3 ms·
Not a great argument, really. In much of the country ownership is a much better deal both financially (cost for equivalent housing per month) and in terms of st
by ubermonkey 5y ago
Not a great argument, really. In much of the country ownership is a much better deal both financially (cost for equivalent housing per month) and in terms of stability. Once you buy, unless you're foolish enough to get an ARM, your costs are fixed -- but rent is subject to capricious shifts upward annually.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y agoARMs are not bad. You can re-lock in the rates at the time when it comes up. It's no different than a commercial balloon payment. Also homeownership is only a "better deal" when things work out perfectly. In reality, you spend far more time with maintenance, cleaning, and are required to stay exactly where you are for a minimum of 7-10 years before you start putting a real dent in equity. Not to mention is an illiquid asset on top of significant closing fees on both ends (my state in particular is a "seller pays both realtor fees" state, regardless if you got a realtor). Homeownership is egregiously expensive in time and money. The only nicety it gives to lower income people is an asset then can refinance and get loan money out to put them further in debt bondage. Homeownership should only be considered if you've got a ridiculously stable job/market as well as the time and money to maintain the property (assuming you can't just construct a new home or buy one made within the last 10 years).
- paxys 5y agoARMs can be advantageous if you know you don't want to live in the house for 10+ years.
- ubermonkey 5y agoFew people are able to accurately predict their own futures this way.