know has changed the house they own at anything like that rate. When I built my house from scratch myself, I managed to infect quite a few with house owning and one of those has changed houses in that time, and he changed the town he lived in. All the rest are still in the house they built then and so are all but one of my neighbours too. Believe it or not, I worked day labor for a guy that was doing exactly that when I was in college. He ended up building an entire subdivision. He was also lifting river rocks with a 40 horse Ford tractor to where the hydraulics popped maniacally. Things ever slow down enough for me to stay put, I might just. and the transaction costs aren't really even covered in that time. Depends entirely on how you do it. I had quite literally none with mine, didnt even bother with a lawyer or anything like that. When you do what I do for a living, you have to move. Yes, like I said, renting has some advantages if you move a lot. Most dont tho. Right. Since just 1998, I've worked for a total of five firms. Only one of them even still exists. Sure, but thats not that common. Depends. I work in an industry where firms are keenly subject to Schumpeterian forces. But if you backed the right horse, you'd win big. And you pay for that indirectly when you rent anyway. That depends on the market you're in. Nope. Its only dying ghost towns where the rental doesnt cover the maintenance on the property you are renting. I'd look around at the rental prices where you are. This is fairly recent. After all, the mortgage market became very good at inducing people who couldn't afford it to buy. I'm seeing... pre 1990 prices on rental now. And lots of vacancy. In multiple areas. But of course it depends. One place we did rent was a dying town, and we got a hell of a good deal. We knew it was dying, that's why we rented. It covers the property taxes too. The main thing that the rent doesnt cover is the interest on the mortgage. Agreed. Hence my point that landlords must have a significant down on property. Each person must evaluate for themselves which makes the most sense. Yes, but your claim about maintenance is far from the truth if you choose the construction of the house with maintenance costs in mind. No question - but most builder-built houses don't come with those options, or they're very expensive. But with how wages and real estate prices have diverged, the landlord has to have significant equity to even break even. That varys with the property market. Fees, realtor commissions and other transaction costs can run as high as ten percent of the purchase price. Only if you're stupid enough to go that route. It's not exactly stupid.... 99% of housing purchases are like that, and it's probably worth it. Takes a lot of factors to do it your way, and if you get the paperwork wrong, you can (in the US) be unable to sell, unable to bequeath the property or even be condemned. All I can tell you is that I've always been able to rent much more cheaply than buy, to the tune of thousands per year. And if you are a spendthrift, you can end up with **** all in the way of assets when you stop working. So don't do that. Easier said than done with spendthrifts. I certainly don't. I dont either, but I do recognise that owning is a form of forced saving for spendthrifts. Nothing else works as effectively saving wise for them. That's probably unfortunately true. And in years past, I might have looked spendthrift, what with one income and two kids. But that was then. Hasn't been that way for years. -- Les Cargill |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:09:25 -0500, Les Cargill wrote: SoCalMike wrote: Les Cargill wrote: ********. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well, the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what. This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly. Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income. But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of ownership. all depends. if you can get a fixed rate mortgage for less than what your rent payments are, and are willing to fix most things on your own its probably worth it. I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much maintainence costs for a home. All I can tell you is that I've always been able to rent much more cheaply than buy, to the tune of thousands per year. A lot depends on the construction of the house, age of stuff that has to be maintained, etc. Real estate taxes are the killer for some. Mine run about $400 a month now. Ouch. In 12 years here I've spent maybe $15k on maintenance, including all new windows, roof, new furnace and central air, new appliances, tree cutting, etc. Taxes have been over $40k. Maintenance costs could have been lower if I did more of the work myself or went with cheaper stuff. Can't avoid the taxes though. That's the first thing to look at when house hunting. A lot also hinges on how much space you're getting. To get an equivalent sized apartment would have cost many times what I've paid. I've mostly rented houses. And what I found, through sampling error or whatever, is that the simple monthly costs of rental were usually lower. I've also seen several tales of woe from wannabe landlords who ended up bankrupt over leveraged rent houses. My point is that since about 1980, wages ( as opposed to total compensation ) have been pretty flat, and "what the traffic will bear" in the rental market hasn't kept up with cost. If you live spartan and don't care about collecting junk, or having a garage, or having neighbors on the other side of the wall, an apartment could well be cheaper, but it depends on the time frame you're talking about. Then there's the RE market itself - home costs - location, interest rates, etc. Lots goes into getting any sense from a calculation. Absolutely. But it's pretty hard to make a financial case for an apartment if the time frame is 10 years or longer. Maybe less. Agreed. I managed 9 years in *one* house I bought. The rest, I gotta go chase a job. That one was shocking - that area had effectively negative unemployment for 25 years before the bottom fell out. I'm assuming you don't get foolish and buy a home at an inflated price, as many have done. Oh, I did. Once. It all came out fine, though. I about broke even on it, didn't lose that much of the upfront. Dummy me. It was, at least a modest home. Although really, what I paid for it was pretty much the original price plus inflation. It's now worth about 75% of what it *originally* sold for in 1983, so the guy who bought it from me.... Too bad for some youngsters that they fell into that trap. The real problem there is credit cards. Bad craziness, credit cards. Been there, too, to a modest amount. Not going back. Technically, the charges were business finance ( contract travel expenses ), but still... that took me about a year off plan. --Vic -- Les Cargill |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
Les Cargill wrote
Rod Speed wrote Les Cargill wrote Rod Speed wrote Les Cargill wrote SoCalMike wrote Les Cargill wrote ********. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well, the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what. This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly. Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income. But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of ownership. all depends. if you can get a fixed rate mortgage for less than what your rent payments are, and are willing to fix most things on your own its probably worth it. I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much maintainence costs for a home. I know I didnt. Its cost sweet **** all over 35 years now. That's completely ridiculous. Nope, fact. No new roof, Nope, it metal, raised ridge, its as good as it was new. no plumbing issues? Only very trivial stuff, tap washers. No paint? Nope, the outside isnt painted, concrete block, the inside is washable paint. No carpet? Nope, hard floors, quarry tiles. As good as when they were laid. Two of the three houses I've bought were rehabs. I know what happens to a house that goes unmaintained. Depends on the construction. Fair enough, then. You specifically selected materials for indestructibility. Nope, thats what I chose for other reasons and got that as a bonus. Cripes, my parent's house, build in the late '60s, they had to replace the linoleum flooring because of 40 years of traffic wear. My parents didnt. They had quarry tiles too. We've all had dogs that live inside and have never been into wall to wall carpets. The last rehab was $6k materials, but it would have been close to $25k if we'd hired it done. And it's completely, totally different if you can stay in the same house for 35 years. Yes, and few can do that with rentals. I wouldn't rent the same property for 35 years. One of my relos did, what used to be called a 'maiden aunt'. We'll probably settle down in about ten years. The average tenure is closer to five, You dont have to keep changing the house you own and no one I know has changed the house they own at anything like that rate. When I built my house from scratch myself, I managed to infect quite a few with house owning and one of those has changed houses in that time, and he changed the town he lived in. All the rest are still in the house they built then and so are all but one of my neighbours too. Believe it or not, I worked day labor for a guy that was doing exactly that when I was in college. Yeah, I employed one fella like that myself. He ended up building an entire subdivision. He was also lifting river rocks with a 40 horse Ford tractor to where the hydraulics popped maniacally. Things ever slow down enough for me to stay put, I might just. Yeah, its got real pluses and minuses. and the transaction costs aren't really even covered in that time. Depends entirely on how you do it. I had quite literally none with mine, didnt even bother with a lawyer or anything like that. When you do what I do for a living, you have to move. Yes, like I said, renting has some advantages if you move a lot. Most dont tho. Right. Since just 1998, I've worked for a total of five firms. Only one of them even still exists. Sure, but thats not that common. Depends. My dad did in fact move a lot in the first half of his life, military. Didnt move all that much in the second half tho, once he had retired from the military. I work in an industry where firms are keenly subject to Schumpeterian forces. But if you backed the right horse, you'd win big. And you pay for that indirectly when you rent anyway. That depends on the market you're in. Nope. Its only dying ghost towns where the rental doesnt cover the maintenance on the property you are renting. I'd look around at the rental prices where you are. I dont need to, I know what they are. This is fairly recent. Not here it aint. After all, the mortgage market became very good at inducing people who couldn't afford it to buy. I've never believed that. The default rate was far too low for that to be the case until the GFC. I'm seeing... pre 1990 prices on rental now. And lots of vacancy. Not here. There's still a significant shortage of rental property. Sydney is quite literally dire. In multiple areas. But of course it depends. One place we did rent was a dying town, and we got a hell of a good deal. We knew it was dying, that's why we rented. Yeah, they can be cheap, but here they are a hell of a long way from any viable work. It covers the property taxes too. The main thing that the rent doesnt cover is the interest on the mortgage. Agreed. Hence my point that landlords must have a significant down on property. Not here. Each person must evaluate for themselves which makes the most sense. Yes, but your claim about maintenance is far from the truth if you choose the construction of the house with maintenance costs in mind. No question - but most builder-built houses don't come with those options, or they're very expensive. Thats just plain wrong here. Very few arent brick exterior and almost none arent metal or tiled roof. But with how wages and real estate prices have diverged, the landlord has to have significant equity to even break even. That varys with the property market. Fees, realtor commissions and other transaction costs can run as high as ten percent of the purchase price. Only if you're stupid enough to go that route. It's not exactly stupid.... 10% certainly is. 99% of housing purchases are like that, Nope, not 10% and it's probably worth it. Nope. Takes a lot of factors to do it your way, Nope. and if you get the paperwork wrong, you can (in the US) be unable to sell, unable to bequeath the property or even be condemned. It isnt hard to ensure that the paperwork aint wrong. And it doesnt cost you anything like 10% to get someone to ensure that for you. All I can tell you is that I've always been able to rent much more cheaply than buy, to the tune of thousands per year. And if you are a spendthrift, you can end up with **** all in the way of assets when you stop working. So don't do that. Easier said than done with spendthrifts. I certainly don't. I dont either, but I do recognise that owning is a form of forced saving for spendthrifts. Nothing else works as effectively saving wise for them. That's probably unfortunately true. And in years past, I might have looked spendthrift, what with one income and two kids. I never was, but most of those I know are. But that was then. Hasn't been that way for years. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
Les Cargill wrote:
I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much maintainence costs for a home. I know I didnt. Its cost sweet **** all over 35 years now. That's completely ridiculous. No new roof, no plumbing issues? No paint? No carpet? You need to understand that you are attempting to discuss a topic with a troll that lives under an outhouse (thus no costs) - logic / facts will be meaningless. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:09:25 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote: SoCalMike wrote: Les Cargill wrote: ********. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well, the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what. This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly. Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income. But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of ownership. all depends. if you can get a fixed rate mortgage for less than what your rent payments are, and are willing to fix most things on your own its probably worth it. I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much maintainence costs for a home. All I can tell you is that I've always been able to rent much more cheaply than buy, to the tune of thousands per year. Not true over the long term, given everything else being equal. Were that true no one would rent property. Using the same reasoning you must least your cars. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
"Coffee's For Closers" wrote in message ... In article , says... Les Cargill wrote: I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much maintainence costs for a home. I know I didnt. Its cost sweet **** all over 35 years now. That's completely ridiculous. No new roof, no plumbing issues? No paint? No carpet? You need to understand that you are attempting to discuss a topic with a troll that lives under an outhouse (thus no costs) - logic / facts will be meaningless. I didn't see the post, but, somehow, it sounds like you are talking about Rod Speed. He doesn't live under the outhouse. He lives quite comfortably in a nice, suburban house in a nice area. Although his parents are hoping that he will move out some time before the age of fifty. Heh! I always assumed he was older than I am (mid 50s). He writes like an "old fart", or at least he did about 7 years ago when I first killfiled him. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
clams_casino wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: I expect most people woefully underestimate just how much maintainence costs for a home. I know I didnt. Its cost sweet **** all over 35 years now. That's completely ridiculous. No new roof, no plumbing issues? No paint? No carpet? You need to understand that you are attempting to discuss a topic with a troll that lives under an outhouse (thus no costs) - logic / facts will be meaningless. He's actually pretty coherent today. I know Rod very well from sci.econ. -- Les Cargill |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
On Nov 16, 11:56*pm, Les Cargill wrote:
He's actually pretty coherent today. I know Rod very well from sci.econ. They must love him there. Cindy Hamilton |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:56 pm, Les Cargill wrote: He's actually pretty coherent today. I know Rod very well from sci.econ. They must love him there. Cindy Hamilton You've no idea. I thought he was a 'bot for the longest time. -- Les Cargill |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RACQ website poll on yes/no to scrapping the fuel subsidy | Peter | Australia | 0 | May 21st 09 12:01 AM |
Nonsense Video | unifreak7 | Unicycling | 32 | September 1st 06 05:17 PM |
More nonsense from MV | JP | Mountain Biking | 1 | May 1st 05 06:19 PM |
Shoe nonsense | William H. O'Hara, III | Techniques | 12 | November 16th 04 04:14 PM |
Electric Cycle Subsidy | AcKBaR[KAC] | UK | 24 | July 11th 04 06:56 PM |