3 ms·
> Get rid of that though, and suddenly there's no economic incentive to own property. How do you figure that? What about cost stability? What about not losin
by vonmoltke 9y ago
> Get rid of that though, and suddenly there's no economic incentive to own property.
How do you figure that? What about cost stability? What about not losing 100% of your payment (that is, retaining some as equity)?
I'm not saying there is always an incentive; some markets favor renting over buying in spite of the MITD. However, saying the only reason buying is financially attractive makes no sense.
Edit: corrected C (credit) to D (deduction), since it is technically correct and makes a big difference in it's usefulness.
- ouid 9y agorental rates are exactly the same thing as interest rates (+/- wear and tear and so forth). what you retain in equity, you would equally retain by simply not paying into some other investment. There's nothing special about owning your home, there's no arbitrage to be had beyond the MITC.
- vonmoltke 9y ago> rental rates are exactly the same thing as interest rates (+/- wear and tear and so forth). In what world? I have never seen a market where rents were below P&I for a comparably-priced house[1]. I would love to see a real example of this. [1] Note that this does not automatically make buying better, as rent factors many costs P&I does not.
- ouid 9y agoBecause if not there would be an incredible opportunity for arbitrage.