Nearly 1 in 5 Millennial Renters Expect to Rent Forever in Some Metros
apartmentlist.com
apartmentlist.com
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-cal...
What you will notice if you play around with it is that the decision is most sensitive to "What Does the Future Hold", in particular to the home price growth rate. If you expect that to even stabilize (let alone decline) then renting is almost always a better deal.
Now, that being said, I expected home prices to stabilize back in the early 2000's and didn't buy in SF, so I have been fooled before.
This means you can customize the house for your needs, make friends, have you kids make friends, join community organizations, etc, without having to worry that one day when you go to renew your lease, your landlord will have an unaffordable surprise for you, and you have to give up everything you've built up.
If you can rent one out for $2.4k/mo - $2.75k/mo and not worry about the headache + not put 20% down... I'm sure that's a way to "stay poor" in some circles but... it works for me shrug
Also, last time I checked, if you file taxes as "single", I don't think the benefits of owning a home are even tax deductible. Meaning, the deductions for mortgage interest + property taxes combined aren't more than the $12k standard. I could be wrong.
Home owners are expecting to get their ROI on appreciation, so the rental deals are just too good.
The cost of owning the house is really just interest + hoa + taxes + upkeep. You'll get your principal back out when you sell.
Over a long enough time period, the yearly home ownership costs will be less than renting.
Owning even in SF can still be a better financial decision than renting. There's a lot of tax advantages that you get by owning a home as well.
E.g take this place: https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/201-Sansome-St-94104.... Costs about 5.4k/month. Removing principal & tax rebate its likely costing you ~4-4.5K/month.
Somewhat equivalent rental is 3.3k/month. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/d/san-francisco-916-pac...
Cost of owning is ~1k/month more expensive. However you've locked in your mortgage for 30 years. Likely after 7-10 years the place you were owning will end up cheaper than renting on a monthly cost basis.
If adding together mortgage interest paid for 12 months + property taxes paid for the year together is less than the $12k single filer standard deduction, are there any tax benefits to owning a home?
When you add the fact that mortgage rates are low and house prices went up +50% last year, home ownership sounds pretty nice. People that bought a house a couple years ago have already broke even when you count equity.
At a certain ratio it doesn't make sense to buy (eg. imagine 1k rent vs 8k mortgage) This ratio depends on the growth rate of house prices vs opportunity cost (usually the stock market). Both markets have experienced recent instability, and their historical returns are pretty similar so it's a bit of a wash, but you do get much better liquidity with the stock market.
Personally I'm renting for 3k an apartment that would otherwise mortgage for 7k, which seems like a pretty good deal.
Few people say it out loud, but they do care. Both in social contexts and in professional contexts. I've been to a top-25 public state school for undergrad, and a top-3 private school for Master's. I've seen both sides of the spectrum and I've seen the privilege that I've gotten out of attending an elite university.
I would advise people to be smart about the student debt they are taking on. If your goal is to pursue a lucrative career path like Software Engineering, Law, Business, Consulting etc, go ahead and attend the university that has the best brand name. It will pay for itself over the course of your career. If your goal is to be a school teacher, then go to the best public university in your home state.
But your first job sets you on an important path
> many state schools are more than adequate
Very true. 2 years of CC + 2 years of public state school leaves you with little debt but the same degree as your peers.
But if the economy tanks again, as it usually does after a conservative party owns the US government for a few years, then I won't have cash on hand to buy anything and could lose my job and more before paying off my debt and building serious savings for a house. I'd likely push this whole thought process out 12-15 years at best given rent costs don't increase dramatically.
In my case, I'd say it's bad.
Plenty of people are suggesting massive restructurings of residential areas in major cities.
> Simply adding a few 4-5 floor apartments buildings with retail at the bottom would greatly improve quality of life in neighborhoods.
You're conceding that even your smaller apartment buildings will change the character of the neighborhood. You think it will improve quality of life for some, but they think it will do the opposite for them.
And when you create these apartments you've concentrated a large piece of land under a single owner, who can then after a regulation change eventually build one of those massive apartment buildings. But it doesn't necessarily need to be that massive to have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
I am sorry but the price you paid for your house / apt was too little to justify this behavior.
As a property owner, I don't care what you feel is just. I worked hard, saved money and invested wisely. We've been in a bull market for over 10 years now, if you want change then put some money down and start doing something about. All the internet points in the world won't win you a high rise apartment
Other people's property that happens to be near you is not your property.
1. Security of tenure. You can be a model tenant who never misses a payment, but if a landlord wants to do something else with your home for any reason, you've got two months and you're out. Wife, kids, stuff and all. Maybe with a change of school thrown in for good measure too.
2. Exclusion from the biggest one way bet in town. Forget the best index tracking ISA, nothing beats using massive leverage to invest several hundred thousand pounds of borrowed into existence money in an asset class that the elite will happily throw the rest of the economy under the bus to pump up. Much to the benefit of our politicians, flipping their tax payer funded second homes.
3. Welfare unfairness. Got a bit saved up? Maybe even for a house deposit ironically? Well if you fall on hard times, you'll need to burn through your years of savings until you're poor enough to receive benefits again. If you have a fortune of equity in your house though, you won't have to touch a penny of it.
I am a millennial, I am not planning on buying a house pretty much for ever, I don't see it be a problem
You may have trouble renting the type of property you want.
You can’t modify the property for the most part.
You’re exposed to the property just being taken off the rental market. Regularly moving probably isn’t a big deal in your 20s but there comes a point where it’s less desirable.
You also get freedom when renting, for example being able to relocate anywhere in the country or the world when the opportunity comes.
So I don't understand why people are making a big deal about owning your property