Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with moving back home after graduating. I did it myself. It takes time to find a job and if you are unemployed it's best to get to the cheapest place you can find. My problem is people who are making $40-$50k and are leeching off their parents so they can buy a place. I also agree that a person should be more flexible when they aren't tied down by kids and family.
Yeah I know where you are coming from. I know a girl who has a great job and has had it for 8 years, and still lives with her parents. She DOES NOT pay rent or kick in for anything but groceries. She drives an expensive car and takes all kinds of trips, meanwhile her parents have needed a new furnace and a new oven for years but can't afford it. I always just want to smack her.
You do NOT own your house even if the mortgage is paid off. You lease it from the local government. Stop paying your property taxes and see what happens to your ownership. Renting has its own issues but do not be fooled that because you "own" a house that it is your castle. Where I live we are taxed on rainwater runoff; told when we can and cannot wash our vehicles; when we can place our garbage cans on the curb; permits for any property alterations; and on and on.
Yes, I could live in a more rural area with zero services yet would still pay property taxes.
You do not own your property ever. It can be confiscated and controlled.
We do too... can't have a fire in my EPA certified stove on a cold winter night, inspectors walking through making sure the vegetation is property managed... etc.
Still no one can argue home ownership and renting are equivalent.
You want to paint the inside walls orange... knock yourself out.
You want pets... go for it.
You want to get a loan against your equity... good luck if you are renting.
To be fair... there still are vast areas of the country where permits are not required or only a septic permit...
Slightly off point - but owning a home versus renting is not the whole issue.
In American law, there's absolute ownership and there is qualified ownership.
What most know about is qualified ownership of estate (i.e. "real estate").
Few, if any, know about absolute ownership of private property.
I believe the REAL American dream is absolute ownership of private property.
Coincidentally, private property is not subject to ad valorem taxation. Nor can private property be taken for public use without just compensation being paid.
That's not true about real estate ownership, which is not a right, but a privilege.
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
"LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the ESTATE in land is another thing, for an ESTATE in land is a time in land or land for a time."
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877
I totally agree. Sure home ownership has benefits, but so does renting. If a person can not get a loan, then they aren't entitled to a house.
Most renters are generally lower income workers. Most lower income workers are generally mobile, meaning they don't keep jobs in the same place very long. Also, home ownership requires a steady income, which many low income workers don't have. So why should ownership be encouraged over renting for these people?
These are generalizations and stereotypes that are sometimes true, but often not true at all.
I've known lots of "working class" individuals (for the sake of argument making from $20K to $42K a year) who were much more steadily employed and stayed at one job longer than the "middle-to-upper-middle-class" managerial and professional individuals (making, say, $52K - $95K a year).
Here in Philly where I live it is actually cheaper to own than to rent. Why? Because we have an overabundance of modest brick rowhouses that were built during the latter half of the Industrial Revolution (roughly 1865 - 1915) for factory and manufacturing employees. These rowhomes can cost as little as $40K to $80K, the only problem is that many of the solidly 'blue collar' neighborhoods are sketchy at best and downright urban ghettoes at the worst. Rents in any of the safer neighborhoods are now gioing for anywhere from $900 a month for a one bedroom to $2,000 a month for two bedrooms. Some of my neighbors have $800 a month mortgage payments for a 4 bedroom Victorian house.
I've noticed that people who own their own homes tend to take care of them, have pride in ownership, and help improve the neighborhood. As a homeowner I recommend it, even if you have to start with a very small modest house in an unfashionable neighborhood. Lower income renters often don't care about buildings they rent in, aren't that interested in improving their neighborhoods, and earn absolutely no equity after years of renting in someone else's property.
Britain, Australia, and Canada have higher home ownership rates than the US but don't have as many policies intended to boost home ownership. The mortgage interest deduction and other government policies intended to encourage ownership are just corporate welfare for the real estate industry, and should be abolished.
I don't think there's a stigma against renters in American society any more, but there is a big sentiment against renters on C-D.
I totally agree. Sure home ownership has benefits, but so does renting. If a person can not get a loan, then they aren't entitled to a house.
Most renters are generally lower income workers. Most lower income workers are generally mobile, meaning they don't keep jobs in the same place very long. Also, home ownership requires a steady income, which many low income workers don't have. So why should ownership be encouraged over renting for these people?
Owning a home or renting? Well it there are many variables. It depends on what area in the country
you live in. Some cities are more expensive than others so buying might be a better alternative.
However, the notion that renters are usually lower income workers is derogatory. There are many
people who rent because they do not know the certainty of their job (whether they may get a transfer
or find a new job in another city). Owning a home in this type of situation would put them in
a difficult position i.e, selling the home, renting it out & all the problems that come with that.
People also move to be near their families, want to downsize, etc.. so renting is a good option for
them until they decide where to go or what they want to do.
If you are younger, plan to have a family, know your job is secure and plan to live in a home for
several years then home ownership is a good idea.
Correction: most low income workers are renters, not the other way around.
If a person has the money and stability to own a house, then I say go all for it and buy a house. It makes more sense and is more beneficial.
BUT, government subsidized housing should only be for renting, not ownership. To push home ownership on those who do not have the stability or income to own a house is not only asking for another housing bubble burst, but puts undue pressure on those of low income. I say the disadvantages of renting are all overshadowed by the benefit of flexibility in renting.
Correction: most low income workers are renters, not the other way around.
If a person has the money and stability to own a house, then I say go all for it and buy a house. It makes more sense and is more beneficial.
.
It really depends. There are far too many variables at work.
I think the housing bubble has been to home ownership what the AIDS epidemic was to that other American dream, unprotected promiscuous sex. People are going to do it regardless, as it fulfills deeply held needs and desire, but some people who would have done it when it was safer are scared off, and others don't enjoy it as much as they used to. Home ownership is deeply rooted in our culture and that of similar cultures (all anglosphere countries have high homeownership rates - the US actually has lower homeownership rates than most). It will continue to be desired even if the subsidies and tax breaks that government provides to encourage it are withdrawn. However, given the side effects of those efforts to encourage homeownership, it is better for society and the economy if it is not encouraged in such a manner.
Many bought using VA loans which fewer are qualified for today...
Lenders in my community were chastised for excluding applicants with "Limited" credit and several signed consent decrees promising to promote paths to home ownership.
Seemed like there was no end to First Time Home Buyer seminars in Oakland... churches, congress people and even the city endorsed it.
As with any financial decision.... the numbers have to make sense.
Too many did get caught up with owning and easy money made it possible without regard to the downside.
I'm faced with this choice myself.
On one hand,even though I've been employed steadily and without lay offs,the future is still too sketchy for home ownership for me.
Also,I really don't want to pay off a mortgage for 30 years. So even though you have a home,you still don't own it.
But then,I have no investment if I keep renting.
But the great thing about renting,which is the most important of all: don't like a neighborhhood,well,I can just move.
Many,if not most,of my landlords permitted me to paint,so that really isn't a reason anymore.
But then,I have no investment if I keep renting.
But the great thing about renting,which is the most important of all: don't like a neighborhhood,well,I can just move.
.
Not neccessarily true. if over the course of 30 years your paying on average 900-1400 for rent,while putting some money away, and having more financial flexiblity; and somebody with a 300,000 to 400,000 home is paying 2500-3000 plus taxes and repairs over the course of the same time with lil money to spare; you may have a similar amount at the end of the 30 yrs
Now with those numbers, im talking about apartments and homes in the northeast, and west coast.
If you wanna talk about the south and midwest, the numbers for rent and home ownership drops. But salaries drop also.
Case in pointI have a friend in Long Island,NY that pays 2500 per month for his home, and another friend in Conn. that pays 3,000 per month for his. I have an apartment in a nice Los Angeles suburb and pay $800 w/ utilities in a rent controlled building.
Point is, if your rent, just dont live somewhere with an insane rent tag and start your own investment and you should end up in the same place at retirement age
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always just want to smack her.
