3 ms·

This is a really poorly written and exaggerate article. I purchased a home in 2015, I had to pay $3000 to close with no further down payment. After three years

This is a really poorly written and exaggerate article. I purchased a home in 2015, I had to pay $3000 to close with no further down payment. After three years I had to move for work. I'm now renting that house out, and earning $380 a month in profit. That house is mine. Our use that profit to pay extra on the principal and contribute to my 401(k). Someday, that house will be paid for, and it will be all mine. Then any profits will be completely mine, minus taxes and insurance of course. Renting puts you at the financial wims of someone else. How often do you see a rental company lowering your rent? By owning, you know that your monthly outlay is going to be very stable. That makes it a lot easier for financial planning, not just now, but for when we are older. Who wants to be 65 and still renting?

rocky1138 9y ago
One of the very first things the article states is that this is not for people who are not living in the home as their primary residence.
- jack9 9y ago
  > not living in the home as their primary residence. Which makes it disingenuous to the initial headline. > Renting Is Throwing Money Away Right? Yes. Given a choice, you always want to own (or at least be building equity). That's the nature of the phrase in the headline. Having money act as an investment (growing/working) for you is preferable to not.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
scarface74 9y ago
If you are not a local landlord, that increases all of the other risks of being a landlord - bad tenants, tenants who don't pay and a drawn out eviction process, vacancies, etc. If you are a long distance landlord and have a third party take care of all that for you, you end up paying around 10% of the rent per month and at least 50% of the first months rent for a new tenant for them to find one for you. After my experience with being a landlord, I said the only way I would do it again was if it was some type of multi unit deal and I could afford a 75% occupancy rate, and someone else to manage it.

rocky1138 9y ago

One of the very first things the article states is that this is not for people who are not living in the home as their primary residence.

jack9 9y ago
> not living in the home as their primary residence. Which makes it disingenuous to the initial headline. > Renting Is Throwing Money Away Right? Yes. Given a choice, you always want to own (or at least be building equity). That's the nature of the phrase in the headline. Having money act as an investment (growing/working) for you is preferable to not.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

scarface74 9y ago

If you are not a local landlord, that increases all of the other risks of being a landlord - bad tenants, tenants who don't pay and a drawn out eviction process, vacancies, etc. If you are a long distance landlord and have a third party take care of all that for you, you end up paying around 10% of the rent per month and at least 50% of the first months rent for a new tenant for them to find one for you. After my experience with being a landlord, I said the only way I would do it again was if it was some type of multi unit deal and I could afford a 75% occupancy rate, and someone else to manage it.