3 ms·

Even if houses are flat its still better to put your cash into one than the bank...

• zippy 11y ago
  bank - liquid asset house - illiquid, with maintenance, property tax, and insurance costs
  • seanp2k2 11y ago
    True, with the other difference being that you can live in a house, but you can't live in securities or the bank vault. A house has actual utility (well, the first one), hence all the tax benefits (in theory). What I think is kind of ridiculous are all the benefits for second homes and beyond. IMO, if you're wealthy enough to afford a second home, you don't need any more government subsidies; all the benefits should go to people who don't yet have a place to live that they own. I can definitely see how this would be a very unpopular opinion among those with lots of potential money to lose if they could not keep the lower classes of people renting the property which they bought a lifetime++ deed to at a one-time cost.
• thescriptkiddie 11y ago
  Contrary to popular belief, real estate is literally never a good investment. At best, prices go up faster than property tax and you profit modestly from the misfortune of others for a couple of years before the bubble bursts. At worst, your investment is rapidly eaten away by depreciation and maintenance costs.
  • gozur88 11y ago
    It's true houses aren't a very good investment over the long haul, but for most buyers with the leverage involved you can end up with quite a windfall if you get lucky.
• gozur88 11y ago
  Spoken like someone who's never owned a house.