4 ms·

You can easily spend more than the equivalent of 2x your annual income by renting, in terms of higher monthly cost, than by purchasing a home. Take for example

You can easily spend more than the equivalent of 2x your annual income by renting, in terms of higher monthly cost, than by purchasing a home. Take for example a $300,000 house w/ 4% mortgage. That works out to roughly $1,400/month. Even if you only make $75,000/year, it makes perfect sense to buy that house even if rents are a little lower than $1,400/month. (and current 30yr average rates bring that down to about $1225/month) In my area, a small 2 bedroom house in a reasonably nice area will cost about $300,000, so the $1225 to $1,400/month rate applies. Renting a 2 bedroom apartment with less sqft for common spaces, in a similar area, will cost about $1800 to $2000. This is significantly more than is required to make up for property taxes levied on top of the mortgage when actually purchasing. So I'm really not sure where you're getting your 2x figure. That's the sort of statement, absent context & explanation, that really doesn't add much to the conversation. (On top of this, apartment complexes in my area have been nominally keeping monthly rates the same, but disaggregating utility costs from the rent, charging separately for heating, water, sewage, and garbage collection... at least for a year or two. After people get used to those additional fees, the complexes begin raising rents again too. I don't blame them too much, there's plenty of rental demand, but it changes the balance between renting & purchasing even more)

busterarm 6y ago
Home ownership is more than just the cost of your mortgage. And in many markets, especially in big expensive cities like NY & SF, it costs more money to buy than to rent.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Precisely, which is why the "don't buy a home more than 2x annual salary" doesn't seem like a good rule: there are too many variables. Where I am, total cost of ownership for a small two bedroom house is generally slightly less than the cost of 2 bedroom apartment that is also smaller, and comes with the benefit of building equity. A clear advantage (in my mind) if you're going to stay there for a few years because you'll build at least a little equity and average property values will increase at least a little bit. In my case I have a moderate sized home and pay about than 70% of the rent rates for anything nearby with the same # of bedrooms & about 500sqft smaller, even after property taxes, utilities, and average monthly maintenance costs. On the other hand I have family that live in an area where apartment rents are much cheaper than the monthly TCO for buying, and even if you can afford to buy renting makes more sense (unless you need 3-4 bedrooms for a family) because rents are so much cheaper & it is better to put the difference between monthly costs into an index fund and build equity that way.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    It's not even my rule. The 2x rule is older than shit...Just as time has gone up people are stretching it to 2.5x and 3x. Another rule you can go with is the Rule of 28 if you prefer. These guidelines exist for a reason. Ignore at your own peril. Lenders look at these things when considering giving you money. Using more leverage usually gives the bank a better deal than you.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > These guidelines exist for a reason. They exist because of the economic context at the time and place that they were generated, which may not have been valid for much more than that immediate context. If you can find and examine the mathematical assumptions about cost and risk that justify the rule of thumb against current conditions, then you can make an informed evaluation of whether or not it applies to the current situation. If you can’t, like folk remedies, the advice is as likely to harmful as helpful in your actual concrete circumstances.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - busterarm 6y ago
        Hey, what do I know? I'm just debt-free millennial with a fully paid off house and car looking to purchase investment property #2 on another 15-year mortgage while renting an apartment in Manhattan.
        forrestthewoods 6y ago
        This is just math. You don’t have to earn $200,000/year to afford a $400,000 property. Borrowing $400k costs about $2000/mo. Call it $2500 with taxes and maybe an HOA. That’s about $30,000/year, or 15% of $200,000. Take home on 200 will be north of $150. Mortgage rates are sub 3% today. That rule of thumb that’s “been around forever” existed when rates were 10%. Such a rule can not possibly be the same when the rate changes so dramatically. The consistent rule is what percent of your take home you’re comfortable spending. Not many people - owners or renters - spend under 15% on housing.

busterarm 6y ago

Home ownership is more than just the cost of your mortgage. And in many markets, especially in big expensive cities like NY & SF, it costs more money to buy than to rent.

ineedasername 6y ago
Precisely, which is why the "don't buy a home more than 2x annual salary" doesn't seem like a good rule: there are too many variables. Where I am, total cost of ownership for a small two bedroom house is generally slightly less than the cost of 2 bedroom apartment that is also smaller, and comes with the benefit of building equity. A clear advantage (in my mind) if you're going to stay there for a few years because you'll build at least a little equity and average property values will increase at least a little bit. In my case I have a moderate sized home and pay about than 70% of the rent rates for anything nearby with the same # of bedrooms & about 500sqft smaller, even after property taxes, utilities, and average monthly maintenance costs. On the other hand I have family that live in an area where apartment rents are much cheaper than the monthly TCO for buying, and even if you can afford to buy renting makes more sense (unless you need 3-4 bedrooms for a family) because rents are so much cheaper & it is better to put the difference between monthly costs into an index fund and build equity that way.
- busterarm 6y ago
  It's not even my rule. The 2x rule is older than shit...Just as time has gone up people are stretching it to 2.5x and 3x. Another rule you can go with is the Rule of 28 if you prefer. These guidelines exist for a reason. Ignore at your own peril. Lenders look at these things when considering giving you money. Using more leverage usually gives the bank a better deal than you.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > These guidelines exist for a reason. They exist because of the economic context at the time and place that they were generated, which may not have been valid for much more than that immediate context. If you can find and examine the mathematical assumptions about cost and risk that justify the rule of thumb against current conditions, then you can make an informed evaluation of whether or not it applies to the current situation. If you can’t, like folk remedies, the advice is as likely to harmful as helpful in your actual concrete circumstances.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - busterarm 6y ago
      Hey, what do I know? I'm just debt-free millennial with a fully paid off house and car looking to purchase investment property #2 on another 15-year mortgage while renting an apartment in Manhattan.
      - forrestthewoods 6y ago
        This is just math. You don’t have to earn $200,000/year to afford a $400,000 property. Borrowing $400k costs about $2000/mo. Call it $2500 with taxes and maybe an HOA. That’s about $30,000/year, or 15% of $200,000. Take home on 200 will be north of $150. Mortgage rates are sub 3% today. That rule of thumb that’s “been around forever” existed when rates were 10%. Such a rule can not possibly be the same when the rate changes so dramatically. The consistent rule is what percent of your take home you’re comfortable spending. Not many people - owners or renters - spend under 15% on housing.