[airics]

well look at it like i do... my mortgage is 1200, i also have a pool etc and a good sized home...i could never rent what i own for 1200.

[eventusstultorummagister]

Originally Posted by airics

If you would've sold for 250k in 06, where were you going to live? Unless, you moved out of Vegas or became a renter, you would be in the same situation if you bought.

I actually did both simultaneously. Worked out great!

[eventusstultorummagister]

Originally Posted by airics

well the avg rent in santa barbara from 2006-2012 is 1700.... so.. you would've thrown away 115k.... granted the homes here lost huge value, but you still have something.. plus add in the mortgage interest deduction, and you were losing 130k plus

Some might consider that "rationalization".

[schulrog]

i just bought a place for 300K in 89120. getting a loan for the house was ridiculous to say the least in terms of info required. and then they even wanted a letter of motivation! what a joke. The house is 5 bed 6 bath on .6 of an acre at around 4000 sq feet. it does need a little TLC since it's been empty for around a year but i think it was a pretty good buy.

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by airics

well the avg rent in santa barbara from 2006-2012 is 1700.... so.. you would've thrown away 115k.... granted the homes here lost huge value, but you still have something.. plus add in the mortgage interest deduction, and you were losing 130k plus

Huh? What do you mean by "thrown away $115K"?

If you had owned instead of rented, how much in mortgage interest, property taxes, and insurance plus depreciation would you have thrown away between 2006-2012?

Since when is renting "throwing money away"? If it were, then buying food must be throwing money down the toilet.......literally.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve

Huh? What do you mean by "thrown away $115K"?

If you had owned instead of rented, how much in mortgage interest, property taxes, and insurance plus depreciation would you have thrown away between 2006-2012?

Since when is renting "throwing money away"? If it were, then buying food must be throwing money down the toilet.......literally.

Crappy argument, literally.

Renters pay EVERYTHING owners do. Plus a little extra called profit. Landlords do not rent property out of the goodness of their hearts. They pay their taxes, maintain their property, and then insist on a little on top of that -- the profit motive. What is so hard about that concept that some people simply cannot wrap their heads around it? Renters throw their housing money away, too. But they pay someone a little extra to throw it away for them.

Meanwhile, the amount we lost in equity on this house has now reached equilibrium with the amount we would have paid to rent a house this nice. Every month we stay here, we're a little more ahead of the game.

To continue with your food analogy, owning is like buying meat and vegetables at the grocery store and cooking one's own food. Renting is like going out to eat. At the end of the day, everyone was fed. Who paid more?

[007 license to sell]

Not everyone should be a home owner that is what caused part of this housing mess,back during the housing boom someone decided everyone should own a home it's their god given right so they changed all the rules no money down, no proof of income, etc.

There are both pro's and con's in owning and renting, depending on what you make depends if owning home is an option. And right now with the market so volatile if your in the service or some kind of job that you will have to move in two or 3 years maybe you should be renting, let's face it property values aren't stable and most people can't afford to take the loss on the property.
Let alone the hit to their credit if they have to short sale or foreclose or worst yet go bankrupt. I am seeing home owners that purchased just two years ago losing their homes. The housing market isn't what it use to be a buyer has to go into a purchase with a whole different mind set than the way homes use to be purchased.
Purchasing a home now days you have to look at it as a place to enjoy not a bank and hold for years. As far as tax advantages that depends also on your income. It's been hotly debated that the interest deduction should go away and that could happen. And then there's the maintenance of the property let alone the house insurance and taxes and utilities,hoa's. These are all things that not everyone can afford to pay after they pay the mortgage. Granted some house payments include taxes and insurance but not all the time. Even so there will be repairs that insurance doesn't cover like a roof,landscaping,water heaters ect.

Yes Landlords aren't in the business of owning renting properties out of the kindness of their hearts their in it to make money. That goes for banks to, banks don't loan money out of the goodness their hearts they're in it to make money as well.
It's proven most people will never pay off their homes they usually will sell it to purchase another home. So it's like renting with the benefits like tax deductions, getting to do whatever they want to the home.
But as we have seen with the housing crash don't pay your house payment and you will find out who really owns the home and let's face it the bank doesn't care about the individual that's in the home, you can't ever talk directly to a banker any more just a servicer if your lucky.
Renting at least the renter doesn't have to pay for the maintenance, or the taxes or the insurance, sometimes all or part of the utilities are included it depends on the type of rental. And if the renter gets another job somewhere else they can pick up and move allot easier.
Tenants usually have a closer relationship with their landlords or a property manager they can go and talk to if they are having problems making the rent that month. A landlord will try to work more with a tenant than a bank. And a good landlord will make sure the property is kept up regarding if the furnace breaks or the air-conditioner breaks, roof leaks etc.
Owning a home isn't an end all be all, and neither is renting,it depends more on what the person can afford and if they will need to more mobile due to employment, health many things that could cause a person to have to move.

[logline]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

Crappy argument, literally.

Renters pay EVERYTHING owners do. Plus a little extra called profit. Landlords do not rent property out of the goodness of their hearts. They pay their taxes, maintain their property, and then insist on a little on top of that -- the profit motive. What is so hard about that concept that some people simply cannot wrap their heads around it? Renters throw their housing money away, too. But they pay someone a little extra to throw it away for them.

Meanwhile, the amount we lost in equity on this house has now reached equilibrium with the amount we would have paid to rent a house this nice. Every month we stay here, we're a little more ahead of the game.

To continue with your food analogy, owning is like buying meat and vegetables at the grocery store and cooking one's own food. Renting is like going out to eat. At the end of the day, everyone was fed. Who paid more?

Excellent points... I especially like the analogy about eating out.

Most renters don't understand how they can save a ton of money in the long term if they simply bought now at these historic lows. The cost to rent vs. buy is completely out of whack, especially in Las Vegas. I just don't think arguments in favor of renting are fully thought through. Their strong denial, justifications and mental gymnastics are what is making the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Once that 30-year mortgage is paid off, all that's left are taxes, HOA and maintenance... stuff renters are paying for anyway. People live to about 80 years old. Wouldn't it make sense to decide that only 30 of those years (at most) should spent paying for the roof over your head?

[Swigchow]

Originally Posted by logline

Excellent points... I especially like the analogy about eating out.

Most renters don't understand how they can save a ton of money in the long term if they simply bought now at these historic lows. The cost to rent vs. buy is completely out of whack, especially in Las Vegas. I just don't think arguments in favor of renting are fully thought through. Their strong denial, justifications and mental gymnastics are what is making the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Once that 30-year mortgage is paid off, all that's left are taxes, HOA and maintenance... stuff renters are paying for anyway. People live to about 80 years old. Wouldn't it make sense to decide that only 30 of those years (at most) should spent paying for the roof over your head?

Timing is everything. These are the same arguments espoused by the real estate industry just a few years ago, and most who purchased then wish they rented instead. Buying now runs the risk of going lower especially with the so called phantom inventory on the horizon. I personally feel the current downward risk is much lower than the upside benefit. I have done both, buying our personal residence near the high, I thought I got a great deal then, and have been buying for the past couple of years hoefully at a low.

[Californiapch]

Originally Posted by logline

Once that 30-year mortgage is paid off, all that's left are taxes, HOA and maintenance... stuff renters are paying for anyway. People live to about 80 years old. Wouldn't it make sense to decide that only 30 of those years (at most) should spent paying for the roof over your head?

I am 46 and my condo has been paid for for 7 years now and yes it is great to only pay utilities, HOA and prop taxes. Allows me to enjoy life more.

I bought a foreclosure in the 90's and bought my current condo before the boom and sold my old one partly into the boom and lucked out. This is up in Canada.

Originally Posted by Swigchow

Timing is everything. These are the same arguments espoused by the real estate industry just a few years ago, and most who purchased then wish they rented instead. Buying now runs the risk of going lower especially with the so called phantom inventory on the horizon. I personally feel the current downward risk is much lower than the upside benefit. I have done both, buying our personal residence near the high, I thought I got a great deal then, and have been buying for the past couple of years hoefully at a low.

If the banks start doing more of this writing off amounts like that one story a few weeks ago with that Spanish couple ( bank wrote off $150,000 ? as a new test run thing, they have $1200 payments that they have to make 3 min ) then homes wouldn't be foreclosed on as much down the road. That would mean less short sales and foreclosures right?

That might help the prices and market recover faster. Though lots of uncertainties out there still.

The banks should have done this idea starting in 2007 when this crash happened. Why should people's lives be overturned by all this scam financing ( inflated pricing ) that went on prior to 2007 or when ever it was. The wealthy that are able to buy at these low prices are "winning" and many who go stuck in this mess are suffering. kinda sad.


Brian