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.
Houses are great... if you fill them. You can fill them with kids or room mates, either way they are great. When I was single I either lived with someone that owned the house or I owned a house and rented out rooms. Yeah, If you only use one bedroom and one bath, your are wasting your money.
Why? A single homeowner is free to fill his/her entire 4000 square foot home with 10 year old newspaper, if they want to. It's their house, and their money. Who are you to say it's a waste? And in most cases, it's actually cheaper to own a home whether the person lives alone or not. Besides, if you want to think in terms of purely financial factors, kids are a waste of money too. Does that mean no one should have them?
Let's be real here. Homes are for people with kids to raise them in. They are not a good investment for people with no kids to live in. Before anybody shouts out equity I will tell you this.
1. You'd get better equity by living in a cheap apartment and investing any extra money in the stock market and proudly watch it grow for 10/20 years. Screw a investment where you pay property taxes and any maintenance is on your dime. Yeah I said it.
2. When you live alone you don't need as much personal space. This makes apartment living superior to the single individual.
3. It is a myth that houses are assets. They aren't. Just stop paying the taxes on that home and see how fast Uncle Sam steals it from underneath you. The only real assets In life are your investments, the money you save at the bank, and your job. Anything else your just renting for a fixed amount of time (with the car being the only exception).
Just my opinion on why homes are a bad investment for single people and why renting for those people is a better option.
That's all your opinion. We all have them.
But your opinion is not gospel. I want a garage. Few apartments anywhere I've lived have had a garage. I want a parrot. Few apartments allow them. I want a pool table. No room in an apartment. And while you're still paying rent, my house is bought and paid for, and I'm now going to sell it for a nice little profit.
Let's be real here. Homes are for people with kids to raise them in. They are not a good investment for people with no kids to live in. Before anybody shouts out equity I will tell you this.
1. You'd get better equity by living in a cheap apartment and investing any extra money in the stock market and proudly watch it grow for 10/20 years. Screw a investment where you pay property taxes and any maintenance is on your dime. Yeah I said it.
2. When you live alone you don't need as much personal space. This makes apartment living superior to the single individual.
3. It is a myth that houses are assets. They aren't. Just stop paying the taxes on that home and see how fast Uncle Sam steals it from underneath you. The only real assets In life are your investments, the money you save at the bank, and your job. Anything else your just renting for a fixed amount of time (with the car being the only exception).
Just my opinion on why homes are a bad investment for single people and why renting for those people is a better option.
I bought my house 7 years ago as a singleton. It has gone up nearly $100k in value since then.
1. You'd get better equity by living in a cheap apartment and investing any extra money in the stock market and proudly watch it grow for 10/20 years. Screw a investment where you pay property taxes and any maintenance is on your dime. Yeah I said it.
Lol at renters who think they don't pay for maintenance and property taxes.
My friend, I own rental property and I can assure you that renters absolutely pay it. They might not get an actual tax bill in the mail, but that means absolutely nothing. That $200 garbage disposal that I replaced last year was bought and paid for by them too..
Don't take my word for it though, look around. Pick out a house on Zillow in your area and see what the estimated mortgage for it would be. Then tack on an extra couple hundred for tax and insurance. Then look at what the rental estimate for that same house is... Its a lot more, isn't it.
I bought my house 7 years ago as a singleton. It has gone up nearly $100k in value since then.
So...NUTS to your argument.
I bought my first house in 2000. The value went up almost $50K. Sold it, and bought a larger place.
I'm single and childless and would just as soon never go back to apartment living if I don't have to. Yes, owning a home is a lot more work, but it's mine. I want pink carpet, I can have pink carpet. I want a 75 pound dog, I can have a 75 pound dog. I want a roommate, I can have a roommate. I have my own garage. I have much more peace and quiet.
And quite frankly, apartment rent in my city has gotten nuts. The woman who bought my old house bought a two bedroom, two and a half bathroom house, 1000 square feet, with her own laundry room and old garage. She is paying *less* for that what she was for a 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom apartment where she parked in a parking lot and had a community laundry room. (In fact, that's why she wound up buying--apartment rents had gotten so astronomical that she'd gotten squeezed out and was living in her sister's basement.) Even with my mortgage having gone up, I'm only paying a bit more than what a 1 bedroom apartment would cost now.
And quite frankly, if I want a house and I can afford to buy a house, then what anybody else thinks doesn't matter.
If we regard owner-occupied housing as an investment, then the investment might be sensible even for a child-free single person, even for an elderly person in poor health, even for a workaholic or itinerant businessman who's never home… IF market-conditions are favorable. But in stagnant or declining markets, such as in my part of Ohio, house-ownership is overwhelmingly a lifestyle decision. It doesn't make good financial sense, but it might make good personal lifestyle-sense. This is where family-size comes to matter, and this is where the OP's point is indeed well-taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowel
... it's important to consider the psychological impact of owning versus renting, and the chance to feel like someone can set down roots,...
This is crucial! I am a single-person who relocated decades ago for an employment opportunity. I enjoy my career, and have high regard for my workplace. But the surrounding community does not command my respect or my allegiance. I wish to have nothing to do with it. Buying a house is a testament of belonging, of community participation. I bought a house for privacy-reasons and comfort-reasons, not having comprehended at the time that I'd shirk emotionally from house-ownership and from the responsibilities that it entails, because I feel no kinship to the community. It would have been wiser to rent. For other singles, who remain for example in the community where they grew up, and who yearn for a greater rootedness in said community as well-established adults, house-ownership makes eminent sense, even if they are permanently child-free and without a spouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightlysparrow
Having a house is in many cases an asset for singles who want to attract a mate.
Not if one's house is an austere, isolated compound in the forest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsa
... the value of the house that you own may go up or down, but it will always be equivalent in value to whatever one house is worth. No other instrument can make that guarantee of being able to provide you with a place to live.
Not necessarily. On top of a stagnant/declining market, I am overwhelmed with house-ownership, and have neglected crucial maintenance. The house is rapidly spiraling towards condemnation. My strategy is to live there as long as I remain employed. Upon retirement, I'll simply walk away from the house – and yes, it's already fully paid off. I'll simply take the title to the county administration building, hand it to the clerk, and enjoin him/her to deal with it. So, over the course of living there, the house will be a total loss.
When last I checked, I didn't have to replace the roof on my stocks, or mow the lawn of my mutual funds, or replace the water-heater for my bonds. Funny how that works....
Quote:
Originally Posted by cargoman
...After 36 hours of travel there is nothing better than coming back to my own house, opening the fridge, grabbing a beer and enjoying the tranquility and silence of my own place. ...
In my experience, after 36 hours of travel, there is nothing more harrowing than returning to a house that during my absence has been infested with mice, where the alarm on the well-pump failed and the pump overheated, where a thunderstorm tore off shingles and the rainwater has been accumulating in a puddle in the "finished" basement (so much for the carpeting and "dry"wall). Oh, and running into a clump of poison-ivy en route to reaching my front door, is just an added bonus. Welcome home!
Lol at renters who think they don't pay for maintenance and property taxes.
My friend, I own rental property and I can assure you that renters absolutely pay it. They might not get an actual tax bill in the mail, but that means absolutely nothing. That $200 garbage disposal that I replaced last year was bought and paid for by them too..
Don't take my word for it though, look around. Pick out a house on Zillow in your area and see what the estimated mortgage for it would be. Then tack on an extra couple hundred for tax and insurance. Then look at what the rental estimate for that same house is... Its a lot more, isn't it.
They pay it. And then some.
Well this is very dependent on location, maintenance costs, and mortgage parameters (ltv, term, rate, type) and can go either way.
[quote=Punkinpie;44334624]I am single, and childless. The best investment I ever made was to buy property (I bought during recessions because it was the only time I could afford it ). In 1971, my recently deceased aunt bought her home, while married, for $28,000. When she got divorced, she bought out her husband and kept the house. Fast forward forty-five years later....my aunt passed away and left her house to me because she did not have any children. I just sold the house for $700,000.
OMG That's so awesome. I wish I had an Aunt with no children
I guess if John leaves first I should sell our paid for beautiful home and go rent somewhere
Buying real estate allowed me to retire at 58. Every dime we have put into real estate has come back and then some. Those investments have done way better then what we had in the stock market.
If we regard owner-occupied housing as an investment, then the investment might be sensible even for a child-free single person, even for an elderly person in poor health, even for a workaholic or itinerant businessman who's never home… IF market-conditions are favorable. But in stagnant or declining markets, such as in my part of Ohio, house-ownership is overwhelmingly a lifestyle decision. It doesn't make good financial sense, but it might make good personal lifestyle-sense. This is where family-size comes to matter, and this is where the OP's point is indeed well-taken.
This is crucial! I am a single-person who relocated decades ago for an employment opportunity. I enjoy my career, and have high regard for my workplace. But the surrounding community does not command my respect or my allegiance. I wish to have nothing to do with it. Buying a house is a testament of belonging, of community participation. I bought a house for privacy-reasons and comfort-reasons, not having comprehended at the time that I'd shirk emotionally from house-ownership and from the responsibilities that it entails, because I feel no kinship to the community. It would have been wiser to rent. For other singles, who remain for example in the community where they grew up, and who yearn for a greater rootedness in said community as well-established adults, house-ownership makes eminent sense, even if they are permanently child-free and without a spouse.
Not if one's house is an austere, isolated compound in the forest.
Not necessarily. On top of a stagnant/declining market, I am overwhelmed with house-ownership, and have neglected crucial maintenance. The house is rapidly spiraling towards condemnation. My strategy is to live there as long as I remain employed. Upon retirement, I'll simply walk away from the house – and yes, it's already fully paid off. I'll simply take the title to the county administration building, hand it to the clerk, and enjoin him/her to deal with it. So, over the course of living there, the house will be a total loss.
When last I checked, I didn't have to replace the roof on my stocks, or mow the lawn of my mutual funds, or replace the water-heater for my bonds. Funny how that works....
In my experience, after 36 hours of travel, there is nothing more harrowing than returning to a house that during my absence has been infested with mice, where the alarm on the well-pump failed and the pump overheated, where a thunderstorm tore off shingles and the rainwater has been accumulating in a puddle in the "finished" basement (so much for the carpeting and "dry"wall). Oh, and running into a clump of poison-ivy en route to reaching my front door, is just an added bonus. Welcome home!
I'm glad I don't live your life. Very, very glad.
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.
