[surveyor]

taxes!

I believe the principle of the tax code states that if a general assessment is levied and that assessment is broad based and does not specifically benefit the neighborhood, then it is tax deductible.

If that assessment is being levied and benefits those it is assessed against (like a neighborhood) then it is not tax deductible.

But yes, Mello Roos is not considered tax deductible if it is assessed against your personal residence.

You can go ahead and put it on and risk the audit. Still, as for the IRS, I’m sure they have bigger fish to fry.

[surveyor]

taxes!

I believe the principle of the tax code states that if a general assessment is levied and that assessment is broad based and does not specifically benefit the neighborhood, then it is tax deductible.

If that assessment is being levied and benefits those it is assessed against (like a neighborhood) then it is not tax deductible.

But yes, Mello Roos is not considered tax deductible if it is assessed against your personal residence.

You can go ahead and put it on and risk the audit. Still, as for the IRS, I’m sure they have bigger fish to fry.

[surveyor]

taxes!

I believe the principle of the tax code states that if a general assessment is levied and that assessment is broad based and does not specifically benefit the neighborhood, then it is tax deductible.

If that assessment is being levied and benefits those it is assessed against (like a neighborhood) then it is not tax deductible.

But yes, Mello Roos is not considered tax deductible if it is assessed against your personal residence.

You can go ahead and put it on and risk the audit. Still, as for the IRS, I’m sure they have bigger fish to fry.

[surveyor]

taxes!

I believe the principle of the tax code states that if a general assessment is levied and that assessment is broad based and does not specifically benefit the neighborhood, then it is tax deductible.

If that assessment is being levied and benefits those it is assessed against (like a neighborhood) then it is not tax deductible.

But yes, Mello Roos is not considered tax deductible if it is assessed against your personal residence.

You can go ahead and put it on and risk the audit. Still, as for the IRS, I’m sure they have bigger fish to fry.

[surveyor]

back again!

Now that the Laker game is done (and after having spent most of the day mired in the County of Riverside)….

Here’s the punchline for all this if you guys don’t care to read it: There is a reason why homeownership is better than renting.

DW: It’s interesting you mention that Apgar study because the HUD study I showed actually did mention that Apgar study. While it considered its findings, it still found that even for low income families, there were distinct economic and social differences between homeowners and renters (with homeowners having more benefits and advantages). So, maybe you can question the methodology (which the HUD study also brought up), but in its conclusions, it found that the majority of the studies looking at homeownership vs. renting that there were distinct differences, including higher graduation rates. So believe whatever you wish, the data is there. And your study (Apgar) says that maybe the benefits are overstated, but it doesn’t say it doesn’t exist either. Whether the benefits are overstated by 1 or 5 percentage points, the correlation between homeownership and certain economic and social advantages has been historically documented. Apgar may claim the correlation is narrower than it should be, but it is still statistically significant.

Short version: my study is a compilation of studies and says your study, while considered, does not completely eliminate the sociological results of homeownership vs. renting.

Now, as to the bigger question, (and it’s a chicken vs. egg question) were the families in the various studies successful to a certain degree and as a result obtained homeownership and therefore were able to affect their sociological condition positively? Or were the families, as a result of homeownership, started benefiting from it? I don’t know the answer myself.

But I also bring up the PBS show. In it, one of the major points of the program was that (when showing the difference in social classes between the CEO of a hospital, a skilled worker at the hospital, and a lowly unskilled worker at the hospital) humans tend to live longer or shorter based on their position (class) in society. This was an observation made not in the U.S., but in Britain. When they studied the U.S., they found the same results.

One of the things they deduced is that the more control a person has over their environment (a CEO has arguably more control over his life than a janitor – he is able to choose a better area to live in, he is able to choose a better salary, better healthcare, and so on), that person tends to have a longer life span. They also noticed this same trait in monkeys. Monkeys, based on their hierarchy, had shorter or longer lifespans. The ones in charge had longer lifespans and the ones who were in lesser positions had shorter lifespans.

Even Marion mentioned this – having control over your environment. You don’t have control over your environment when you are a renter. Or at least you have less control vs. a homeowner.

And furthermore, I do agree that children don’t know whether or not they’re in a rented house or whether their parents own it (actually my daughter knows). But they do recognize the signs of stress and the environment of stress that is present in a family that has no control over its environment (like the PBS show above). Children can be very observant in a subconscious level and if the parents feel the stress, the children will certainly feel it. It’s like your parents fighting inside their bedroom. You know they’re fighting there, even if you don’t hear it.

In any case, homeownership is arguably the best way to control one’s environment.

Now, I realize of course we are all individuals and I am not making any personal judgements on any of you. I agree, your own personal experience will be markedly different. Having a warm and supportive environment is essential for kids and certainly no one environment is best for everyone.

However, realize that we as humans have been programmed in certain ways as part of our biology. The fact is that shelter is a very important component to our existence. Homeownership is part of that and the more control we have over our existence, the better our sociological and economic results will be.

As a land surveyor, I am very aware of how important land and its ownership is. I could go on and on about how land ownership throughout history has led to better societies and more successful societies. Hey, it’s already bad enough I bore my wife to sleep, I don’t need to include you guys.

You can say that ownership is unimportant or maybe hope for the day when we don’t live in a materialistic society (and I’ve said on more than one occasion here that I hope that happens). However, realize that we haven’t evolved out of that yet. At least not all of us.

“False dichotomy between owning and renting?” Man, as a landlord, I have seen tenants trash a property, but when it came to their own stuff, it was pristine. I helped one of my landlord friends clean up a place, and the tenant rode up in their brand new current year Toyota Camry. It had every upgrade there was. But damned if they could keep their apartment clean.

Or as Thomas Friedman would say, “No one in the history of time has ever washed a rented car.”

Anyways, I hope I made my point. I’m sure someone will come along any minute and start busting holes in my essay. I realize Americans love to question sacred cows and all, but you gotta realize which sacred cows actually have some validity to them and all.

[surveyor]

back again!

Now that the Laker game is done (and after having spent most of the day mired in the County of Riverside)….

Here’s the punchline for all this if you guys don’t care to read it: There is a reason why homeownership is better than renting.

DW: It’s interesting you mention that Apgar study because the HUD study I showed actually did mention that Apgar study. While it considered its findings, it still found that even for low income families, there were distinct economic and social differences between homeowners and renters (with homeowners having more benefits and advantages). So, maybe you can question the methodology (which the HUD study also brought up), but in its conclusions, it found that the majority of the studies looking at homeownership vs. renting that there were distinct differences, including higher graduation rates. So believe whatever you wish, the data is there. And your study (Apgar) says that maybe the benefits are overstated, but it doesn’t say it doesn’t exist either. Whether the benefits are overstated by 1 or 5 percentage points, the correlation between homeownership and certain economic and social advantages has been historically documented. Apgar may claim the correlation is narrower than it should be, but it is still statistically significant.

Short version: my study is a compilation of studies and says your study, while considered, does not completely eliminate the sociological results of homeownership vs. renting.

Now, as to the bigger question, (and it’s a chicken vs. egg question) were the families in the various studies successful to a certain degree and as a result obtained homeownership and therefore were able to affect their sociological condition positively? Or were the families, as a result of homeownership, started benefiting from it? I don’t know the answer myself.

But I also bring up the PBS show. In it, one of the major points of the program was that (when showing the difference in social classes between the CEO of a hospital, a skilled worker at the hospital, and a lowly unskilled worker at the hospital) humans tend to live longer or shorter based on their position (class) in society. This was an observation made not in the U.S., but in Britain. When they studied the U.S., they found the same results.

One of the things they deduced is that the more control a person has over their environment (a CEO has arguably more control over his life than a janitor – he is able to choose a better area to live in, he is able to choose a better salary, better healthcare, and so on), that person tends to have a longer life span. They also noticed this same trait in monkeys. Monkeys, based on their hierarchy, had shorter or longer lifespans. The ones in charge had longer lifespans and the ones who were in lesser positions had shorter lifespans.

Even Marion mentioned this – having control over your environment. You don’t have control over your environment when you are a renter. Or at least you have less control vs. a homeowner.

And furthermore, I do agree that children don’t know whether or not they’re in a rented house or whether their parents own it (actually my daughter knows). But they do recognize the signs of stress and the environment of stress that is present in a family that has no control over its environment (like the PBS show above). Children can be very observant in a subconscious level and if the parents feel the stress, the children will certainly feel it. It’s like your parents fighting inside their bedroom. You know they’re fighting there, even if you don’t hear it.

In any case, homeownership is arguably the best way to control one’s environment.

Now, I realize of course we are all individuals and I am not making any personal judgements on any of you. I agree, your own personal experience will be markedly different. Having a warm and supportive environment is essential for kids and certainly no one environment is best for everyone.

However, realize that we as humans have been programmed in certain ways as part of our biology. The fact is that shelter is a very important component to our existence. Homeownership is part of that and the more control we have over our existence, the better our sociological and economic results will be.

As a land surveyor, I am very aware of how important land and its ownership is. I could go on and on about how land ownership throughout history has led to better societies and more successful societies. Hey, it’s already bad enough I bore my wife to sleep, I don’t need to include you guys.

You can say that ownership is unimportant or maybe hope for the day when we don’t live in a materialistic society (and I’ve said on more than one occasion here that I hope that happens). However, realize that we haven’t evolved out of that yet. At least not all of us.

“False dichotomy between owning and renting?” Man, as a landlord, I have seen tenants trash a property, but when it came to their own stuff, it was pristine. I helped one of my landlord friends clean up a place, and the tenant rode up in their brand new current year Toyota Camry. It had every upgrade there was. But damned if they could keep their apartment clean.

Or as Thomas Friedman would say, “No one in the history of time has ever washed a rented car.”

Anyways, I hope I made my point. I’m sure someone will come along any minute and start busting holes in my essay. I realize Americans love to question sacred cows and all, but you gotta realize which sacred cows actually have some validity to them and all.

[surveyor]

back again!

Now that the Laker game is done (and after having spent most of the day mired in the County of Riverside)….

Here’s the punchline for all this if you guys don’t care to read it: There is a reason why homeownership is better than renting.

DW: It’s interesting you mention that Apgar study because the HUD study I showed actually did mention that Apgar study. While it considered its findings, it still found that even for low income families, there were distinct economic and social differences between homeowners and renters (with homeowners having more benefits and advantages). So, maybe you can question the methodology (which the HUD study also brought up), but in its conclusions, it found that the majority of the studies looking at homeownership vs. renting that there were distinct differences, including higher graduation rates. So believe whatever you wish, the data is there. And your study (Apgar) says that maybe the benefits are overstated, but it doesn’t say it doesn’t exist either. Whether the benefits are overstated by 1 or 5 percentage points, the correlation between homeownership and certain economic and social advantages has been historically documented. Apgar may claim the correlation is narrower than it should be, but it is still statistically significant.

Short version: my study is a compilation of studies and says your study, while considered, does not completely eliminate the sociological results of homeownership vs. renting.

Now, as to the bigger question, (and it’s a chicken vs. egg question) were the families in the various studies successful to a certain degree and as a result obtained homeownership and therefore were able to affect their sociological condition positively? Or were the families, as a result of homeownership, started benefiting from it? I don’t know the answer myself.

But I also bring up the PBS show. In it, one of the major points of the program was that (when showing the difference in social classes between the CEO of a hospital, a skilled worker at the hospital, and a lowly unskilled worker at the hospital) humans tend to live longer or shorter based on their position (class) in society. This was an observation made not in the U.S., but in Britain. When they studied the U.S., they found the same results.

One of the things they deduced is that the more control a person has over their environment (a CEO has arguably more control over his life than a janitor – he is able to choose a better area to live in, he is able to choose a better salary, better healthcare, and so on), that person tends to have a longer life span. They also noticed this same trait in monkeys. Monkeys, based on their hierarchy, had shorter or longer lifespans. The ones in charge had longer lifespans and the ones who were in lesser positions had shorter lifespans.

Even Marion mentioned this – having control over your environment. You don’t have control over your environment when you are a renter. Or at least you have less control vs. a homeowner.

And furthermore, I do agree that children don’t know whether or not they’re in a rented house or whether their parents own it (actually my daughter knows). But they do recognize the signs of stress and the environment of stress that is present in a family that has no control over its environment (like the PBS show above). Children can be very observant in a subconscious level and if the parents feel the stress, the children will certainly feel it. It’s like your parents fighting inside their bedroom. You know they’re fighting there, even if you don’t hear it.

In any case, homeownership is arguably the best way to control one’s environment.

Now, I realize of course we are all individuals and I am not making any personal judgements on any of you. I agree, your own personal experience will be markedly different. Having a warm and supportive environment is essential for kids and certainly no one environment is best for everyone.

However, realize that we as humans have been programmed in certain ways as part of our biology. The fact is that shelter is a very important component to our existence. Homeownership is part of that and the more control we have over our existence, the better our sociological and economic results will be.

As a land surveyor, I am very aware of how important land and its ownership is. I could go on and on about how land ownership throughout history has led to better societies and more successful societies. Hey, it’s already bad enough I bore my wife to sleep, I don’t need to include you guys.

You can say that ownership is unimportant or maybe hope for the day when we don’t live in a materialistic society (and I’ve said on more than one occasion here that I hope that happens). However, realize that we haven’t evolved out of that yet. At least not all of us.

“False dichotomy between owning and renting?” Man, as a landlord, I have seen tenants trash a property, but when it came to their own stuff, it was pristine. I helped one of my landlord friends clean up a place, and the tenant rode up in their brand new current year Toyota Camry. It had every upgrade there was. But damned if they could keep their apartment clean.

Or as Thomas Friedman would say, “No one in the history of time has ever washed a rented car.”

Anyways, I hope I made my point. I’m sure someone will come along any minute and start busting holes in my essay. I realize Americans love to question sacred cows and all, but you gotta realize which sacred cows actually have some validity to them and all.

[surveyor]

back again!

Now that the Laker game is done (and after having spent most of the day mired in the County of Riverside)….

Here’s the punchline for all this if you guys don’t care to read it: There is a reason why homeownership is better than renting.

DW: It’s interesting you mention that Apgar study because the HUD study I showed actually did mention that Apgar study. While it considered its findings, it still found that even for low income families, there were distinct economic and social differences between homeowners and renters (with homeowners having more benefits and advantages). So, maybe you can question the methodology (which the HUD study also brought up), but in its conclusions, it found that the majority of the studies looking at homeownership vs. renting that there were distinct differences, including higher graduation rates. So believe whatever you wish, the data is there. And your study (Apgar) says that maybe the benefits are overstated, but it doesn’t say it doesn’t exist either. Whether the benefits are overstated by 1 or 5 percentage points, the correlation between homeownership and certain economic and social advantages has been historically documented. Apgar may claim the correlation is narrower than it should be, but it is still statistically significant.

Short version: my study is a compilation of studies and says your study, while considered, does not completely eliminate the sociological results of homeownership vs. renting.

Now, as to the bigger question, (and it’s a chicken vs. egg question) were the families in the various studies successful to a certain degree and as a result obtained homeownership and therefore were able to affect their sociological condition positively? Or were the families, as a result of homeownership, started benefiting from it? I don’t know the answer myself.

But I also bring up the PBS show. In it, one of the major points of the program was that (when showing the difference in social classes between the CEO of a hospital, a skilled worker at the hospital, and a lowly unskilled worker at the hospital) humans tend to live longer or shorter based on their position (class) in society. This was an observation made not in the U.S., but in Britain. When they studied the U.S., they found the same results.

One of the things they deduced is that the more control a person has over their environment (a CEO has arguably more control over his life than a janitor – he is able to choose a better area to live in, he is able to choose a better salary, better healthcare, and so on), that person tends to have a longer life span. They also noticed this same trait in monkeys. Monkeys, based on their hierarchy, had shorter or longer lifespans. The ones in charge had longer lifespans and the ones who were in lesser positions had shorter lifespans.

Even Marion mentioned this – having control over your environment. You don’t have control over your environment when you are a renter. Or at least you have less control vs. a homeowner.

And furthermore, I do agree that children don’t know whether or not they’re in a rented house or whether their parents own it (actually my daughter knows). But they do recognize the signs of stress and the environment of stress that is present in a family that has no control over its environment (like the PBS show above). Children can be very observant in a subconscious level and if the parents feel the stress, the children will certainly feel it. It’s like your parents fighting inside their bedroom. You know they’re fighting there, even if you don’t hear it.

In any case, homeownership is arguably the best way to control one’s environment.

Now, I realize of course we are all individuals and I am not making any personal judgements on any of you. I agree, your own personal experience will be markedly different. Having a warm and supportive environment is essential for kids and certainly no one environment is best for everyone.

However, realize that we as humans have been programmed in certain ways as part of our biology. The fact is that shelter is a very important component to our existence. Homeownership is part of that and the more control we have over our existence, the better our sociological and economic results will be.

As a land surveyor, I am very aware of how important land and its ownership is. I could go on and on about how land ownership throughout history has led to better societies and more successful societies. Hey, it’s already bad enough I bore my wife to sleep, I don’t need to include you guys.

You can say that ownership is unimportant or maybe hope for the day when we don’t live in a materialistic society (and I’ve said on more than one occasion here that I hope that happens). However, realize that we haven’t evolved out of that yet. At least not all of us.

“False dichotomy between owning and renting?” Man, as a landlord, I have seen tenants trash a property, but when it came to their own stuff, it was pristine. I helped one of my landlord friends clean up a place, and the tenant rode up in their brand new current year Toyota Camry. It had every upgrade there was. But damned if they could keep their apartment clean.

Or as Thomas Friedman would say, “No one in the history of time has ever washed a rented car.”

Anyways, I hope I made my point. I’m sure someone will come along any minute and start busting holes in my essay. I realize Americans love to question sacred cows and all, but you gotta realize which sacred cows actually have some validity to them and all.

[surveyor]

back again!

Now that the Laker game is done (and after having spent most of the day mired in the County of Riverside)….

Here’s the punchline for all this if you guys don’t care to read it: There is a reason why homeownership is better than renting.

DW: It’s interesting you mention that Apgar study because the HUD study I showed actually did mention that Apgar study. While it considered its findings, it still found that even for low income families, there were distinct economic and social differences between homeowners and renters (with homeowners having more benefits and advantages). So, maybe you can question the methodology (which the HUD study also brought up), but in its conclusions, it found that the majority of the studies looking at homeownership vs. renting that there were distinct differences, including higher graduation rates. So believe whatever you wish, the data is there. And your study (Apgar) says that maybe the benefits are overstated, but it doesn’t say it doesn’t exist either. Whether the benefits are overstated by 1 or 5 percentage points, the correlation between homeownership and certain economic and social advantages has been historically documented. Apgar may claim the correlation is narrower than it should be, but it is still statistically significant.

Short version: my study is a compilation of studies and says your study, while considered, does not completely eliminate the sociological results of homeownership vs. renting.

Now, as to the bigger question, (and it’s a chicken vs. egg question) were the families in the various studies successful to a certain degree and as a result obtained homeownership and therefore were able to affect their sociological condition positively? Or were the families, as a result of homeownership, started benefiting from it? I don’t know the answer myself.

But I also bring up the PBS show. In it, one of the major points of the program was that (when showing the difference in social classes between the CEO of a hospital, a skilled worker at the hospital, and a lowly unskilled worker at the hospital) humans tend to live longer or shorter based on their position (class) in society. This was an observation made not in the U.S., but in Britain. When they studied the U.S., they found the same results.

One of the things they deduced is that the more control a person has over their environment (a CEO has arguably more control over his life than a janitor – he is able to choose a better area to live in, he is able to choose a better salary, better healthcare, and so on), that person tends to have a longer life span. They also noticed this same trait in monkeys. Monkeys, based on their hierarchy, had shorter or longer lifespans. The ones in charge had longer lifespans and the ones who were in lesser positions had shorter lifespans.

Even Marion mentioned this – having control over your environment. You don’t have control over your environment when you are a renter. Or at least you have less control vs. a homeowner.

And furthermore, I do agree that children don’t know whether or not they’re in a rented house or whether their parents own it (actually my daughter knows). But they do recognize the signs of stress and the environment of stress that is present in a family that has no control over its environment (like the PBS show above). Children can be very observant in a subconscious level and if the parents feel the stress, the children will certainly feel it. It’s like your parents fighting inside their bedroom. You know they’re fighting there, even if you don’t hear it.

In any case, homeownership is arguably the best way to control one’s environment.

Now, I realize of course we are all individuals and I am not making any personal judgements on any of you. I agree, your own personal experience will be markedly different. Having a warm and supportive environment is essential for kids and certainly no one environment is best for everyone.

However, realize that we as humans have been programmed in certain ways as part of our biology. The fact is that shelter is a very important component to our existence. Homeownership is part of that and the more control we have over our existence, the better our sociological and economic results will be.

As a land surveyor, I am very aware of how important land and its ownership is. I could go on and on about how land ownership throughout history has led to better societies and more successful societies. Hey, it’s already bad enough I bore my wife to sleep, I don’t need to include you guys.

You can say that ownership is unimportant or maybe hope for the day when we don’t live in a materialistic society (and I’ve said on more than one occasion here that I hope that happens). However, realize that we haven’t evolved out of that yet. At least not all of us.

“False dichotomy between owning and renting?” Man, as a landlord, I have seen tenants trash a property, but when it came to their own stuff, it was pristine. I helped one of my landlord friends clean up a place, and the tenant rode up in their brand new current year Toyota Camry. It had every upgrade there was. But damned if they could keep their apartment clean.

Or as Thomas Friedman would say, “No one in the history of time has ever washed a rented car.”

Anyways, I hope I made my point. I’m sure someone will come along any minute and start busting holes in my essay. I realize Americans love to question sacred cows and all, but you gotta realize which sacred cows actually have some validity to them and all.

[surveyor]

DR:

So you don’t trust dictionaries now?

Let’s look at the definition of correlation. It states that casuality is ONE of the ways a correlation is made.

Now your statement says that “correlation does not imply causation”. Actually, I beg to differ. Correlation DOES IMPLY causation.

Is correlation PROOF of causation? No. But it does IMPLY, which has a lesser burden of proof.

Personally I don’t believe that homeownership in and of itself is the CAUSE of improved childhood academic success. However, I cannot say that it ISN’T either.

Semantics.

Anyways, I’m done! Goin’ home! Hahaha.

[surveyor]

DR:

So you don’t trust dictionaries now?

Let’s look at the definition of correlation. It states that casuality is ONE of the ways a correlation is made.

Now your statement says that “correlation does not imply causation”. Actually, I beg to differ. Correlation DOES IMPLY causation.

Is correlation PROOF of causation? No. But it does IMPLY, which has a lesser burden of proof.

Personally I don’t believe that homeownership in and of itself is the CAUSE of improved childhood academic success. However, I cannot say that it ISN’T either.

Semantics.

Anyways, I’m done! Goin’ home! Hahaha.

[surveyor]

DR:

So you don’t trust dictionaries now?

Let’s look at the definition of correlation. It states that casuality is ONE of the ways a correlation is made.

Now your statement says that “correlation does not imply causation”. Actually, I beg to differ. Correlation DOES IMPLY causation.

Is correlation PROOF of causation? No. But it does IMPLY, which has a lesser burden of proof.

Personally I don’t believe that homeownership in and of itself is the CAUSE of improved childhood academic success. However, I cannot say that it ISN’T either.

Semantics.

Anyways, I’m done! Goin’ home! Hahaha.

[surveyor]

DR:

So you don’t trust dictionaries now?

Let’s look at the definition of correlation. It states that casuality is ONE of the ways a correlation is made.

Now your statement says that “correlation does not imply causation”. Actually, I beg to differ. Correlation DOES IMPLY causation.

Is correlation PROOF of causation? No. But it does IMPLY, which has a lesser burden of proof.

Personally I don’t believe that homeownership in and of itself is the CAUSE of improved childhood academic success. However, I cannot say that it ISN’T either.

Semantics.

Anyways, I’m done! Goin’ home! Hahaha.

[surveyor]

DR:

So you don’t trust dictionaries now?

Let’s look at the definition of correlation. It states that casuality is ONE of the ways a correlation is made.

Now your statement says that “correlation does not imply causation”. Actually, I beg to differ. Correlation DOES IMPLY causation.

Is correlation PROOF of causation? No. But it does IMPLY, which has a lesser burden of proof.

Personally I don’t believe that homeownership in and of itself is the CAUSE of improved childhood academic success. However, I cannot say that it ISN’T either.

Semantics.

Anyways, I’m done! Goin’ home! Hahaha.

[surveyor]

Facts, facts, and facts

DW: It’s a long study (156 pages). Google “homeownership and child health rates” and it’s one of the results. Here is the information you asked for. If you want the money statement that pretty much refutes what your original statement said, it’s in bold…

There have been a number of high quality studies that have investigated the impacts of homeownership on the educational attainment of children. The studies differ in the types of educational outcomes examined, the data sets used, and the methodological approaches employed. Yet, these studies universally conclude that the children of homeowners have better educational outcomes than the children of renters even after controlling for a wide variety of other household characteristics and employing statistical methods to account for selection bias in who becomes an owner.

Finally, Aaronson adds further controls to account for differences in household wealth, including the amount of housing equity. Including housing wealth in the estimated model is found to further reduce the estimated impact of homeownership on high school graduation by about half, with greater levels of housing equity associated with a greater likelihood of graduation. While Aaronson hypothesizes
that this result reflects the association between wealth and other household characteristics that affect well being, he also notes that non-housing wealth does not have the same positive association with graduation rates. This result is consistent with the argument made by others that housing wealth is indicative of larger and higher quality homes, which may support better educational outcomes.

Nonetheless, while Aaronson finds that including controls for residential mobility and wealth reduces
the impact of homeownership, it is still the case that an independent and statistically significant
association between homeownership and high school graduation remains.

I admit that the PBS program mentioned the homeownership and social success correlation only in passing, but it was still part of the overall conversation about the subject of class and talked directly. That’s why I also included the study.

Anyways, to summarize, the study says that in higher incomes, the gap is smaller between the homeowners and the renters, but that there is still a correlation between homeownership and child benefits.

So I have facts to back up my statement. Do you have any studies or facts that show that owning a house doesn’t mean your kid will be better off?

And let’s get something straight – you guys can rent as long as you like and buy houses when it costs terrific, and I don’t begrudge you guys that. Still, the facts are that there has been a historical benefit to owning property, and this benefit has existed ever since property rights were developed. This is a phenomenon that has not just come recently or was created as a tagline for realtors. It is a real benefit and has been in action for a hundred years and more.

There are always exceptions, but that doesn’t make this benefit false.

Does this mean you should buy overpriced property? NO.

I’m just saying that children benefit from homeownership and that it is documented.

[Author]

Posts