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.
Don't forget to add that your apartment is rent-controlled, so you never have to worry about it increasing.
Correct?
Bull …we are not rent controlled ..half of all housing is rent stabilized here in rentals …they are way different then rent controlled apartments which barely exist anymore .. .
Never have to worry about it increasing ? Go learn about it before you speak ….
My wife is in this apartment 40 years and we are at market rent .
There are yearly increases voted on by the stabilization board as well as mci increases as well as the parking is raised yearly ….so after 40 years we are pretty much right at market.
It never ceases to amaze me how those who have no clue how something works try to use it as an argument even though they clearly are clueless about it
I thought I remembered you saying that once. My bad.
Never..
What you may have heard me say is for those with limited income there is the SCRIE PROGRAM .
seniors who have lower incomes are exempt from increases as long as they remain eligible..the landlord is given a tax credit instead for the increase amount.
To be eligible for SCRIE, you should be able to answer yes to all of these questions:
Are you 62 or older?
Is your name on the lease?
Is your combined household income $50,000 or less in a year?
Do you spend more than one-third of your monthly income on rent?
Do you live in NYC in one of these types of housing?
a rent stabilized apartment
a rent controlled apartment
a rent regulated hotel or single room occupancy unit
a Mitchell-Lama development
a Limited Dividend Housing Company development
a Redevelopment Company development
a Housing Development Fund Company development
Last edited by mathjak107; 07-29-2021 at 02:09 PM..
Regarding property taxes, I don't know about other states but in Texas there is a homestead exemption of $25M (netted against tax assessed valued) to help offset property taxes. https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/...r%20this%20tax.
If the homeowner is 65 or older, an additional $10,000 exemption is available in Texas.
Houston ISD has another 20% homestead exemption in addition to the state amounts. Harris County adds a large exemption at 65.
Actually no it didn’t because of the fact many said that the paid off mortgage gave them a cheap place to life forever and that may not be true So there are multiple discussions here
I acknowledge that one may not be able to afford a house in perpetuity even if there’s no mortgage. But apples to apples, on a $$/square foot and staying in the same area, I think there would have to be a drastic downsize to make the math work in that direction.
I acknowledge that one may not be able to afford a house in perpetuity even if there’s no mortgage. But apples to apples, on a $$/square foot and staying in the same area, I think there would have to be a drastic downsize to make the math work in that direction.
it really is a question of despite being paid off time can do awful things to ones financial situation as mortgages tend to be come insignificant in the long term as all other costs escalate many times more and the home is no longer affordable.
You may be way a head selling that paid off home , renting an apartment and investing that dough in a portfolio.
So it isn’t a plain cost of rent , cost of supporting a house comparison .
That is our situation …we eventually would like to buy a condo in westchester in a high rise . But it cost so much more to buy once we calculate in the income we no longer would get on the money we spend to buy that cash flow would take a big hit .
So maintaining that income from the portfolio and renting gives us the biggest retirement free cash flow
Last edited by mathjak107; 07-30-2021 at 03:52 AM..
Status:
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me"
(set 19 hours ago)
Location: Ocala, FL
6,484 posts, read 10,357,154 times
Reputation: 7930
Going back to the thread title about really "owning" your home, there are many opinions and it all comes down to semantics. It is all in how you chose to interpret the term. We can all agree to disagree on various points. I don't think there is a single answer that will make everyone happy and I know that I can live with that. I do believe in the expression, "embrace diversity". There is no right or wrong in this discussion, only various shades of grey.
Going back to the thread title about really "owning" your home, there are many opinions and it all comes down to semantics. It is all in how you chose to interpret the term. We can all agree to disagree on various points. I don't think there is a single answer that will make everyone happy and I know that I can live with that. I do believe in the expression, "embrace diversity". There is no right or wrong in this discussion, only various shades of grey.
I agree with that. I would also say that the amount of taxes that a person must pay to own a "nice" home varies drastically from place to place. I can see how someone who lives in a "high tax" area would think that real estate taxes are a significant cost of owning a home. However, there are plenty of places where the real estate taxes are VERY low.
In the low tax states, it's definitely cheaper to own a home over the long term than it is to continue to pay rent that is not "controlled" in some way. I don't doubt that in Mathjak's situation, it may be cheaper to rent than to own, but those conditions don't apply to many parts of the country.
I agree with that. I would also say that the amount of taxes that a person must pay to own a "nice" home varies drastically from place to place. I can see how someone who lives in a "high tax" area would think that real estate taxes are a significant cost of owning a home. However, there are plenty of places where the real estate taxes are VERY low.
In the low tax states, it's definitely cheaper to own a home over the long term than it is to continue to pay rent that is not "controlled" in some way. I don't doubt that in Mathjak's situation, it may be cheaper to rent than to own, but those conditions don't apply to many parts of the country.
My only gripe is the one size fits all comments you see like there is no rationalization for renting or renters are losers or renters are throwing money away .
All our reasons for doing what we do are going to be very different …many only see things in black or white and never look any further than their nose to understand why other areas are different or there are reasons that making renting a superior choice in situations.
We could never amassed the money we did if we continued to own our home and didn’t rent and invest elsewhere in far more lucrative deals
Host implies guests. If I am renting from you, I am not a guest.
If I stay in a Hilton or a Marriott, I'm their guest. But unless I'm redeeming frequent-traveler points, most assuredly I'm still paying for the room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacoSoup
You keep bringing this up, but if you were to rent the house next door it would most certainly be much more expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas863
In the low tax states, it's definitely cheaper to own a home over the long term than it is to continue to pay rent ...
Just as we have a price-earnings ratio for stocks, so too, we can calculate a buy-rent ratio for residential real-estate. If this ratio is high, then it's cheaper to rent. If low, then it's cheaper to buy. There are all sorts of websites that calculate this, and display the results as a colorful heat-map.
In my current locale of Los Angeles, the heat-map starkly favors renting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV
... apples to apples, on a $$/square foot and staying in the same area, I think there would have to be a drastic downsize to make the math work in that direction.
This is true. Renting works better when the space is small. There is a large discount in renting a studio-apartment. A 3-bedroom is much more expensive, and an entire house, even more so.
The rub is that a single person without children really doesn't need a house. 400 square foot houses are unusual. So instead one ends up paying extra money for extra square footage. Perhaps this can be monetized via Air-BnB, but what if not? Then the 400 square foot apartment is suddenly a much better deal.
Shopping-around in my current locale, I find that just the property tax alone, on a viable house, would cost me about as much, as would my apartment rent. In other words, if a free house were to magically fall out of the sky, requiring no maintenance and no insurance, then the taxes alone, would amount to my current-costs, as a renter.
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.
