Hacker News Reader

Comment by monkmartinez | Hacker News Reader

Great story! My wife and I recently sold our home and are now renting. My stress level has decreased 10 fold in the last 4 months since selling. There is always that little nag in the back of your mind regarding a house: "I would love to go on that trip and we have the money, but our <A/C || roof || plumbing || appliance> is going to need to be replaced in the next year or so."

I don't think I am cut out for a permanent #vanlife, but it sure sounds like a cool arrangement if you have the proclivity to handle all that it entails. My wife and I plan to do slow travel when our kids go to college. Move every year or so with a light load while learning different cultures.

Would love to hear more about the financial aspects of #vanlife... from my perspective, I reckon you save a bundle.... but I could be wrong.

View on HN

The landlord has to make the same repairs you would, and still turn a profit, at a margin likely higher than a mortgage’s interest rate. So that nice saved-up vacation money would still go away eventually.

For me the nag was about all the thing we wanted to do to the house but couldn’t because it was a rental.

To each their own I guess - there are fair points for both approaches. Do what makes sense financially and keeps you happy / less worried :)

> The landlord has to make the same repairs you would, and still turn a profit, at a margin likely higher than a mortgage’s interest rate

That's unlikely, if the rented space is part of a complex. The complex repairs are amortized across all the units. The issue is about cost per square footage. Given you don't have to pay for the same square footage (not the full lot, only the space your unit and parking occupies) it's almost always lower.

Yes, but the landlord does this repairs pre-tax and all the repairs are deductible.

Only against rental income right? Otherwise one could get a tax break simply by renting their own house to themselves. If just against rental income, then there still isn’t a difference (they get a tax break because tenants pay rent and for the repairs indirectly post tax).

Also, they can’t both be pretax and deductible. The former, the money never shows up on taxes at all, the latter they show up as a subtraction on taxable income.

I am not a tax specialist, nor do we know which country we are discussion (EU, US, Australia, like in the post).

But it may make more sense to buy real estate to rent out to others and live somewhere else for rent.

If a company holds a few apartments (and getting rid of non-paying renters can be tricky in some jurisdictions) then you can deduct interest payments, repairs etc.

If you live in your own house I don't know how much you can deduct mortgage payments. And if you need a new roof then you have to pay for this by your after tax income salary. Big difference.

I am eyeing a loft in an EU country. I wish I had the money to buy it, renovate it and making loft apartments out of it. One I would rent for myself (from my company).

I still don't understand how would it be cheaper if you're paying rent with money that was already taxed - deductions would only make sure it's not taxed again. Maybe you could avoid paying VAT?

Another situation would be if your company is financing the apartment directly with pre-tax money that didn't make a round-trip as income, though that's quite a different situation than most rentals, and may be a big no-no (or may be acceptable in your jurisdiction - no idea).

You earn 100k as a wage slave. After 30% Tax 70k. (Random numbers). Now you pay for your roof 40k. You have 30k left. (Likely your would take a loan but lets ignore this now). The bottom line: You pay 30k in taxes and 40k for the roof and have 30k left.

Landlord has 100k rental income. To make it simple, he has to pay 30% tax too. But he has now another bisness expense of 40k for the roof, so he gets only 60k income. Not he pays 30% income tax on that, so he has only 42k left. But this is 12k more than you because the roof was a business expense.

The landlord doesn’t get to deduct expenses on their own residence. They can deduct expenses on other people’s residences for sure, but one end or the other is taxed at 30%. The landlord isn’t coming out ahead unless they are able to fudge numbers on their taxes in the confusion of their more complicated tax return. They can also deduct 25k in losses over rental revenue from personal income given lots of rules (like you can’t make more than $100k to get the full deduction and it phases out after $150k).

They don't have to turn a profit from the rent. Many operate at a loss in a bet to build wealth from equity gains.

So the landlord has to sell the property to make a profit? That may not be the best outcome either for the people who rent it.

HELOC

HIC! THANKSC FORC POSTINGC!

HELOC, HELOC again[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_equity_line_of_credit

(As The Cars might say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3mjTpZk3Ao)

There's levels to it. If they bought the place cash, then the only thing they have to cover is the property taxes and maintenance. They are still getting a return on investment, but it's like 5% per year (assuming property values track inflation). You can see this in denser metros, where they put more cash down, thus reducing their returns.

If they bought it 20% down and want to cash flow for a goal of 8% cash on cash, that's another type of return on investment. If the property value tracks inflation, their return is probably closer to 20% yearly.

Also they can shelter that income through depreciation, mortgage interest, expenses, etc.

>The landlord has to make the same repairs you would, and still turn a profit, at a margin likely higher than a mortgage’s interest rate.

Many (most?) rentals in my area (in Scandinavia) is not for-profit and get cheap loans to build. Just like the utility company (electricity, heat, water, fiber). You can get permission to improve and if it is good for the environment you get some of the money back if you move out.

But you get to keep the money you'd spend on buying the house/apartment which you can then invest into other assets. Also, who repairs what is down to agreement. I've always been renting (it's not that uncommon here, in Europe, though it is less common here, in Hungary) and the agreement was always that all repairs that are due to proper usage is to be paid for by the landlord but any damage is to be paid for by the renter (me).

Now the little repairs that were due during these years (in 3 different downtown apartments) always went like this: I tell the landlord that something needs to be fixed, they tell me to call someone (or sometimes they send someone they know) and I pay for it, get the invoice which we then deduct from the rent next month. No extra profit made on the repairs. You can say that it is priced in the rent, but then that's the rent (which will be subject to competition). Yes, obviously they are looking to make some meaningful return on their investment. Whether that's higher than the mortgage's interest rate depends a lot on when they actually bought the property. But in an equilibrium the two should be pretty close because if they start to diverge too much people will either stop renting or they will stop buying apartments (and do the other).

Margin on rent is always higher for several reasons: risk (the landlord remains hamstrung by a mortgage regardless of whether they have a tenant or not), privilege (not everyone can afford the downpayment, have good enough income history to convince the bank) or convenience (not everyone is interested in settling 10-20-30 years and bother with the hassle and costs of buying.)

Even assuming the margin on rent is similar to the interest on a mortgage, mortgages end. Renting does not.

So financially, unless the mortgage is much more expensive, buying is a better decision.

Again: you either invest into a realty, that happens to be your home, so that you don't have to pay rent, or you pay a rent and you invest into something else. You have to always consider the opportunity cost before you decide which one is a better decision. And it will depend on the market.

Landlord here. This implies perfect pricing, but it's still moist robots like me making very imperfect decisions.

I've come to believe that really what should determine your choice to buy a house or condo comes down just to circumstance or the leaning of your preference. If your tendency is to want a comfortable space that you can make your own, then make that your goal. Likewise if you have innumerable familial or professional long term constraints. If however most of your interests have nothing to do with being stationary and modifying or maintaining your home, then that pretty well points you in a different direction. Likewise again if you have no hard long-term constraints. You can look to other things like financial capability or potential investment returns, but I think the other considerations are more critical.

How is your security of tenure renting where you are?

Sadly in my country, our rental laws are still firmly stuck in the "quarter-acre" dream of the 1960s, where renting was only something you did at university before shortly buying your first house with a tiny deposit and a Government backed home loan.

These days as house prices rocket, only now are changes being made to tenancy laws to give tenants some more security. Back in my renting days, I had to move 4 times in 5 years because the landlord wanted to move in, or they sold it, or the farm my cottage was on had been sold and the new owner wanted it for workers, etc.

So here, at least, owning removed a significant amount of stress for me - I know I'll still be living here in 5 years, I haven't been able to say that until now.

>>There is always that little nag in the back of your mind regarding a house

Do you not have any nagging thoughts about renting though? Because I went the exact opposite way. I was always super stressed when renting, because I knew that at the end of our contract the landlord could tell us to leave. Especially when we were on a monthly rolling contract, my stress about this was probably 10/10.

Now that we bought a house I sleep well - if anything goes wrong I can probably repair it myself, in case of appliances I can buy second hand ones cheap or again, try the repair myself ...and for things I can't repair myself(ie - boiler) I have insurance for. It's about 10x less stressful than renting to me.

You have insurance for major appliances ? Or do you mean a warranty?

Boiler insurance. £100 a year, includes a service, if the boiler breaks down it will be repaired or replaced. Similar thing is available for things like dishwashers and washing machines, but I have never seen the need.

Not op but our mortgage lender offers a “total home warranty” for like $8/month which covers appliances and systems (hvac, boiler, etc). It’s basically appliance insurance. And at that price it’s a pretty good deal when buying a used house.

>because I knew that at the end of our contract the landlord could tell us to leave.

Luckily this can't happen in most of the EU. Even if the contract say X years you can't throw people out after the contract runs out unless you are moving in yourself.

In Ireland sadly we have a Landlord culture and many landlords move people on regularly to ensure they don't get any rights or simply get too comfortable.

Definitely not true in the UK(and wasn't true when we were still in the EU) - if the contract comes to an end and the landlord doesn't want to extend it then that's it, you have to move out. They don't have to give any reason.

Ah yes, the assured shorthold tenancy, the default form of rental contract in the UK since the mid-1990s. That was an attempt to goose the housing market in a stagnant economy, together with buy-to-let mortgages. It was embarrassing to see the national newspapers promote the scheme enthusiatically.

Asset inflation is great when you hold assets, but the husing bubble is one of the ways the establishment pulled the ladder up from the Millennials and later.

You have similar anxieties with renting. "When will my landlord give me my 6 month notice?" Depending on your location and who you are finding an apartment for rent can't be easier. e.g. in Finland most landlords won't pick foreign names.

Six month notice? Try one month notice.

> 6 month notice

What alternative timeline is this?

Europe :)

Where in Europe? In my experience (In Italy, Spain, Czech Republic) the notice period is 2 months.

UK.

Source: Frequently happened to me when I rented.

UK.

Currently I can be given 2 months notice at any time.

This is actually preferable to on the earlier time with this tenancy, where I could be given 2 months notice and also the landlord makes an active decision whether to renew or decline every 12 months.

In fact they always send a no-reason formal eviction notice 3 months before the end of each 12 months renewal as a matter of policy, just to rub it in.

(I would be surprised if that's legal. It seems against the spirit of eviction law where timescales are supposed to begin when a tenant refuses to leave, not months before they are supposed to leave)

On one occasion they did decline to renew, giving no reason. They changed their mind at the last moment after I had a chat with the landlord's property manager. That was a source of great stress for me, not even knowing why.

Eventually I found out. The agency (not landlord) told me, to my face, that they didn't know the why, couldn't get a reason, but the landlord had decided not to renew. But later the landlord's property manager told me that the agency had lied to my face and the landlord did not initiate the decline.

It was the agency who had made the recommendation. I saw it advertised briefly at ~35% raise, so I suspect that was their motivation. These are not rent-controlled, I already pay a substantially above inflation annual raise, so it's not stuck on an ancient rate. If they had got a tenant in to replace me, not only would they have increased their agency fees as a percentage, they would have charged the landlord additional fees for processing a new tenant as well.

Sadly, the UK rental market is terrible.

Real estate managers are incentivized to change tenants frequently to generate more fees. Sometimes, this also goes against the interest of the landlord as depending on his contract he might need to pay pretty hefty readvertising fees.

Yeah, the UK rental market is pretty bad.

My understanding is those fees are no longer legal.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tenant-fees-act

See the section near the bottom starting "From 1 June 2019, the only payments that landlords or letting agents can charge to tenants in relation to new contracts are:"

Anecdotally, it seems these fees have indeed disappeared, although few people I know now live in rental accommodation in the UK.

Sure, the fees have disappeared for tenants, but not for landlords! I know because I've been renting myself till last summer. It's a step in the right direction.

In a place such as Oxford or Cambridge you have tons of overseas landlords. Thus, agents are typically extracting fees from them by claiming the tenant has left and the house needs to be readvertised. But, in reality, the tenant wanted to renew the contract. Since they are not on-site, let alone managing the property themselves, it's easy to trick them.

In other words, agents often have a perverse incentive to force a high tenant turnover. Some agents are not like this because they are more ethical, or because they guarantee a minimum income per calendar month. But, on average, it's a very nasty market as you've noted.

Finland. Never seen or heard of notice period on a "normal" rental less than 6 months. Tenant's usually can give 1 month notice. Landlord 6 months.

Belgium, 6 months minimum with conditions.

We got 4 months in Ireland, but the statutory requirement was less than that for the time that we had been there. Had we been in the house another year os wo, it would have been 6 months.

Nope :-)

In France I was given 2 weeks notice, immediately before Christmas.

The landlord sold the property I was in without telling me, then gave me 2 weeks.

That was difficult as I was booked to fly to the UK in 1 week.

Finding another place to live at Christmas is difficult. Doing everything to process it including moving within 1 week is difficult. Luckily for me, some Mormon friends came to visit, and when I told them my predicament, they did everything to help me move my stuff quickly to my new temporary place. Good people - thanks guys!

In January I had to find somewhere again, because I hadn't been find a suitable long term rental before Christmas.

This sounds very illegal. From what I know, in France the notice period is 1 month if it is "meublé", or 3 months if the appartment is empty.

Edit: actually, I just checked and that's for tenants. If the landlord wants to break the contract to sell the property, it's 3 months for "meublé", 6 months otherwise.

Yes it's illegal in France, here is the official documentation:

https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F929

3 to 6 month with certified letter before the sale, and can only happen at lease renewal dates (every 3 years).

That's illegal. They can't throw you out even when the contract run out unless they are moving in themselves.

Come to Germany where it's almost impossible for a landlord to get rid of a tenant unless there are special circumstances and lots of time, effort and money involved by the landlord.

I am buying a place in the capital city of my country for this exact same reason. I want to travel and be free to do what I want, yet I also need a place to live in for the months that I'm not away traveling. I could rent something but that would be the same price as my mortgage and it will be lost money anyway. Instead I picked buying so only a small part (interest) is lost, but everything else goes back into my own pocket. So even if I'm only spending 50% in my own place it is still cheaper then renting.

However, you are talking about things that I don't really have to worry about since it is an apartment. So maybe there is a slight difference here.

What about using it as a vacation rebtal while away. There are probably companies that take care of the details. Personal stuff could be locked away somewhere.

It's important to realise that you can't compare your rent with your mortgage payments without factoring in a lot of things. The rent you pay includes things like taxes, insurances, upkeep, depreciation, risk and opportunity costs that your landlord has to pay while still coming out ahead. And he has to deal with all the administrative things too. So if you're a homeowner yourself, ask whether you're still coming out ahead carrying those costs yourself, plus the risk that something around your house breaks, plus the risk that your home might lose value for another reason, plus the opportunity cost of your down-payment not being invested otherwise (e.g. stocks). At the end of the day, it depends on the location and how far apart the purchase prices have diverged from rents. With the current economic situation and low interest rates, house prices where I live have mostly broken away from rents so significantly that it doesn't make any sense to buy from a financial standpoint.

I've checked your profile and saw you are living in Germany, I am living in The Netherlands and buying in Amsterdam. I do not know if it is different in Germany so I cannot say too much about that. However, regardless of what the situation is, in the end the landlord will have to come out ahead when you are paying rent. Only by that definition it should save you money in the long run when buying your own place.

The only argument that can be made is that the money you do not spend on your own house is money that could be put into a different investment like the stock market. But in NL renting a place is roughly as expensive as my monthly mortgage payments. So both situations it is money I cannot put in the stock market. Insurance and heating is being added on top of those monthly payments regardless of the option you pick.

In Berlin your rent will most surely be less than mortgage payment unless you take a very very long mortgage (like 50 years). Plus you need a down payment.

The reason it makes sense for landlords is that they have nothing else to do with the money if interest rate is zero or close to it - the alternative is slowly losing it (or higher risk stuff like stocks).

So they slowly build equity while not profiting every month, counting on prices continuing to rise for their long-term profit and if they run several properties you can get economies of scale going for managing them.

On a month to month outgoing basis I can imagine you might be correct that renting works out cheaper in some cases.

However, it's missing something I think is important. In my case we have a £335k home at 1.6% interest which means every year we pay £5000 in interest, but we paying off around £15000 of the principal on the loan. After 10 years we could sell the house, spend the £150k+ (assuming the home value stays the same) we've paid off on a sailing boat and head off around the world or whatever takes our fancy.

If we'd have rented we might have been able to save maybe £200 a month in outgoings. Even invested in index funds it's unlikely to come close.

It doesn’t work like that.

You certainly paid a tax when you bought your home. I don’t know how it’s called or how much is it in your area, but you have to add that to the cost of what you bought, or deduce it from what you will sell (assuming the home value stays the same).

Then you also have to deduce all the real estate yearly taxes. And then all the costs associated with the real estate property itself (the ones you wouldn’t have to pay as a renter). Then you’ll have to deduce the real estate agency fees.

Then and only then you can start making some comparisons between buying and renting.

In the UK there is stamp duty which you pay when you buy a house. First time buyers though get a pretty good deal, nothing on up to £250k, I think we paid around £2000.

However, there aren't property taxes which you wouldn't need to pay as a renter. The closest thing to my knowledge is council tax but that is the same whether you buy or rent.

On the other hand, I've spent hundreds of pounds on rental contracts, referral fees, unfair deposit deductions etc.

All those things you mentioned in your last paragraph are illegal in Germany (or at least in Berlin). You just cant easily compare between countries like that - it can very well be that it "always" makes sense to buy in England because the rules ensure it while the opposite is true in another country.

The rental/real estate markets work differently in Austria and Germany and that's (partially) why home ownership patterns in those countries are so different to England's. Vienna and Berlin both have something close to 90% of the population renting rather than owning, and it's not because they are idiots.

There are massive incentives erected to keep renting tenant-friendly in a way that would never fly in a more capitalist country like the UK or the US.

I didn't suggest that buying always makes sense. I was only trying to point out that comparing month to month costs isn't a fair comparison, since a significant part of the money you put into a mortgage becomes available to you in the fullness of time. With rent, once you've paid it it's gone.

You're right, sorry I just wanted to reiterate as i often experienced that people in other countries don't understand how regulated the market is the German speaking countries.

E.g. many large american cities like chicago would have purchase prices similar to berlin but 2-3x the rental prices due to these regulations keeping Berliner rents artificially low.

Trying to actually check my vague memory: if numbeo[0] is anywhere near accurate (I anecdotally believe it's close enough to give you a good rough estimate) Berlin is both drastically more expensive to buy than Chicago (almost 50% more expensive) and drastically cheaper to rent (a bit over 40% cheaper).

Obviously this completely changes your buy vs rent calculous!

[0]https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...

The situation in the UK is different than Germany - there are a lot less tenants protections & a lot less rent control (almost every renter in Germany is enjoying some sort of rent control - at the very least the landlords can't easily raise rent on an existing tenant and can't easily end the contract - which is by default unlimited in duration).

Rent is kept artificially low & safe in Germany via legislation, where as purchasing happens on the free market.

Also culturally Germans are very fiscally conservative and risk averse, it is not as common to take up debt (=mortgage) as in the UK or the US.

Housing prices change. Rent prices change. Here in SoCal I was going to buy a place but the pandemic hit so we decided to rent.

Our rent payment is about half what we would pay if we bought. Just look at the last two places I rented: Rent1: $2500/mo Condo next door: $850k. That’s 4K mortgage and 1k HoA.

Rent2: $4100 Equivalent mortgage: $10k/mo

Doesn’t make sense to buy unless you are speculating on housing prices.

Housing prices don't change (much) after you buy. Rent is at the mercy of your landlord and the market. Here in metro Milwaukee rents are up 30% since I bought a house, but my mortgage/taxes/insurance is up 1% (I pay $18/mo more now in taxes).

My home value has skyrocketed as well, but so has every other home. However, the growth cancels out, I get my home's growth as a sort of discount were I to sell and buy another home. It's called the housing ladder and is key to preserving wealth as your housing needs change and the market gets more expensive.

Your example works in shorter time frames, buying vs renting in a given year or 3. But over the long haul I've only regretted thinking like that in my 20s and not just snatching up a home and land.

It's easier to make a person who will need a house than it is to build a house, and it's extremely difficult to make more land to put a house on.

Edit: grammar/clarity

« in the end the landlord will have to come out ahead when you are paying rent » is way too simplistic I’m afraid. He doesn’t have to « come ahead », or at least not in the way you think he has to.

You don’t know how your landlord got the property you’re renting. He may purely and simply never bought it. Or he bought it when it was costing nothing for him, or on the reverse a lot which prevents him to sell. Or selling it would generate massive tax for him. Or it is a diversification strategy. Etc.

And to say « renting is roughly as expensive as my mortgage payment » to justify to buy is a very common and very bad argument that is built on a misconception of what is at stake.

When you buy a property, being a flat or a house, you have costs associated with it. A lot of them. Costs associated with the purchase and costs associated with the property.

First of all, you’ll have to pay some sort of one-off real estate tax when you buy. Then you will pay all the interests of your bank credit (which are higher the longer is your credit). Then you will pay all on the on-going real estate taxes. Then you will pay all the costs of the property itself (all the on-going things a renter do not have to pay, all the big 5-10 years maintenance tasks like frontage restauration).

So renting is bad only if it is costing more than all those costs during the period, minus the real estate price increase during the period.

I don’t know where you live but in a lot of big cities, it is actually way way cheaper to rent than to buy.

The truth is most people do not really look at the proper numbers when they want to justify to buy a property because there is a lot more involved in being the owner of the place than what people want to admit.

I do get the feeling that NL/Amsterdam is one of the few exceptions to everything you are saying. I am aware of all the costs but 3 key things to note here: 1) I am not paying the real estate tax for this apartment. (This is a coulance thing from the Dutch government and is only available till the first of april for houses above 400k EU.) 2) The rents in Amsterdam are roughly the same as my mortgage. The interest rates are at an all time low at 1.4% for 20 years. 3) Interest rates can be deducted from my income so I don't have to pay tax over it (either 36% or 49%). While rent cannot be deducted.

To give you an idea about numbers. My mortgage is around 440k with a monthly payment of +/- 1500eu (includes interest). For the same apartment a 1500eu rent a month isn't unheard of. On top of this you have to pay for electricity and heating yourself and the insurance. When renting the additional tax (e.g. waste or sewer) is also added on top of the monthly payment regardless of buying or renting. The only thing that you have to pay when buying is when things break down, or the so called 'VvE' which is an organisation maintaining the building itself.

So yes I do agree with the statement that it cannot easily be compared, but in the situation of The Netherlands I feel like this is the right choice to make.

Edit: Although, if you (or anyone) disagrees with it I am curious to know why.

I am not disagreeing with you. I don’t know all the numbers for your case and I don’t want to compute everything for your specific scenario.

But I’m just saying that there is a general assumption in most discussions around buying versus renting that buying is always better. It’s not.

It’s the general argument « when you buy you don’t throw your money out the window ».

In reality you do throw money out the window when you buy, only differently, and I’m highlighting the numbers people usually do not take into account when they make their comparison.

Comparing mortgage payments and rents is usually not the good way to do that, because the costs when you buy are only partially monthly based.

One other number I didn’t mention above: real estate agency fees.

Another thing to consider: You should not compare to your entire mortgage payment--only to the interest portion of the payment. The principal portion of the payment is not an expense: It goes from one of your pockets to the other because it is your own home equity. Also you need to apply any tax advantage you get from mortgage interest(in the USA it's deductible), so subtract your effective tax rate. You also need to add to that your estimated property taxes / 12 (and that's often tax deductible), and add any expected yearly expenses / 12.

So mortgage_interest * (1-T) + property_taxes/12 * (1-T) + home_expenses/12. Compare that to rent payment.

I have quite the opposite experience: my stress level decreased since I own. I guess it depends on your financial comfort. Doing the vanlife is great but what happens if you lose your job and your van needs maintenance? Maybe add a downturn on the stock market. Suddenly you have nothing. It’s a very personal choice, for me traveling freely while being assured I have a place back home (albeit very minimalist) was needed.

I've been a landlord for ten years and I've always been a renter.

For people like me with no desire to have kids and minimal ownership of furniture and toys, renting is nice.

I've always wanted to be a renter for life, but recently I also have been thinking about buying some land in upstate New York or in the outskirts of some European city and building a livable structure like an A frame or a geodesic dome.

I do think urban housing prices are insane. My rental units were in the suburbs, and now I have vacation rentals in Southern Utah instead. So the rent price ratios made sense. In denser cities, the landlord would have to out like 50% down just to break even on the mortgage. Yes, they may be cash flowing, but just barely, and the nuance is they put a massive down payment. It just depends on location.

For those who need a general rule of thumb comparing rent vs mortgage, there's the 5% rule: https://www.pwlcapital.com/rent-or-own-your-home-5-rule/

"...but our <A/C || roof || plumbing || appliance> is going to need to be replaced in the next year or so"

How does this prevent you from going on a trip? I don't understand. Mind to elaborate a bit?

Many people don't have enough money to replace their roof and go on a trip in the same period.

If your plumbing or roof fails and you aren't there to deal with it immediately, the bill is pretty steep (once the weather / water gets inside the house).

Replacing our roof last year was 40.000USD, (250.000DKK). While we able to pay it off faster, it’s basically a 14 year bank loan. Not everyone, depending on country and salary, is able to get those loans at reasonable rate, but you’ll still need a new roof. That means saving like crazy and holidays get expensive pretty fast, and isn’t something you REALLY need, making it a place to save money.

Try saving to much on home maintenance and you risk damaging your property, lowering it’s value in the future. Owning a home is expensive, it’s still a sound finacial choice, depending on country and so on, but it has a running cost.

But even when renting the roof still needs to be replaced. Owner pays for it, but it is financed from rent money.

I don’t know how it works around the world, but maintenance of the property is normally factored into the rent. Large maintenance work won’t affect your rent so your expences are more predictable.

expenses are predictable, which may lower the stress level, which is the main part of the parent comment. However owners want to make money using the property, so rent is overall higher then the cost of owning the property including roof replacements.

The problem many home buyers face is that it has become normal to go deeply into debt to buy and maintain a house, so it is not like they pay rent into their own house ownership account which slowly accumulates reserves for costly maintenance. A house costs twice as much as its sale price and if one has to go into dept to buy it in the first place, one is not middle class.

Back in Boomer-Days a middle class worker could buy and maintain a house, provide for a family with multiple children, pay for their education and still have money left to go on vacation. Today two working parents can't do the same, instead children go into debt to finance their education and fathers live in their cars in googles parking lot.

Sure but the point is that you always pay the monthly rent no matter what instead of having to pay 40k one month because of the roof. Also, in some places, it’s actually cheaper to rent because properties are overvalued.

Why do roofs need replacement? Cant they make more durable roofs? Is it the rain? (Never had to deal with such problems so have no idea)

Sure, you can get a roof that last for 120 - 150 years, but the cost means that many opted for cheaper solutions. My house was built with an asbestos roof, those last forever, almost. If a tile broke I would get asbestos particles in my yard.

I've lived in houses which were close to 100 years old(British terraced houses from the 1930s) and the idea of having to replace the roof is.....a bit weird. Sure they need repairs, an odd tile replaced here and there, but....replacing the whole thing? I can't think of any reason why you'd need to do that.

Asphalt shingles. They degrade over time and can’t be replaced piecemeal. They’re cheap and easy to lay down. I think the original idea behind them was that the home owners could DIY cheaply every 10-15 years but both houses and people have moved away from that being considered an option. If you have a low pitch roof without a lot of valleys it’s still easy to do though.

My parents replaced the roof on their 150-year-old slate-roofed house, as did several other people on the street.

A house that old will often have developed a few minor leaks in its lifetime. It's been subject to a lot of weathering. Probably it was put in without any felt underneath, as was normal at the time. Maybe the nails have weakened from rust. Many lofts are a bit damp, due to condensation as the roof is of course cold. So often the battens holding the slates will be a bit tired as well.

You spend a few years with strategically placed plastic tubs catching drips, then a once-a-decade storm comes along, you lose several slates at once, and it's time for a new roof.

Where I live, there is extreme weather like hurricanes or tornadoes. Even if you opt for a more expensive roof, the wind might come along and wreck it. Most people I know have shingles, and they wear down in the elements after 20 years or so. You might start getting leaks or you might not, but once your roof reaches a certain age you can expect to start seeing problems. Kinda like a car.

Oh, you can, but it grows expensive fast.

Around here (Norway) a lot of houses have shingles on the roof - typical lifespan ~20 years or so. On the upside, it is simple to replace.

Next step up being corrugated steel, though mostly it is shaped to look like tile. IIRC you can expect to get 30-40 years out of one.

Proper tile - lifespan depends greatly on the quality of the tile, but around here (west coast, lots of crap weather) the limiting factor tends to be the nails used to hold the tiles in place.

Anecdotally, my father in law and I redid a slate roof last laid in 1917 last year. The nails had all but rusted away, and only the sheer mass of the slates held them in place. We redid it using marine grade stainless screws, part of me is a little peeved that I won't ever know how long it lasts - but I fully expect it to last way more than 100 years. Was fun to etch a couple of small plaques for my far-off descendants to read, though. We put them under the first couple of slates you'd need to remove when redoing the roof. :-)

Having a home is definitely expensive, but in my mind it also comes down to manage money.

When you get your pay, put aside money first and save for dedicated budgets.

Decide what budget you think is required in each slot.

Example: I want a house saving for min $30000 for unexpected and expected maintenance.

I want a minimum of $8000 for vacations.

Etc

Then, save as much as you can into those accounts until you reach their goal and then keep saving into them, but maybe lower the amount.

In the beginning (and if your out in time, this will be while you're DINKing) it might be rough, but it will be easier as your buffers stabilize.

When fixing the house, don't steal money from your travel buffer. And absolutely never take money from house buffer for travels. :-)

I think a lot of people spend way to much on luxury, like eating out or having three movie streaming services instead of none or one. And then they realize that "oops, no money left for savings this month neither"

Survival, savings, higher standard, then luxury, not the other way around.

40000USD!? Must be one hell of a roof. Where I live it’s less than a quarter of that unless you live in a McMansion.

It’s Denmark, and that was actually the cheapest offer. Half the cost is labour, but we opted for the cheaper cemet tiles, the alternative would have been clay tiles, like bricks, but for the roof.

It’s honestly a pretty good deal. Oh and we have a 25% VAT on everything, so your price is basically just what I have to pay in VAT.

Out of curiosity: would you be still renting when you are over 70? In my mind the kind of people who never mind owning a house is the kind of people who know they will inherit their parents’ house.

I currently own and 100% expect to rent something like a low-maintenance condo in a community when older.

What about a nag in the head that something would happen to the bank account that has the money that you got from selling the house or by money deprecation with relation to housing prices (or stock market crash if in stocks)?

Buy some real estate that someone else lives in, maybe through a REIT.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com