2 ms·

>Buy the biggest house you can reasonably afford You should really look at real estate one of two ways when buying. Either you're buying a home and you live t

>Buy the biggest house you can reasonably afford You should really look at real estate one of two ways when buying. Either you're buying a home and you live there. Its unwise to treat that in the same vein as index funds. While its definitely an asset, the mindset of living vs investing in something isn't the same, and I recommend not conflating the two. On the other hand, if you buy real estate as an investment you should remove any thoughts about it being a living space for you and/or your family. At that point, it should be seen as something you'll rent out to others (primarily the best way I currently have found to turn a profit on investing in real estate) or doing more speculative house flipping ventures, home builds etc. I don't really think this blanket advice is the best advice. I do think its important to own your home - simply because of how society is structured, it heavily favors home owners, plus rent is simply lining someone else's pocket, where as eventually owning a home free and clear removes a major liability from you life. To simply buy the 'biggest you can reasonably afford' could land one in a bad place

dowager_dan99 1y ago
My theory: your primary residence should not be viewed as an investment, because you've got to live somewhere; if you sell it and cash out you need to turn around and find housing in what is a hot market, or move into a van down by the river. However, Millions of older, reliable voters own their home and it's the primary store of much of their wealth. Any government that impacts this will be out on the street asap. So your house is likely a good investment, but you can't think of it like other shorter-term, liquid investments.
- no_wizard 1y ago
  This conundrum of generations having much of their wealth stored in their home is part of the real problem around housing in general. This is why we decided to rent out our properties after evaluating our situation and understanding that it made more sense to generate consistent profits off real estate in the form of rental income than incur all the liabilities of simply buying and living in one. I personally think it should be one or the other - you either are buying real estate as an investment vehicle (to flip, rent, speculatively build etc) or buying it to live in, but in which point you don't treat it as a primary store of wealth - but unfortunately home ownership in the US is structured that if you buy and live in a home, you inevitably end up with it being treated as both a store of wealth and a home in which you live, and you're constantly tugging between the two things which have very different considerations. I think a land value tax and liberal zoning laws would go a long way to fixing some of this, but is another discussion entirely

dowager_dan99 1y ago

My theory: your primary residence should not be viewed as an investment, because you've got to live somewhere; if you sell it and cash out you need to turn around and find housing in what is a hot market, or move into a van down by the river. However, Millions of older, reliable voters own their home and it's the primary store of much of their wealth. Any government that impacts this will be out on the street asap. So your house is likely a good investment, but you can't think of it like other shorter-term, liquid investments.

no_wizard 1y ago
This conundrum of generations having much of their wealth stored in their home is part of the real problem around housing in general. This is why we decided to rent out our properties after evaluating our situation and understanding that it made more sense to generate consistent profits off real estate in the form of rental income than incur all the liabilities of simply buying and living in one. I personally think it should be one or the other - you either are buying real estate as an investment vehicle (to flip, rent, speculatively build etc) or buying it to live in, but in which point you don't treat it as a primary store of wealth - but unfortunately home ownership in the US is structured that if you buy and live in a home, you inevitably end up with it being treated as both a store of wealth and a home in which you live, and you're constantly tugging between the two things which have very different considerations. I think a land value tax and liberal zoning laws would go a long way to fixing some of this, but is another discussion entirely