Bubble bust and changing landscape

[BGinRB]

[quote=urbanrealtor]The terms you used don’t seem to jive with the citations you made. Unless you 2 had a separate conversation that was not on the thread, I saw no personal attack be esmith on you (your ad hominem). Just using the second person does not generally qualify.
Also, making a competing argument is (necessity v possibility) does not a straw man make. I did not see her (I think its her) reduce your arguments to absurdity and attack them.

While we are bandying about debate club terms, your inapplicable use of “straw-man” and “ad-hominem” are “red-herrings”. It is a distraction from the primary debate and (while intention cannot be determined) they seem to be an intentional attempt to distract.

It seems like you are trying to throw her off her argument (which seems pretty strong).

I don’t generally agree with esmith. But her rent v buy scenario does seem to stand up here. Appreciation can never be known but trends and graphs that track rent to purchase can be obtained (and thus speculation can be made). Rich’s previous graphs about cash flow were very good for this purpose.[/quote]

I once used two of the three you listed to describe general tone of your comments. I stand by what I said in that thread. If you want to discuss it feel free to go back and post to it.

[BGinRB]

[quote=esmith]I absolutely doubt that a single-income engineer with two kids will HAVE TO spend more than 4 grand / month in addition to housing. Based on my personal experience. I wouldn’t call myself all that frugal, but our monthly expenses stay under $2000/month. Granted, I don’t have $600 car payments because the BMW and the minivan are paid off, and I don’t spend $300/month on gas and maintenance. My kids aren’t old enough to need braces, but they are young enough to need diapers, and we just got the twins off the formula. (Now they drink milk like there’s no tomorrow – we usually buy 4 gallons at a time – but it’s a lot cheaper)

But that’s not even the point. The point is, like I said repeatedly, whether you rent or buy, you’ll keep nearly the same amount of money in your pocket. Even ignoring future appreciation, raises, and rent hikes. It is quite feasible for a family with 130K income to buy in 4S today. [/quote]
$4k/month in addition to housing, where housing includes no electricity and maintenance?
Future appreciation, raises and rent hikes are out, together with layoffs (more common than appreciation these days)
Anyway, your point was affordability. You introduced rent-vs-own late in the discussion. Look, your rent-to-own argument is that $2.7K is a break-even point for $650K housing unit with $4.5K/year in MR and $100/month HOA. So, the unit in question ‘cash flows’ at about 260 x rent with 20% down. Does that make sense to you?

According to your numbers take home pay in buy scenario, which is the only one I care to debate, is $8.4K
Basic housing cost: $4.2K.
Even if you have paid of your cars you need to factor in replacement cost and $600/month is not high for two entry level vehicles (let’s say $15K sedan and $25K minivan).
$300/month for gas will buy 1000 gallons of gas in a year. If you average 22mpg you will get 22,000 miles/year between two vehicles. You need to add maintenance (regular stuff, fluids, tires, breaks… nothing fancy). Insurance on the two would be $100/month or so.
Transportation cost: $1000 ($600 + $300 + $100)
Basic utilities – electricity, water, trash…: $300/month
Phone, cell phone, Internet, TV: $200
Food: $500
Preschool/school supplies/baby formula/diapers (no worries, there is always something in that column): $400 (two half-day 3 days/week parent-participation kids in a ‘public’ preschool will cost you $500 alone)
Misc home supplies (toilet paper, detergent, soap, tooth brushes): $200
So far we have $6.8K in expenses. If something happens you can defer some of the expenses, but not really avoid them altogether.
You threw no birthday party for your kids, you went to no birthday party yourself, you did not dine out, you did not take you wife to a theater, you put no money in your wife’s IRA, you did not take your kids to Wild Animal Park, you sent no money to your aging parents , you paid no co-pay, your employer covers 100% medical, you took no vacation, you bought no computer, no furniture, no TV … you have $1.6K/month to do so. And then you save whatever is left to recover from the recent $130K down expense and make sure you have enough to mitigate the most severe risk.
Good luck.

Your point was affordability. You introduced

[BGinRB]

[quote=esmith]I absolutely doubt that a single-income engineer with two kids will HAVE TO spend more than 4 grand / month in addition to housing. Based on my personal experience. I wouldn’t call myself all that frugal, but our monthly expenses stay under $2000/month. Granted, I don’t have $600 car payments because the BMW and the minivan are paid off, and I don’t spend $300/month on gas and maintenance. My kids aren’t old enough to need braces, but they are young enough to need diapers, and we just got the twins off the formula. (Now they drink milk like there’s no tomorrow – we usually buy 4 gallons at a time – but it’s a lot cheaper)

But that’s not even the point. The point is, like I said repeatedly, whether you rent or buy, you’ll keep nearly the same amount of money in your pocket. Even ignoring future appreciation, raises, and rent hikes. It is quite feasible for a family with 130K income to buy in 4S today. [/quote]
$4k/month in addition to housing, where housing includes no electricity and maintenance?
Future appreciation, raises and rent hikes are out, together with layoffs (more common than appreciation these days)
Anyway, your point was affordability. You introduced rent-vs-own late in the discussion. Look, your rent-to-own argument is that $2.7K is a break-even point for $650K housing unit with $4.5K/year in MR and $100/month HOA. So, the unit in question ‘cash flows’ at about 260 x rent with 20% down. Does that make sense to you?

According to your numbers take home pay in buy scenario, which is the only one I care to debate, is $8.4K
Basic housing cost: $4.2K.
Even if you have paid of your cars you need to factor in replacement cost and $600/month is not high for two entry level vehicles (let’s say $15K sedan and $25K minivan).
$300/month for gas will buy 1000 gallons of gas in a year. If you average 22mpg you will get 22,000 miles/year between two vehicles. You need to add maintenance (regular stuff, fluids, tires, breaks… nothing fancy). Insurance on the two would be $100/month or so.
Transportation cost: $1000 ($600 + $300 + $100)
Basic utilities – electricity, water, trash…: $300/month
Phone, cell phone, Internet, TV: $200
Food: $500
Preschool/school supplies/baby formula/diapers (no worries, there is always something in that column): $400 (two half-day 3 days/week parent-participation kids in a ‘public’ preschool will cost you $500 alone)
Misc home supplies (toilet paper, detergent, soap, tooth brushes): $200
So far we have $6.8K in expenses. If something happens you can defer some of the expenses, but not really avoid them altogether.
You threw no birthday party for your kids, you went to no birthday party yourself, you did not dine out, you did not take you wife to a theater, you put no money in your wife’s IRA, you did not take your kids to Wild Animal Park, you sent no money to your aging parents , you paid no co-pay, your employer covers 100% medical, you took no vacation, you bought no computer, no furniture, no TV … you have $1.6K/month to do so. And then you save whatever is left to recover from the recent $130K down expense and make sure you have enough to mitigate the most severe risk.
Good luck.

Your point was affordability. You introduced

[BGinRB]

[quote=esmith]I absolutely doubt that a single-income engineer with two kids will HAVE TO spend more than 4 grand / month in addition to housing. Based on my personal experience. I wouldn’t call myself all that frugal, but our monthly expenses stay under $2000/month. Granted, I don’t have $600 car payments because the BMW and the minivan are paid off, and I don’t spend $300/month on gas and maintenance. My kids aren’t old enough to need braces, but they are young enough to need diapers, and we just got the twins off the formula. (Now they drink milk like there’s no tomorrow – we usually buy 4 gallons at a time – but it’s a lot cheaper)

But that’s not even the point. The point is, like I said repeatedly, whether you rent or buy, you’ll keep nearly the same amount of money in your pocket. Even ignoring future appreciation, raises, and rent hikes. It is quite feasible for a family with 130K income to buy in 4S today. [/quote]
$4k/month in addition to housing, where housing includes no electricity and maintenance?
Future appreciation, raises and rent hikes are out, together with layoffs (more common than appreciation these days)
Anyway, your point was affordability. You introduced rent-vs-own late in the discussion. Look, your rent-to-own argument is that $2.7K is a break-even point for $650K housing unit with $4.5K/year in MR and $100/month HOA. So, the unit in question ‘cash flows’ at about 260 x rent with 20% down. Does that make sense to you?

According to your numbers take home pay in buy scenario, which is the only one I care to debate, is $8.4K
Basic housing cost: $4.2K.
Even if you have paid of your cars you need to factor in replacement cost and $600/month is not high for two entry level vehicles (let’s say $15K sedan and $25K minivan).
$300/month for gas will buy 1000 gallons of gas in a year. If you average 22mpg you will get 22,000 miles/year between two vehicles. You need to add maintenance (regular stuff, fluids, tires, breaks… nothing fancy). Insurance on the two would be $100/month or so.
Transportation cost: $1000 ($600 + $300 + $100)
Basic utilities – electricity, water, trash…: $300/month
Phone, cell phone, Internet, TV: $200
Food: $500
Preschool/school supplies/baby formula/diapers (no worries, there is always something in that column): $400 (two half-day 3 days/week parent-participation kids in a ‘public’ preschool will cost you $500 alone)
Misc home supplies (toilet paper, detergent, soap, tooth brushes): $200
So far we have $6.8K in expenses. If something happens you can defer some of the expenses, but not really avoid them altogether.
You threw no birthday party for your kids, you went to no birthday party yourself, you did not dine out, you did not take you wife to a theater, you put no money in your wife’s IRA, you did not take your kids to Wild Animal Park, you sent no money to your aging parents , you paid no co-pay, your employer covers 100% medical, you took no vacation, you bought no computer, no furniture, no TV … you have $1.6K/month to do so. And then you save whatever is left to recover from the recent $130K down expense and make sure you have enough to mitigate the most severe risk.
Good luck.

Your point was affordability. You introduced

[BGinRB]

[quote=esmith]I absolutely doubt that a single-income engineer with two kids will HAVE TO spend more than 4 grand / month in addition to housing. Based on my personal experience. I wouldn’t call myself all that frugal, but our monthly expenses stay under $2000/month. Granted, I don’t have $600 car payments because the BMW and the minivan are paid off, and I don’t spend $300/month on gas and maintenance. My kids aren’t old enough to need braces, but they are young enough to need diapers, and we just got the twins off the formula. (Now they drink milk like there’s no tomorrow – we usually buy 4 gallons at a time – but it’s a lot cheaper)

But that’s not even the point. The point is, like I said repeatedly, whether you rent or buy, you’ll keep nearly the same amount of money in your pocket. Even ignoring future appreciation, raises, and rent hikes. It is quite feasible for a family with 130K income to buy in 4S today. [/quote]
$4k/month in addition to housing, where housing includes no electricity and maintenance?
Future appreciation, raises and rent hikes are out, together with layoffs (more common than appreciation these days)
Anyway, your point was affordability. You introduced rent-vs-own late in the discussion. Look, your rent-to-own argument is that $2.7K is a break-even point for $650K housing unit with $4.5K/year in MR and $100/month HOA. So, the unit in question ‘cash flows’ at about 260 x rent with 20% down. Does that make sense to you?

According to your numbers take home pay in buy scenario, which is the only one I care to debate, is $8.4K
Basic housing cost: $4.2K.
Even if you have paid of your cars you need to factor in replacement cost and $600/month is not high for two entry level vehicles (let’s say $15K sedan and $25K minivan).
$300/month for gas will buy 1000 gallons of gas in a year. If you average 22mpg you will get 22,000 miles/year between two vehicles. You need to add maintenance (regular stuff, fluids, tires, breaks… nothing fancy). Insurance on the two would be $100/month or so.
Transportation cost: $1000 ($600 + $300 + $100)
Basic utilities – electricity, water, trash…: $300/month
Phone, cell phone, Internet, TV: $200
Food: $500
Preschool/school supplies/baby formula/diapers (no worries, there is always something in that column): $400 (two half-day 3 days/week parent-participation kids in a ‘public’ preschool will cost you $500 alone)
Misc home supplies (toilet paper, detergent, soap, tooth brushes): $200
So far we have $6.8K in expenses. If something happens you can defer some of the expenses, but not really avoid them altogether.
You threw no birthday party for your kids, you went to no birthday party yourself, you did not dine out, you did not take you wife to a theater, you put no money in your wife’s IRA, you did not take your kids to Wild Animal Park, you sent no money to your aging parents , you paid no co-pay, your employer covers 100% medical, you took no vacation, you bought no computer, no furniture, no TV … you have $1.6K/month to do so. And then you save whatever is left to recover from the recent $130K down expense and make sure you have enough to mitigate the most severe risk.
Good luck.

Your point was affordability. You introduced

[BGinRB]

[quote=esmith]I absolutely doubt that a single-income engineer with two kids will HAVE TO spend more than 4 grand / month in addition to housing. Based on my personal experience. I wouldn’t call myself all that frugal, but our monthly expenses stay under $2000/month. Granted, I don’t have $600 car payments because the BMW and the minivan are paid off, and I don’t spend $300/month on gas and maintenance. My kids aren’t old enough to need braces, but they are young enough to need diapers, and we just got the twins off the formula. (Now they drink milk like there’s no tomorrow – we usually buy 4 gallons at a time – but it’s a lot cheaper)

But that’s not even the point. The point is, like I said repeatedly, whether you rent or buy, you’ll keep nearly the same amount of money in your pocket. Even ignoring future appreciation, raises, and rent hikes. It is quite feasible for a family with 130K income to buy in 4S today. [/quote]
$4k/month in addition to housing, where housing includes no electricity and maintenance?
Future appreciation, raises and rent hikes are out, together with layoffs (more common than appreciation these days)
Anyway, your point was affordability. You introduced rent-vs-own late in the discussion. Look, your rent-to-own argument is that $2.7K is a break-even point for $650K housing unit with $4.5K/year in MR and $100/month HOA. So, the unit in question ‘cash flows’ at about 260 x rent with 20% down. Does that make sense to you?

According to your numbers take home pay in buy scenario, which is the only one I care to debate, is $8.4K
Basic housing cost: $4.2K.
Even if you have paid of your cars you need to factor in replacement cost and $600/month is not high for two entry level vehicles (let’s say $15K sedan and $25K minivan).
$300/month for gas will buy 1000 gallons of gas in a year. If you average 22mpg you will get 22,000 miles/year between two vehicles. You need to add maintenance (regular stuff, fluids, tires, breaks… nothing fancy). Insurance on the two would be $100/month or so.
Transportation cost: $1000 ($600 + $300 + $100)
Basic utilities – electricity, water, trash…: $300/month
Phone, cell phone, Internet, TV: $200
Food: $500
Preschool/school supplies/baby formula/diapers (no worries, there is always something in that column): $400 (two half-day 3 days/week parent-participation kids in a ‘public’ preschool will cost you $500 alone)
Misc home supplies (toilet paper, detergent, soap, tooth brushes): $200
So far we have $6.8K in expenses. If something happens you can defer some of the expenses, but not really avoid them altogether.
You threw no birthday party for your kids, you went to no birthday party yourself, you did not dine out, you did not take you wife to a theater, you put no money in your wife’s IRA, you did not take your kids to Wild Animal Park, you sent no money to your aging parents , you paid no co-pay, your employer covers 100% medical, you took no vacation, you bought no computer, no furniture, no TV … you have $1.6K/month to do so. And then you save whatever is left to recover from the recent $130K down expense and make sure you have enough to mitigate the most severe risk.
Good luck.

Your point was affordability. You introduced

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

So, the unit in question ‘cash flows’ at about 260 x rent with 20% down. Does that make sense to you?

Why use a rule of thumb (price as a multiple of rent) when the numbers are all laid out already.

Rules of thumb do not account for progressive tax rates or the loss of those breaks at the point where the standard deduction exceeds itemized.

A break-even analysis for rent versus buy is completely different for someone buying making 60K compared to someone making 130K. Therefore the ratio of price to rent at which renting and buying are equivalent on a monthly cash flow basis are significantly different, depending on income levels. Thorough analysis trumps rules of thumb.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

So, the unit in question ‘cash flows’ at about 260 x rent with 20% down. Does that make sense to you?

Why use a rule of thumb (price as a multiple of rent) when the numbers are all laid out already.

Rules of thumb do not account for progressive tax rates or the loss of those breaks at the point where the standard deduction exceeds itemized.

A break-even analysis for rent versus buy is completely different for someone buying making 60K compared to someone making 130K. Therefore the ratio of price to rent at which renting and buying are equivalent on a monthly cash flow basis are significantly different, depending on income levels. Thorough analysis trumps rules of thumb.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

So, the unit in question ‘cash flows’ at about 260 x rent with 20% down. Does that make sense to you?

Why use a rule of thumb (price as a multiple of rent) when the numbers are all laid out already.

Rules of thumb do not account for progressive tax rates or the loss of those breaks at the point where the standard deduction exceeds itemized.

A break-even analysis for rent versus buy is completely different for someone buying making 60K compared to someone making 130K. Therefore the ratio of price to rent at which renting and buying are equivalent on a monthly cash flow basis are significantly different, depending on income levels. Thorough analysis trumps rules of thumb.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

So, the unit in question ‘cash flows’ at about 260 x rent with 20% down. Does that make sense to you?

Why use a rule of thumb (price as a multiple of rent) when the numbers are all laid out already.

Rules of thumb do not account for progressive tax rates or the loss of those breaks at the point where the standard deduction exceeds itemized.

A break-even analysis for rent versus buy is completely different for someone buying making 60K compared to someone making 130K. Therefore the ratio of price to rent at which renting and buying are equivalent on a monthly cash flow basis are significantly different, depending on income levels. Thorough analysis trumps rules of thumb.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

So, the unit in question ‘cash flows’ at about 260 x rent with 20% down. Does that make sense to you?

Why use a rule of thumb (price as a multiple of rent) when the numbers are all laid out already.

Rules of thumb do not account for progressive tax rates or the loss of those breaks at the point where the standard deduction exceeds itemized.

A break-even analysis for rent versus buy is completely different for someone buying making 60K compared to someone making 130K. Therefore the ratio of price to rent at which renting and buying are equivalent on a monthly cash flow basis are significantly different, depending on income levels. Thorough analysis trumps rules of thumb.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Interesting thread.

Despite some meandering, the occasional red-herring, and the need for every thread to include the words straw man and ad hominem , the opposing points seem to have evolved to 2 primary issues :

1. Monthly costs of carrying the mortgage in esmith’s example is equivalent to rent at $2700 per month, plus a few hundred bucks. Therefore buying in this particular price/range and associated tax bracket is really not that much more expensive on a monthly cash flow basis.

2. The risks to buying in this particular example, however include the dead money put towards downpayment (opportunity cost), risk of job loss, risk of further erosion of principle, risk of large expenses related to property maintenance/repair.

Just an opinion, but in the current environment, it would seem that for most the risks would outweigh the fact that renting and owning are roughly equivalent, except in cases where one has significant other assets outside the down payment. (e.g. a few hundred K in retirement savings already or 50-100K cash).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Interesting thread.

Despite some meandering, the occasional red-herring, and the need for every thread to include the words straw man and ad hominem , the opposing points seem to have evolved to 2 primary issues :

1. Monthly costs of carrying the mortgage in esmith’s example is equivalent to rent at $2700 per month, plus a few hundred bucks. Therefore buying in this particular price/range and associated tax bracket is really not that much more expensive on a monthly cash flow basis.

2. The risks to buying in this particular example, however include the dead money put towards downpayment (opportunity cost), risk of job loss, risk of further erosion of principle, risk of large expenses related to property maintenance/repair.

Just an opinion, but in the current environment, it would seem that for most the risks would outweigh the fact that renting and owning are roughly equivalent, except in cases where one has significant other assets outside the down payment. (e.g. a few hundred K in retirement savings already or 50-100K cash).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Interesting thread.

Despite some meandering, the occasional red-herring, and the need for every thread to include the words straw man and ad hominem , the opposing points seem to have evolved to 2 primary issues :

1. Monthly costs of carrying the mortgage in esmith’s example is equivalent to rent at $2700 per month, plus a few hundred bucks. Therefore buying in this particular price/range and associated tax bracket is really not that much more expensive on a monthly cash flow basis.

2. The risks to buying in this particular example, however include the dead money put towards downpayment (opportunity cost), risk of job loss, risk of further erosion of principle, risk of large expenses related to property maintenance/repair.

Just an opinion, but in the current environment, it would seem that for most the risks would outweigh the fact that renting and owning are roughly equivalent, except in cases where one has significant other assets outside the down payment. (e.g. a few hundred K in retirement savings already or 50-100K cash).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Interesting thread.

Despite some meandering, the occasional red-herring, and the need for every thread to include the words straw man and ad hominem , the opposing points seem to have evolved to 2 primary issues :

1. Monthly costs of carrying the mortgage in esmith’s example is equivalent to rent at $2700 per month, plus a few hundred bucks. Therefore buying in this particular price/range and associated tax bracket is really not that much more expensive on a monthly cash flow basis.

2. The risks to buying in this particular example, however include the dead money put towards downpayment (opportunity cost), risk of job loss, risk of further erosion of principle, risk of large expenses related to property maintenance/repair.

Just an opinion, but in the current environment, it would seem that for most the risks would outweigh the fact that renting and owning are roughly equivalent, except in cases where one has significant other assets outside the down payment. (e.g. a few hundred K in retirement savings already or 50-100K cash).

[Author]

Posts