413
Challenge accepted (thelemmy.club)
submitted 9 hours ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 6 hours ago (10 children)

You're just going to completely ignore the principal benefit of home ownership?

"Renting" means 70 years of annually-increasing monthly payments, and leaving nothing to your kids.

"Owning" means 30 years of fixed monthly payments, 40 years of no payments, and bequeathing an actual estate to your kids.

I've been in my current home 20 years; I've already made 20 years of payments on my current home. I'm paying the fixed monthly price I negotiated 20 years ago, back when my house was worth a fraction of what it is currently worth. My mortgage payment now is a little more than the rent payment would have been 20 years ago. My mortgage payment now is about 1/3 the rent payment for comparable homes in my area. My mortgage payment will continue to be fixed for the next 10 years, while rents will be hiked 10 more times. I don't need to fight for "rent control"; I already have it.

The equity thing is always brought up,

You do not entirely comprehend of the concept of "equity". You come close, but you just don't quite get there:

The other houses on the market have increased in value along with it.

Exactly. The proceeds from the sale of one home pay for the next, and the next, and the next...

I've made 20 years of mortgage payments on my current home. I have also made 20 years of mortgage payments on my next home. And 20 years of mortgage payments on the home after that. In 10 years, I will have paid off my current home, and I'll be living "rent free", wherever I happen to be living. (Theoretically,) I won't ever need to make another house payment, and I'll be able to leave a home, (or the value of a home), to my kids.

That's what "Equity" actually means. Not this "taking out loans" crap, nor the "making a profit when you go back to renting".

The entire concept of "renting" needs to die in a goddamn fire. You're literally better off playing the lottery than pissing away your hard earned money on a housing subscription.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    I'm paying the fixed monthly price I negotiated 20 years ago, back when my house was worth a fraction of what it is currently worth.

    A nitpick: no you aren't, unless you don't have property tax and homeowners insurance in escrow paid out of your mortgage payment. I bought a house in 2010, thanks to the 2008 economic crash I picked it up for $43k on a FMV of 90k. I was young and had a low wage job at the time so I went for a 30 year mortgage instead of 15, and my payment with escrow was only $386/month. Fast forward to last year when I sold it, my payment at that point was nearly $600/month due to taxes and insurance both nearly doubling.

    Also fun fact, even though I sold it for nearly three times what I "paid" for it, I didn't profit nearly as much as you'd think due to that massive amount of interest I paid over the 15 years of a 30 year mortgage. If I had taken the 15 year loan it would have been paid off for six months before I sold it, and in fact I probably wouldn't have sold it. When you're in your 30s, 30 years doesn't seem much longer than 15. If I bought a house today I would go for 15 years...not that I can afford to buy one today. I'm lucky that I live in an inherited house now but most people don't have that going for them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    A nitpick: no you aren’t, unless you don’t have property tax and homeowners insurance in escrow paid out of your mortgage payment.

    I understand where you're coming from. You're not wrong. However, I'm paying those even if I'm renting. (Granted, not to the tax man or the insurance company, but the landlord certainly counts them when he hikes the rent price.) Further, in owning, those expenses continue even after I've paid off the mortgage.

    Here, we're looking at the differences between renting and owning. Since I can't avoid those expenses under either circumstance, we can ignore them here. In this same category, we could also include condo fees, homeowner association fees, storm sewer fees, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    Renting would almost make sense if it was dirt fucking cheap. The reality is it often costs an amount comparable to a mortgage, but without any of the benefits.

    Personally I think housing should be a right and everyone entitled to it, and should not be used as an investment or vector for wealth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    Exactly. Rent would need to be high enough to cover taxes, insurance, maintenance. But somewhere along the line, landlords decided that it also had to cover financing: Rent had to pay the mortgage on top of everything else.

    Things get pretty stupid when financing is involved. The interest I'm being charged will buy the bank two homes along with my own, and fucking everybody has, is, or will be paying a mortgage, either directly to a bank, or via a landlord.

    I think the solution is an owner-occupancy property tax credit that holds a resident's property tax where it is, accompanied by a massive property tax hike that only applies to properties the owner doesn't use as their primary residence. I think that landlords would fight tooth and nail to convert their tenants into "buyers" by offering private mortgages or land contracts instead of rental agreements.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago (5 children)

    Owning and living in it is completely different than owning and renting. I don’t rent anymore, and I also don’t own multiple homes, but just from seeing what happens to the house next door, renters are not maintaining your property value. Selling your rental after it has been rented for ten years is no guarantee. That’s part of why rent has gone insane, people literally treat anything that isn’t their own as something to be destroyed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (4 children)

    Landlords hold virtually all the power in the transaction. I can't really blame the tenants for refusing to maintain a property they don't own. That doesn't excuse actual abuse, of course, but over a 10-year period, regular wear and tear starts looking a lot like abuse. Especially with carpets, fixtures, appliances, mechanicals...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (3 children)

    Regular wear and tear is not what I’m talking about. I live in a state where tenants actually hold more of the power. It’s why I was able to threaten a previous landlord with 3x damages for refusing to return a deposit (2 times actually, both resulting in returned deposits). Wear and tear is usually covered in your state laws. That’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about actual abuse. Drilling massive holes in walls. Cutting down trees without permission. Refusing to mow or water the grass (I’ve been on both sides of this). Destroying almost everything of value in the rental (toilet, bath, mirrors, stove, microwave, baseboard heaters, lights, fans, floors).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 27 minutes ago* (2 children)

    The landlord is entering into the agreement for purposes of financial gain. The tenant is entering into the relationship for basic shelter. Failure to enter into such an agreement has far more urgent and dire consequences for the tenant than for the landlord. So when you say:

    I live in a state where tenants actually hold more of the power.

    I can only respond: "There is no such state." The basic concept of "renting" is fundamentally unbalanced. Some states have taken greater steps than others to lighten the landlord's thumb on the scale, but the landlord-bias is intrinsic to the arrangement.

    I’m talking about actual abuse.

    Which is, indeed, a big fucking problem that probably has some market effects. But the unjustified jump in rent and housing prices is primarily due to widespread institutional investment in residential property. Algorithmic pricing collusion is also playing a major role in rental hikes, far exceeding any effect arising from abusive tenants.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 19 minutes ago (1 child)

    Failure to enter into such an agreement has far more urgent and dire consequences for the tenant than for the landlord. So when you say:

    It depends on the state. You will be able to retain housing for over six months without paying a dime before getting evicted in my state. This has implications for both tenant and landlord. Imagine trying to put off paying a mortgage for six months. Of course it’s a business for the landlord, but for small time landlords who only own a few properties it’s a much bigger deal than it is for the rental private equity companies sucking everything up.

    But the unjustified jump in rent and housing prices is primarily due to widespread institutional investment in residential property. Algorithmic pricing collusion is also playing a major role in rental hikes, far exceeding any effect arising from abusive tenants.

    Completely agree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 minutes ago

    You will be able to retain housing for over six months without paying a dime before getting evicted in my state.

    And it's a year in mine.

    Imagine trying to put off paying a mortgage for six months.

    When I try to find someone to rent my property, complete failure means I lose an investment property.

    When I try to find somewhere to live, complete failure means homelessness.

    The parties are not on the same footing. They aren't even on comparable footing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent