Never own a home again?

[shanendoah]

My main reason for owning vs renting is my dogs.
Having pets increases the costs of renting significantly, because first you have to find someone willing to have pets in their rental, which is usually accompanied by higher rent. Then you have to pay a pet deposit, most likely non-refundable, or even if it is, its pretty easy for landlords to find a reason not to give it back.
In addition, if you want to get a new pet, you have to get someone else's permission. They can limit the size, species, or breed of pet.

As a home owner (living purposely somewhere without an HOA) the only limits on my pet ownership are the local laws (and what my husband can put up with). If we want to buy a huge aquarium, we can. If we want a large breed dog, no big deal. If I want another pit/pit mix, I can have one.

I know that having pets is a lifestyle choice, but since I am one of those people who will never be without a pet, the additional lifestyle choice of owning a home is worth much more than the value of the land and buildings.

ETA: sil I guess that depends on where you live. Living in the greater Seattle area, yeah DH and I can be pretty confident we will both have jobs around here for the next 30 years (that is, if he ever goes back to work). And I spent 18 months commuting 50 miles each direction (which, in the afternoons, takes well over an hour) in order to own a home. I now live 3 miles from where I work, and I won't argue that isn't NICE, but I could easily commute 30 miles each way without much thought.

[TD2K]

Some people are always going to over-react. Just before the housing crash, we had people saying you couldn't ever lose money in real estate. Now others (or the same maybe ;D) are saying never buy a house.

When stocks were hot in 2000, I heard the same thing "it's different this time" and then when they crashed and then crashed again, some people swore they would never buy stocks again, it was all rigged, etc.

[Small Biz Owner]

Typical financial moron. He actually thinks that he is not paying someones mortagage already? (with his rent payments)

[thyme4change]

But how many 2 -worker families really believe they can count on having both jobs near their home for 30 years? Or even for the next 6 years?

This comes down to priorities. Sure, I can't guarantee that I will have my current job for 30 years, but unless something big comes along, my plan is to live in this city. There are hundreds of jobs that I qualify for here - maybe thousands. If this job goes under, I'll find another. There is even a bigger reality with my husband. His job, you have to pass the bar if you change states. Plus, the law-world seems very heavy on networking. Moving his career to another state would be very, very drastic.

So, yes, I have had opportunities to move - one or two, and I opted not to take them. I suspect another one or two will come up in my career. I will most likely turn them down, too.

Now, I know there are some careers where moving around is a given. Military, large corporations, certain industries - you just don't have credibility unless you have uprooted yourself every 2 or 3 years. And in those cases, maybe homeownership isn't for you. But I wouldn't say that a majority of people expect to be relocated multiple times during their career.

[flopsy]

is he rambling because he is so enraged? that's how this piece came off to me. how does this guy think he's going to convince anyone if this subject puts him into a blind rage or a super emotional state? also i don't understand "Oh, I have a third one also from when I was growing up". he owned a home growing up?

[Deleted]

I prefer to be a renter than a homeowner at this point and I agree with his first point and his last two points. I like having the maintenance guy on speed dial. My rent is cheaper than what a mortgage payment would be for me on the same standard of house. I think the owner has the mortgage paid off and now it's all gravy except for maintenance. And owning did impede my mobility. There are a couple of times I would have left town if I didn't have the house as an anchor. And as a home, not a rental property, at best a house is forced savings. By the time you subtract expenses paid from whatever you sell for you are not too far ahead.

[Sum Dum Gai]

And as a home, not a rental property, at best a house is forced savings. By the time you subtract expenses paid from whatever you sell for you are not too far ahead.

Sure, but by the time you add your rent up for however long you've been paying it, you're never ahead. You may or may not make any money from owning a home when you move, but you're guaranteed to lose money renting.

[Deleted]

The first few years I am financially ahead Dark. Especially if I have been renting for the last 5-7 years over buying. Many of those folks lost what they paid down and still owe more. It takes up ten years to be paying anything but interest.

[Peace Of Mind]

Not with a 15 year mortgage. You have 50% going towards principle within the first year.

[Sum Dum Gai]

The first few years I am financially ahead Dark.

Under certain circumstances. There are a lot of variables though, which is why a blanket statement either way is stupid.

[thyme4change]

Not with a 15 year mortgage. You have 50% going towards principle within the first year.

That depends on your interest rate.

I think you have to be below 5% (ish) to get that. But yes, even at 7% for a 15, your first payment is 35% principle.

On a 30 year at 6%, in 5 years 24% of your (PI only) payments would go towards principle. If you rent 0% of your payments go to principle. Again - the real question is not how much you are paying in principle, but the disparity in monthly payments between renting and buying.

I was really surprised when one of my friends bought her place. She moved from one townhouse to another in the same complex. Exact same floorplan. Her mortgage payment was significantly higher than her rent - and she now had to pay the association fees. I think buying was probably a bad deal for her!

[azphx1972]

I just read this story on Yahoo today about a 70 year old woman who has no savings or assets except her house:

finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/112417/homeowner-no-savings-some-options

She actually inherited the house free and clear, but there are probably lots of people who reach retirement with nothing except their house. For these people, buying a home absolutely makes sense, because they would never have saved anything otherwise.

[thyme4change]

az - I agree, I suspect there are many, many people whose house is sold and the proceeds pay for their end of life care, or they die penniless and their house is their gift to their children.

Reverse mortgages were invented to keep these people liquid. (And to stick them with high fees - but that is a different topic.)