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.
Best way to own your home is to not consider it a lifetime abode. Move after a reasonable amount of time, take your equity out, and buy something else. Use your equity to make a much larger down payment on your next house than you did on the one you are leaving.
The real estate industry certainly hopes you'll do this. But under normal circumstances, real estate barely outruns inflation, if at all. And the commissions kill you.
In my opinion, the better bet financially would be to buy a modest 3/2 house when you're young and live in it for the long term. Forget about the "property ladder" -- buy index funds!
Most families these days do not have 4 or 6 children and do not need the space they think they need. Unfortunately, most people succumb to HGTV and peer pressure.
The real estate industry certainly hopes you'll do this. But under normal circumstances, real estate barely outruns inflation, if at all. And the commissions kill you.
In my opinion, the better bet financially would be to buy a modest 3/2 house when you're young and live in it for the long term. Forget about the "property ladder" -- buy index funds!
Most families these days do not have 4 or 6 children and do not need the space they think they need. Unfortunately, most people succumb to HGTV and peer pressure.
Anecdotally, the "property ladder" doesn't really seem to be a ladder so much as it is a step-stool. I'm one of three kids; we moved once as kids to a 4/2 house from a 3/2 with a weird layout (and it has sold every 4-5 years over the last 30, so we weren't the only ones that thought so.) My wife's family? Same thing. My Aunts and uncles? Can't think of any of them moving more than once. My Dad tells a similar story; they moved when he was in Elementary school and my grandparents stayed there til they retired and wanted one-floor living.
Buying a home usually makes sense because you stabilize your housing costs long term. Equity is nice but "meh."
Its a shame to read how many home owners here seem to really look down on renters though.
In our society, home-ownership is a batch of honor, while renting is a badge of shame. Consider the language itself: “landLORD”. We do not have such culturally-freighted expressions for bankers, lenders of various sort, providers of insurance, medical practitioners, lawyers, teachers, or even military leaders. The landlord is a nobleman, superior to his… ahem, vassal. As a tenant, I am a vassal. I am inferior in rank, privilege, significance or moral goodness. Never mind if – for argument’s sake – I have tens of millions of dollars invested in the stock market, or in private equity. If I rent my abode, then I’m the holder of the feudal fief… to my Lord, the property owner.
Houston Independent School District has an annual budget of just over two billion dollars. That appears to be considerably larger than the public safety segment.
HISD is funded by property taxes and some state money. Harris County is funded almost entirely by property taxes. I was trying to make the point that property taxes aren't going away as a way to fund government, and that cutting the scope of government isn't realistic.
In our society, home-ownership is a batch of honor, while renting is a badge of shame. Consider the language itself: “landLORD”. We do not have such culturally-freighted expressions for bankers, lenders of various sort, providers of insurance, medical practitioners, lawyers, teachers, or even military leaders. The landlord is a nobleman, superior to his… ahem, vassal. As a tenant, I am a vassal. I am inferior in rank, privilege, significance or moral goodness. Never mind if – for argument’s sake – I have tens of millions of dollars invested in the stock market, or in private equity. If I rent my abode, then I’m the holder of the feudal fief… to my Lord, the property owner.
Use this to your advantage, if you can. Any time the majority holds a certain value, but you hold a different value, there's an opportunity for arbitrage. Let's say Joe Landlord is running around replacing carpet and fixing faucets because he thinks it makes him a nobleman, and meanwhile the government won't even let him evict his non-paying tenants. And meanwhile you're happy being a vassal and watching your stock holdings swell, with no effort on your part whatsoever. Who's really winning?
Whilst I do not disagree with where you are going with this, the fact is that certain words and phrases have been passed down through centuries of humans being alive. Some good, some not so good. The "lord" part of the aforementioned word has a different connotation in today's world, as opposed to centuries ago.
And if you still don't like it, ok, that's fine. But what should it be then?
propertyowner
landowner
I think it's safe to say that there are a number of people in this country who would object to 'owner' being in there, and I can understand why.
landholder
That might work. I need to call my landholder to fix the sink in my apt.
lessor (someone who allows another person to pay to use their land or property under a lease)
That can work to, but some people would object b/c it makes the person who owns the property sound like they are less of a person than the lesee. I need to call my lessor to see if I can pay the rent a few days late.
title-holder
Maybe that? I need to call my title-holder to fix the sink in my apt. Sort of makes it sound like you own the title, and someone is holding it for you.
See - it ain't that easy to just change a word in the English language.
Use this to your advantage, if you can. Any time the majority holds a certain value, but you hold a different value, there's an opportunity for arbitrage. Let's say Joe Landlord is running around replacing carpet and fixing faucets because he thinks it makes him a nobleman, and meanwhile the government won't even let him evict his non-paying tenants. And meanwhile you're happy being a vassal and watching your stock holdings swell, with no effort on your part whatsoever. Who's really winning?
Oh, don't worry, tenants; you hold all the cards! Especially these days (with COVID).
Whilst I do not disagree with where you are going with this, the fact is that certain words and phrases have been passed down through centuries of humans being alive. Some good, some not so good. The "lord" part of the aforementioned word has a different connotation in today's world, as opposed to centuries ago. ...
See - it ain't that easy to just change a word in the English language.
In the American mindset, land is readily available to any aspirant of means, or perhaps even without means, is there’s enough discipline and verve. Land is the reward for hard-work and good-sense. Land is not reserved for the King or the First Estate or the Church. So, there’s no excuse for NOT owning land. Non-ownership can only be ascribed to lassitude, dissolution, poor judgment or blunder.
Consider the pioneer-days. Europeans who by statute are excluded from the privilege of owning land, emigrate. Arriving in America, they can obtain land via open sale, or perhaps even via grant from the government. Those who fail to do this, lack the interest or the capability or the character. These being personal faults, they can be rightfully faulted. Owners aren’t just lucky ones, who happen to enjoy a writ of nobility or a rich father. Owners are anyone who saved diligently and applied themselves with concerted purpose. Owners therefore are morally superior, just as the sober man is morally superior to the drunkard, or the faithful wife is superior to the strumpet.
So, those Germans or Swedes or Irishmen who remained in their respective native lands, have the ready excuse, that not being the first-sons of their family, or noblemen, they had no inheritance of land. But those who immigrated to America, have no such excuse, and are held liable for their shiftlessness, in either having been unable to buy land, or to retain it. This, I think, is a major reason why today in Europe it is culturally OK to be a renter, while in America it is not.
Now consider travel. When I travel, I stay in a hotel. I pay for the room by the night, as a paying guest. There is no question that I don’t own the room. There’s no reason to aspire to owning the room! Instead of there being shame in renting the hotel room, there is actually prestige, in being able to afford to travel and to engage the services of a hotelier at-will. So then, why is it, that when I am traveling, to rent is grand and glorious, while when at home, to rent is louche and immature?
As to your question about terminology, instead of “landlord”, how about just….”host”?
In the American mindset, land is readily available to any aspirant of means, or perhaps even without means, is there’s enough discipline and verve. Land is the reward for hard-work and good-sense. Land is not reserved for the King or the First Estate or the Church. So, there’s no excuse for NOT owning land. Non-ownership can only be ascribed to lassitude, dissolution, poor judgment or blunder.
Consider the pioneer-days. Europeans who by statute are excluded from the privilege of owning land, emigrate. Arriving in America, they can obtain land via open sale, or perhaps even via grant from the government. Those who fail to do this, lack the interest or the capability or the character. These being personal faults, they can be rightfully faulted. Owners aren’t just lucky ones, who happen to enjoy a writ of nobility or a rich father. Owners are anyone who saved diligently and applied themselves with concerted purpose. Owners therefore are morally superior, just as the sober man is morally superior to the drunkard, or the faithful wife is superior to the strumpet.
So, those Germans or Swedes or Irishmen who remained in their respective native lands, have the ready excuse, that not being the first-sons of their family, or noblemen, they had no inheritance of land. But those who immigrated to America, have no such excuse, and are held liable for their shiftlessness, in either having been unable to buy land, or to retain it. This, I think, is a major reason why today in Europe it is culturally OK to be a renter, while in America it is not.
The balance in Europe is most commonly a reflection of the laws regarding landlords/tenants, lending practices, as well as the tax codes and whatnot. The UK has a higher homeownership rate than the US. Germany is much lower. Germany has more stringent lending standards and taxes paid when acquiring a property. Compared to the US, where buying allows a slew of deductions and appreciation is largely shielded from income tax.
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.
