Do you seriously think you can afford to retire? (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey)
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.
Others have fielded this comment and I'll add on to the dog pile. This is hogwash. There isn't any correlation to renting and "never get ahead financially." One of my good friends has been a renter all his life. He's made some bad decisions early on and actually filed for bankruptcy. He got his act together and is out of debt, contributing to a 401k and has money in the bank. Like me, he does not have a college degree but that has not stopped him from getting good paying jobs. We both worked at McDonald's as burger flippers too.
So this constant victim mentality is nothing more of a smokescreen.
Not a perfect correlation, but a consistent and fairly solid one.
For 2012 I found median income $65K for homeowners, $33K for renters.
And while these numbers below are outdated, the ratio is staggering:
Homeowners had a median net worth of $234,200 in 2007, the latest available Survey of Consumer Finances from the Federal Reserve says. Renters' median net worth was $5,100, or just 2% that of homeowners.
Ah so renter median net worth being lower supports your statement that renters never get ahead financially.
I'll add terrible skills of deduction to ****-poor loser defeatist attitude to the reasons you are a career burger flipper with a college degree. Obviously some people aren't meant to ever be anything more than mindless labor and the earn low compensation they command.
Not a perfect correlation, but a consistent and fairly solid one.
For 2012 I found median income $65K for homeowners, $33K for renters.
And while these numbers below are outdated, the ratio is staggering:
Homeowners had a median net worth of $234,200 in 2007, the latest available Survey of Consumer Finances from the Federal Reserve says. Renters' median net worth was $5,100, or just 2% that of homeowners.
[url=http://money.msn.com/how-to-budget/5-ways-to-get-rich-or-poor-weston.aspx]5 ways to get rich . . . or poor - 1 - money management - MSN Money[/url
[update: more recent numbers suggest homeowner median net worth is down to $174K still 30 times the net worth of renters]
Homeownership is the reward for attaining a higher income not the cause of that income.
The real issue is most renters who have substantial incomes dont have the discipline to invest in other assets . They usually end up with a better apartment,better cars or more vacations.
At least the homeowner has a consolation prize.
Last edited by mathjak107; 12-09-2012 at 02:18 PM..
Not a perfect correlation, but a consistent and fairly solid one.
For 2012 I found median income $65K for homeowners, $33K for renters.
And while these numbers below are outdated, the ratio is staggering:
Homeowners had a median net worth of $234,200 in 2007, the latest available Survey of Consumer Finances from the Federal Reserve says. Renters' median net worth was $5,100, or just 2% that of homeowners.
[update: more recent numbers suggest homeowner median net worth is down to $174K still 30 times the net worth of renters]
I think people are arguing whether or not you will have more money after x year renting vs. buying a home.
In Hartford you can rent a 1 bedroom with heat and hot water for about 1000$ per month. If you bought a 200K house your monthly expenses would be approximately 1500 in mortgage and 5K in property taxes. Include heat and repairs and you are up to about 1750 per month.
If the interest rate is 4% you are paying about 30% of mortgage payments as principle. So in theory your expenses from buying are the total payments minus the loan payment of 30% * 1000$ = 300$
So your total expenses buying a 200K house is about 1750 - 300 = 1450 buy vs. 1000$ rent.
Also realize that the house could drop in value, you could have to move and have a hard time selling. You have to consider the down payment and the fact that you could invest the money.
In this hypothetical example renting will net you more savings.
How about you draw out an example just looking at the median income of renters vs. buyers doesn't show that buying is better.
Ah so renter median net worth being lower supports your statement that renters never get ahead financially.
I'll add terrible skills of deduction to ****-poor loser defeatist attitude to the reasons you are a career burger flipper with a college degree. Obviously some people aren't meant to ever be anything more than mindless labor and the earn low compensation they command.
Well there's a sort of feedback loop going on...renters who DO get ahead financially usually become homeowners, thereby exiting the renter pool and leaving behind a still-poor pool of renters.
Some would say the Goverment agrees with you on several levels...
It has been the long standing policy to encourage home ownership... either through various programs like the VA and FHA.
There are also tax advantages.
The advantage to the taxpayers is those with homes are less likely to be dependant on the Government.
Even HUD announced a program to help those on Section 8 buy homes by allowing the rent subsidy to be used for a mortgage payment.
The local Housing Authority should have more info in 2013.
Then why does goverment reject my idea of boosting homne ownership for working class people who need it most, by reducing regulation annd allowing the private sector to sell affordable homes to burger flippers? Liberals pushed the goverment to prod lenders into finance McMansions people couldn't afford, and conservatives blasted the misguided government intervention.
My plan reduces government intervention, maximizes economnic liberty, and increases homeownership, thereby increasing wealth, stability, and retirement security for the people who currently have it least. What better way to promote work and reduce dependency on the government?
Homeownership is the reward for attaining a higher income not the cause of that income.
The real issue is most renters who have substantial incomes dont have the discipline to invest in other assets . They usually end up with a better apartment,better cars or more vacations.
At least the homeowner has a consolation prize.
Shouldn't the lower-income renter who lives frugally also be able to end up with a consolation prize?
And shouldn't the private sector be free to sell burger flippers what burger flippers can afford?
Shouldn't picking winners and losers be left to the private sector and not to government?
I think people are arguing whether or not you will have more money after x year renting vs. buying a home.
In Hartford you can rent a 1 bedroom with heat and hot water for about 1000$ per month. If you bought a 200K house your monthly expenses would be approximately 1500 in mortgage and 5K in property taxes. Include heat and repairs and you are up to about 1750 per month.
If the interest rate is 4% you are paying about 30% of mortgage payments as principle. So in theory your expenses from buying are the total payments minus the loan payment of 30% * 1000$ = 300$
So your total expenses buying a 200K house is about 1750 - 300 = 1450 buy vs. 1000$ rent.
Also realize that the house could drop in value, you could have to move and have a hard time selling. You have to consider the down payment and the fact that you could invest the money.
In this hypothetical example renting will net you more savings.
How about you draw out an example just looking at the median income of renters vs. buyers doesn't show that buying is better.
My math works out differently because I would rent out the spare bedrooms for rental income, thereby defraying my ownership expenses. What does a room rent for in Hartford? Top of my head I'd guess $400 or do.
I saw one article several months ago claiming that owning is currently cheaper than renting in 48 of the top 50 markets, but the link below says it's only 37.
Oh lookie, here's a cite:
According to real estate web site Trulia, buying was cheaper than renting in 74% of the country's 50 largest cities in July. In just 12% of the cities, including New York, Seattle and San Francisco, renting was cheaper. In the remaining 14% of cities, renting was less expensive but close to the cost of buying.
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.
