4 ms·

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

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.
  - bane 12y ago
    Most rental agreements strictly forbid this. I can't compare irregular activities to irregular activities because you can always escalate it to some nonsense money making action favoring one side over another. But supposing your agreement explicitly allows sub let's without landlord arbitrary approval, the owner is still coming out on top because the activity is simply reducing their monthly outlay while still building equity, the renter is only reducing outlay, but still has zero equity at the end of the day. More importantly, my mortgage payment will stay the same, fixed in dollars at the year I borrowed the money (in my case 2006 dollars). While rents will continue to increase. For example, at some point in the future, I'll theoretically even be able to rent a single bedroom out that will cover my entire mortgage payment simply because of this simple truth. I'll live "for free". But your base rent price will continue increasing such that you're monthly burden will stay a significant part of your monthly income. Even if you pass along as much as you can to a subletter, that percentage won't change much while mine will continuously reduce.

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.
- bane 12y ago
  Most rental agreements strictly forbid this. I can't compare irregular activities to irregular activities because you can always escalate it to some nonsense money making action favoring one side over another. But supposing your agreement explicitly allows sub let's without landlord arbitrary approval, the owner is still coming out on top because the activity is simply reducing their monthly outlay while still building equity, the renter is only reducing outlay, but still has zero equity at the end of the day. More importantly, my mortgage payment will stay the same, fixed in dollars at the year I borrowed the money (in my case 2006 dollars). While rents will continue to increase. For example, at some point in the future, I'll theoretically even be able to rent a single bedroom out that will cover my entire mortgage payment simply because of this simple truth. I'll live "for free". But your base rent price will continue increasing such that you're monthly burden will stay a significant part of your monthly income. Even if you pass along as much as you can to a subletter, that percentage won't change much while mine will continuously reduce.