3 ms·
You say it's not enough, but doesn't it just need to be enough to make real estate underperforming compared to other asset investement opportunities? Even durin
by dclowd9901 10y ago
You say it's not enough, but doesn't it just need to be enough to make real estate underperforming compared to other asset investement opportunities? Even during good times, home appreciation isn't much more than 3-5%. Taxing that by a percent makes even money market accounts look palatable.
- nemo44x 10y agoA home is more than an investment. You live in it. Homes aren't competing with other investments, they're competing with renting or being homeless in some form.
- Scoundreller 10y agoSure they are. If homes are cheap, you buy a big home and save little. If homes are expensive, you invest in a car and commute or buy a "cute and cozy" home, and invest the rest.
- aianus 10y ago> Homes aren't competing with other investments, they're competing with renting or being homeless in some form. If you have $1 million, you can buy a house and live in it "for free" or you can buy stocks/bonds/ETFs, maybe earn $50k a year in dividends and capital gains, rent a place for $30k a year, and pocket the difference. So yes, buying a home does compete with a combination of (other investments + renting).
- nemo44x 10y agoAnd after taxes on your gains you can pay your rent and live for free. Sounds similar but I guess that's the market at work.
- jorblumesea 10y ago3% is better than 0%, which is your appreciation on renting, no? Not to mention building equity, which will eventually pay you back some