Housing Issues (f/k/a Harris Economic Agenda Speech)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 196
  • Views: 3K
grimes70 said:
Although generally it won't equal out, renting saves you on home insurance, HOA/condo fees, new roofs, HVAC sytems, lawn mowers, general repairs, etc. It also saves you the time/hassle involved in all that. Works for many people. And I know quite a few retired folks who sold their house and moved into nice apartments for those reasons.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree there are cost to owning a home.
I'm not against apartments or renting. It's a personal choice for most. But some who want to own don't currently have the opportunity because of how things have worked out.
Renting also gives one more flexibility.
Owning can also give one opportunity to rent their home out and make it an investment.

I just want to own a home.

I wonder what the overall difference in cost would be. The thing with most homeowners if they never pay off their home, so they don't get that time with no mortgage. though they do still have to pay taxes.
 
UNCatTech said:
Ownership is in opposition to increasing housing where people fight having more housing, true. Zoning needs to make it easier to build.

How is owning a home for wealth building opposing to increasing housing? One may not build as much wealth with the supply of housing increasing, but the price of the house doesn't have to double between purchase and sell for one to build wealth. If I sell my paid off home for the same as I purchased it for, I've still built wealth and am better off. Had I spent that same money renting for 30 years, what would I have?

We are so behind on where we need to be with housing in this country it will take decades to catch up. Why should we limit what is built and not build a variety of things to meet the wants of many different people?
Click to expand...
In that example, you’d have significantly more money if you rented.
 
UNCatTech said:
Ownership is in opposition to increasing housing where people fight having more housing, true. Zoning needs to make it easier to build.

How is owning a home for wealth building opposing to increasing housing? One may not build as much wealth with the supply of housing increasing, but the price of the house doesn't have to double between purchase and sell for one to build wealth. If I sell my paid off home for the same as I purchased it for, I've still built wealth and am better off. Had I spent that same money renting for 30 years, what would I have?

We are so behind on where we need to be with housing in this country it will take decades to catch up. Why should we limit what is built and not build a variety of things to meet the wants of many different people?
Click to expand...
Because building exclusively single family homes in the burbs is how we ended up in a housing shortage.
 
UNCatTech said:
So what happens if you are in a neighborhood without an HOA and the neighbor starts a car repair shop in his garage? And your property value is negatively impacted?

This actually happened in my previous neighborhood, the HOA made the guy stop repairing cars in his driveway.

Yes, they can be overbearing sometimes, but they can be beneficial.

My previous neighborhood, the HOA fell apart after we moved. We were in the area a few weeks ago and the neighborhood looks horrible. The front sign has fallen apart, none of the common property is maintained, etc.

My current neighborhood has a lot of landscaping and common areas, without a HOA those would overgrow and turn into woods.
Click to expand...
That's zoning a whole different bucket of worms. Houston Texas had no zoning forever and is why flooding is so terrible. City and regional planning makes sense but money apparently makes laws and variances.
 
I own rental properties and work for a company that develops and owns apartment complexes. Believe me the renters are paying for the taxes and maintenance of those properties in the rent. They don’t have the hassle of dealing with it, but they are paying those costs plus profit.
 
Our study found that long-term renting is cheaper than homeownership in 46 out of 97 cities, which is likely due to rising interest rates, soaring home prices, and high down payments. California cities occupy seven of the top 10 spots on the list of places where renting is more affordable than buying. A renter in Irvine, California, for example, will save almost $1.3 million over 30 years by renting their home instead of buying.
 
Enigma94 said:
I own rental properties and work for a company that develops and owns apartment complexes. Believe me the renters are paying for the taxes and maintenance of those properties in the rent. They don’t have the hassle of dealing with it, but they are paying those costs plus profit.
Click to expand...
Yes they are paying in the cost of the rent. But you can be paying $1,500 in rent vs $2,500 mortgage which does not include all those costly things. Invest that 1K/mo in an index fund. Or half and take a nice vacation each year. Who comes out ahead 20 yrs later? Damn, thought there'd be no math here.

Not anti home ownership. Just showing the other side.
 
haroldminer said:
Our study found that long-term renting is cheaper than homeownership in 46 out of 97 cities, which is likely due to rising interest rates, soaring home prices, and high down payments. California cities occupy seven of the top 10 spots on the list of places where renting is more affordable than buying. A renter in Irvine, California, for example, will save almost $1.3 million over 30 years by renting their home instead of buying.
Click to expand...

Of course. By eliminating personal exemptions ($18.5K - 20K), placing the middle class and working class in a higher tax bracket. However, raising of the standard deduction from $12K to $24 K (now $27.5K) didn't help my middle-class family at all, because our itemized deductions add up to about $24K - 27.5K.

Truckers also lost 1/3 of their work and upkeep deductions. I lost most of mine as well.

The new tax code disincentivizes home ownership as well as donations to charities.

The 2017 tax bill was built for a land owner with 0-1 kids, mega rental property in hand, who not only doesn't give to charity but steals from charities!, and moved their home address from a blue state to a red state that has no state income tax. Gee, I wonder who would possibly benefit? :unsure:
 
Duke Mu said:
Of course. By eliminating personal exemptions ($18.5K - 20K), placing the middle class and working class in a higher tax bracket. However, raising of the standard deduction from $12K to $24 K (now $27.5K) didn't help my middle-class family at all, because our itemized deductions add up to about $24K - 27.5K.

Truckers also lost 1/3 of their work and upkeep deductions. I lost most of mine as well.

The new tax code disincentivizes home ownership as well as donations to charities.

The 2017 tax bill was built for a land owner with 0-1 kids, mega rental property in hand, who not only doesn't give to charity but steals from charities!, and moved their home address from a blue state to a red state that has no state income tax. Gee, I wonder who would possibly benefit? :unsure:
Click to expand...
The SALT thing also was no bueno
 
haroldminer said:
The SALT thing also was no bueno
Click to expand...
Not the strategic arms limitation treaty? More nuke doesn't seem good.

But losing some deductions on the state income tax. Ergo, Trump moving his home address from NY to FL. NY residents lost significant deductions.

I live in Texas where we don't have an income tax, but I lost the property tax (high in TX) deduction de facto with the personal exemption - standard deduction shell game. Sales tax deductions were also reduced.

Yeah, I've been taking it raw from the feds to the total of $25,000 - $30,000 since it was passed.
 
I applied for positions in the NC/VA/TN/MO area not long before COVID and was a finalist in a few. When I worked out the math, the only sound fiscal solution would have been to rent, if we had moved.
 
haroldminer said:
Our study found that long-term renting is cheaper than homeownership in 46 out of 97 cities, which is likely due to rising interest rates, soaring home prices, and high down payments. California cities occupy seven of the top 10 spots on the list of places where renting is more affordable than buying. A renter in Irvine, California, for example, will save almost $1.3 million over 30 years by renting their home instead of buying.
Click to expand...
Yes, but can't the home owner in Irvine sell their home after 30 years and quadruple their investment, putting them way ahead of the renter?
 
haroldminer I am still wondering if you have any opinions on "Heirs Property" ripping off folks with land but no representation yet you push rental and asked why I used a racist comment. I genuinely want to know why you didn't explain my racist comments to me? Seriously man I'm willing to change how bout you and your buddy Calheel?
 
SmilingJack said:
haroldminer I am still wondering if you have any opinions on "Heirs Property" ripping off folks with land but no representation yet you push rental and asked why I used a racist comment. I genuinely want to know why you didn't explain my racist comments to me? Seriously man I'm willing to change how bout you and your buddy Calheel?
Click to expand...
What heirs property?

Why did you use Sharia law instead of other religious laws? You’re implying that Muslims are baddies.
 
Enigma94 said:
Another part of the calculation is that when you buy and get a 30 year mortgage the payment is fixed. So due to inflation the payment is much lower in real dollars over time. Rent is the exact opposite, your payment will almost certainly go up every year.
Click to expand...
Naturally. Depends on the area, naturally. Here, you can rent a house for $4-5k a month or buy one for 10k a month plus 200k down.

The US needs more density. NIMBYs are one major group against it. Maybe converted office space to apartments will help with that transition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top