Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › buying SHOULD BE cheaper than renting

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 186 total)
1 2 3 … 11 12 13
  • Author
    Posts
  • May 12, 2009 at 9:01 AM #15658
    scaredyclassic
    Participant

    What if this argument, buy when it’s cheaper than rent, is nonsense. has this always proved to be a profitable formula or only over the last 30 years? In wha other area is buying NOT cheaper than renting. automobiles, boats, etc. we expect it to be cheaper to buy than rent. we don’t say, oh this is a great time to buya car, it’s cheaper than renting it. it’s always cheaper than rent. it shoudl be cheaper than rent. if it weren’t cheaper than rent, then no one would be a landlord. yeah, sure autos deteriorate, but not if you mainain them. like a house. maybe boats are a better example.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:12 AM #396980
    peterb
    Participant

    Perhaps if someone had data that goes back far enough, a couple of hundred years, it may indicate that purchasing was cheaper? It makes sense. It’s more risk to drop big capital on something than to rent it. Before govt interventions and homeownership policies influenced housing, I think most mortgages reguired 50% down, if you could get one. Imagine what the prices would be now, with that kind of loan? And you couldnt deduct mortgage interest payments. But there wasnt always income tax, either. Hey, go back far enough and only royalty was allowed to own real estate.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:12 AM #397228
    peterb
    Participant

    Perhaps if someone had data that goes back far enough, a couple of hundred years, it may indicate that purchasing was cheaper? It makes sense. It’s more risk to drop big capital on something than to rent it. Before govt interventions and homeownership policies influenced housing, I think most mortgages reguired 50% down, if you could get one. Imagine what the prices would be now, with that kind of loan? And you couldnt deduct mortgage interest payments. But there wasnt always income tax, either. Hey, go back far enough and only royalty was allowed to own real estate.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:12 AM #397451
    peterb
    Participant

    Perhaps if someone had data that goes back far enough, a couple of hundred years, it may indicate that purchasing was cheaper? It makes sense. It’s more risk to drop big capital on something than to rent it. Before govt interventions and homeownership policies influenced housing, I think most mortgages reguired 50% down, if you could get one. Imagine what the prices would be now, with that kind of loan? And you couldnt deduct mortgage interest payments. But there wasnt always income tax, either. Hey, go back far enough and only royalty was allowed to own real estate.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:12 AM #397510
    peterb
    Participant

    Perhaps if someone had data that goes back far enough, a couple of hundred years, it may indicate that purchasing was cheaper? It makes sense. It’s more risk to drop big capital on something than to rent it. Before govt interventions and homeownership policies influenced housing, I think most mortgages reguired 50% down, if you could get one. Imagine what the prices would be now, with that kind of loan? And you couldnt deduct mortgage interest payments. But there wasnt always income tax, either. Hey, go back far enough and only royalty was allowed to own real estate.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:12 AM #397653
    peterb
    Participant

    Perhaps if someone had data that goes back far enough, a couple of hundred years, it may indicate that purchasing was cheaper? It makes sense. It’s more risk to drop big capital on something than to rent it. Before govt interventions and homeownership policies influenced housing, I think most mortgages reguired 50% down, if you could get one. Imagine what the prices would be now, with that kind of loan? And you couldnt deduct mortgage interest payments. But there wasnt always income tax, either. Hey, go back far enough and only royalty was allowed to own real estate.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:29 AM #396990
    carlsbadworker
    Participant

    That is an unfair comparison. Because over the long term, house resale price keeps up with inflation while automobile does not. So if the landlord can make positive cash flow right now, imagine how much money he would make when inflation triple the rent income 30 years from now.

    You left the inflation out of the picture and you give yourself a wrong picture of the realistic world.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:29 AM #397239
    carlsbadworker
    Participant

    That is an unfair comparison. Because over the long term, house resale price keeps up with inflation while automobile does not. So if the landlord can make positive cash flow right now, imagine how much money he would make when inflation triple the rent income 30 years from now.

    You left the inflation out of the picture and you give yourself a wrong picture of the realistic world.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:29 AM #397461
    carlsbadworker
    Participant

    That is an unfair comparison. Because over the long term, house resale price keeps up with inflation while automobile does not. So if the landlord can make positive cash flow right now, imagine how much money he would make when inflation triple the rent income 30 years from now.

    You left the inflation out of the picture and you give yourself a wrong picture of the realistic world.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:29 AM #397520
    carlsbadworker
    Participant

    That is an unfair comparison. Because over the long term, house resale price keeps up with inflation while automobile does not. So if the landlord can make positive cash flow right now, imagine how much money he would make when inflation triple the rent income 30 years from now.

    You left the inflation out of the picture and you give yourself a wrong picture of the realistic world.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:29 AM #397663
    carlsbadworker
    Participant

    That is an unfair comparison. Because over the long term, house resale price keeps up with inflation while automobile does not. So if the landlord can make positive cash flow right now, imagine how much money he would make when inflation triple the rent income 30 years from now.

    You left the inflation out of the picture and you give yourself a wrong picture of the realistic world.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM #396995
    NotCranky
    Participant

    How many people who bought at “break even” , were not in a better cash flow situation a little bit down the road?(if they didn’t take out equity for junk)?

    Landlords often turn intitial cash flow by enterprise and sweat as much as anything. Then as carlsbadworker says, it’s hold time going to work.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM #397244
    NotCranky
    Participant

    How many people who bought at “break even” , were not in a better cash flow situation a little bit down the road?(if they didn’t take out equity for junk)?

    Landlords often turn intitial cash flow by enterprise and sweat as much as anything. Then as carlsbadworker says, it’s hold time going to work.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM #397467
    NotCranky
    Participant

    How many people who bought at “break even” , were not in a better cash flow situation a little bit down the road?(if they didn’t take out equity for junk)?

    Landlords often turn intitial cash flow by enterprise and sweat as much as anything. Then as carlsbadworker says, it’s hold time going to work.

    May 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM #397525
    NotCranky
    Participant

    How many people who bought at “break even” , were not in a better cash flow situation a little bit down the road?(if they didn’t take out equity for junk)?

    Landlords often turn intitial cash flow by enterprise and sweat as much as anything. Then as carlsbadworker says, it’s hold time going to work.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 186 total)
1 2 3 … 11 12 13
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.