5 ms·

> Of course, there’s still a big intangible difference between having debt and not having debt, Both renters and owners need a place to live in the future, ass

> Of course, there’s still a big intangible difference between having debt and not having debt, Both renters and owners need a place to live in the future, assuming they're not dead. If we exclude those who live with mommy and daddy or mooch off of other people... Well, then whether the debt is formal with a mortgage or not makes little difference. Even renters are on the hook to come up with $1000 for the month of October 2016. It's just not in writing.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
fspeech 12y ago
The main problem with owning is illiquidity and associated immobility. If you rent you can quickly down shift if you run into trouble. If you own the transaction cost is much higher if you need to move. The main advantage of owning one's own residence is tax and stability (the flip side of the illiquidity problem). Owner's equivalent rent is not a taxable income. Capital appreciation works in your favor rather than against you when you rent. In short owning one's own home is both economically and psychologically rewarding if you have long term stable income.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > The main problem with owning is illiquidity and associated immobility. If you rent you can quickly down shift if you run into trouble. Where are you getting these lease-free rental units? True, you're less on the hook with a 12 month lease, and the liability is lower than a 30 year mortgage... But this is a very mild difference. That job's not going to wait for you to sell your house or for your lease to end. > If you own the transaction cost is much higher if you need to move. If you own, then eventually you're not paying anything at all for a place to live. And don't bother to mention property tax... you're paying that if you rent, too, it's just hidden. This is a manufactured debate, it's meant to appeal to twentysomethings' bohemian aspirations. Someone wants them mobile so they can herd them around like migrant workers.
  - sheepmullet 12y ago
    Breaking lease is far simpler and cheaper than selling. It's never taken me more than 2-3 weeks to find someone to take over the lease whereas it can take months to sell a house. Because of this ease whenever I move jobs I always move house to be closer to work (after passing probation) because in my area changing jobs can easily add an hour a day to your commute.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Depends on the country really...in Switzerland you can be on the hook for a lot more than in the states, where breaking a lease typically only loses your deposit.
  - swalkergibson 12y ago
    This is unequivocally accurate. I own three investment properties plus my own home. Each one is profitable, including the house that I live in. It seems to me that the majority of this argument is that rents will not increase. That is a fallacy. All else being equal, each time you move from a place, you will likely be paying more rent because of the inevitable march of time.
    - bane 12y ago
      And the only things a renter can do to reduce their monthly housing burden is downsize or move to less desirable location. A homeowner's monthly burden is either static or reducing (if they're paying down the principle early), and they have all kinds of things they can use to offset that monthly housing burden, like rent spare rooms out, or use part of their home for a business.
      - judk 12y ago
        > rent spare rooms out, or use part of their home for a business. Renters do this too. they have strictly more options than owners.
lnanek2 12y ago
I've never seen a landlord go after a tenant for breaking a lease, honestly. The few I've talked to generally say they are beyond happy if the tenant is just out, and indeed, that's exactly what they say in eviction courts. They say they don't care about trying to get money out of the poor person being evicted, but that they just want the unit available to rent to someone who can pay. I think any landlord would be happier with a tenant breaking lease than doing AirBnb, for example.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

fspeech 12y ago

The main problem with owning is illiquidity and associated immobility. If you rent you can quickly down shift if you run into trouble. If you own the transaction cost is much higher if you need to move. The main advantage of owning one's own residence is tax and stability (the flip side of the illiquidity problem). Owner's equivalent rent is not a taxable income. Capital appreciation works in your favor rather than against you when you rent. In short owning one's own home is both economically and psychologically rewarding if you have long term stable income.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> The main problem with owning is illiquidity and associated immobility. If you rent you can quickly down shift if you run into trouble. Where are you getting these lease-free rental units? True, you're less on the hook with a 12 month lease, and the liability is lower than a 30 year mortgage... But this is a very mild difference. That job's not going to wait for you to sell your house or for your lease to end. > If you own the transaction cost is much higher if you need to move. If you own, then eventually you're not paying anything at all for a place to live. And don't bother to mention property tax... you're paying that if you rent, too, it's just hidden. This is a manufactured debate, it's meant to appeal to twentysomethings' bohemian aspirations. Someone wants them mobile so they can herd them around like migrant workers.
- sheepmullet 12y ago
  Breaking lease is far simpler and cheaper than selling. It's never taken me more than 2-3 weeks to find someone to take over the lease whereas it can take months to sell a house. Because of this ease whenever I move jobs I always move house to be closer to work (after passing probation) because in my area changing jobs can easily add an hour a day to your commute.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    Depends on the country really...in Switzerland you can be on the hook for a lot more than in the states, where breaking a lease typically only loses your deposit.
- swalkergibson 12y ago
  This is unequivocally accurate. I own three investment properties plus my own home. Each one is profitable, including the house that I live in. It seems to me that the majority of this argument is that rents will not increase. That is a fallacy. All else being equal, each time you move from a place, you will likely be paying more rent because of the inevitable march of time.
  - bane 12y ago
    And the only things a renter can do to reduce their monthly housing burden is downsize or move to less desirable location. A homeowner's monthly burden is either static or reducing (if they're paying down the principle early), and they have all kinds of things they can use to offset that monthly housing burden, like rent spare rooms out, or use part of their home for a business.
    - judk 12y ago
      > rent spare rooms out, or use part of their home for a business. Renters do this too. they have strictly more options than owners.

lnanek2 12y ago

I've never seen a landlord go after a tenant for breaking a lease, honestly. The few I've talked to generally say they are beyond happy if the tenant is just out, and indeed, that's exactly what they say in eviction courts. They say they don't care about trying to get money out of the poor person being evicted, but that they just want the unit available to rent to someone who can pay. I think any landlord would be happier with a tenant breaking lease than doing AirBnb, for example.