2 ms·

> In other words, at the end of 30 years, the rent may have made more money in some scenario of a perfect investor, but then they still have to rent to have a p

> In other words, at the end of 30 years, the rent may have made more money in some scenario of a perfect investor, but then they still have to rent to have a place to live. The homeowner now owns their property free and clear and can do all kinds of things with it, and their now future income is entirely liquid. Not perfect investor, any investor that put their money in an index fund. Vanguard had a trillion and a half assets in 2010~ and those assets tripled while houses doubled. Edit: I took a look at the link you provided below and its not thorough. The author should have found something weird in the fact that in the calculations he concludes that being a property owner is 1.6 million richer than the renter, and not meaning that inequivocally everyone would conclude that renting is so bad it should be illegal. The most glaring mistakes are that he takes mortgage payments and renting as the same, which cant be true in a reasonable market, and that the renter starts with 0 while the mortgage taker starts with the downpayment.

bane 9y ago
> Not perfect investor, any investor that put their money in an index fund. Vanguard had a trillion and a half assets in 2010~ and those assets tripled while houses doubled. You are still making the typical errors. Here, I'll put it in simple terms and maybe this will help the scales fall from your eyes about why real estate is a very popular investment strategy and real estate investors aren't all just a bunch of morons who should have pumped their money into Vanguard index funds. As a renter, YOU ARE BUYING SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY FOR THEM.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Hah, I'll give you another explanation. You always have a a due to pay rent. There is no way too avoid that. When you buy a property you become the recipient of the rent you pay: if you pay rent to yourself, you still have to take it from your paycheck, and the landlord gets his profit. If you dont, then the landlord(yourself) is giving you a place for free. This explanation is practical in the following sense: you are thinking of buying property, and on the same block you see 2 houses that are identical in every regard except one: one is offered at rent at below market price. Which is the best strategy?

bane 9y ago

> Not perfect investor, any investor that put their money in an index fund. Vanguard had a trillion and a half assets in 2010~ and those assets tripled while houses doubled. You are still making the typical errors. Here, I'll put it in simple terms and maybe this will help the scales fall from your eyes about why real estate is a very popular investment strategy and real estate investors aren't all just a bunch of morons who should have pumped their money into Vanguard index funds. As a renter, YOU ARE BUYING SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY FOR THEM.

conanbatt 9y ago
Hah, I'll give you another explanation. You always have a a due to pay rent. There is no way too avoid that. When you buy a property you become the recipient of the rent you pay: if you pay rent to yourself, you still have to take it from your paycheck, and the landlord gets his profit. If you dont, then the landlord(yourself) is giving you a place for free. This explanation is practical in the following sense: you are thinking of buying property, and on the same block you see 2 houses that are identical in every regard except one: one is offered at rent at below market price. Which is the best strategy?