|
SiGmA_X posted:Woah. Portland is crazy right now. I wish we could afford to live close in (just to rent not buy even), to rent the kind of place we have now we are in Beaverton/Tigard area, which I know I know people love to poo poo on, but the commute isn't bad for the price we pay vs what we get in return.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
http://www.zillow.com/homes/0_fr/34.03508,-118.369576,33.976719,-118.448471_rect/house_type/fsba,fsbo,fore,new,cmsn_lt/featured_sort/ I need to move.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Obligatory "Australian complains about property worship in his country" post. Australian house prices are poo poo. I've been looking for a nice 2-3 bedroom apartment/townhouse because I've got about 200k saved up and that'll knock off roughly 2/3 of the list price right off the bat. Mortgage payments and a conservative estimate on maintenance/other costs would add up to about 33% of my take-home pay, which I feel is managable and which would allow me to maximize my super contributions, and lead a very comfortable life while being able to save money for a rainy day/eventual upgrade to a house should I get married and have kids. My uncle (who is a building contractor and therefore incredibly bullish about the market) is trying to pressure me to buy a $700,000 house in the suburbs. When I pointed out that the loan payments would likely approach if not eclipse my salary his advice was "So? rent out a room!" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:
I have to pay back some of the grants if I move out, but the mortgage payments will only be a couple hundo per month. It's only 3 acres but the neighbors seem cool. Well, one of the neighbors' daughter was murdered in the house, but perhaps she drinks to forget.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Mantle posted:Here's a list of hidden costs that renters don't pay: Series DD Funding posted:So do landlords take a loss out of the goodness of their hearts on those expenses then? Wanted to make sure no one missed this quote. My brother-in-law made this very same argument about the benefits of renting in a well-off neighborhood instead of buying and he got de_stroyed by our scary father-in-law. Poor guy thought the $10k+/year property taxes weren't baked into his rent payment LoL Location and employment situations aside, #5 is the biggest downfall to buying over renting. fruition fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Breetai posted:Australian house prices are poo poo. I've just given up altogether. No way I can save up $100,000 for a deposit, etc. Not going to happen in a one income household. I think I've talked about it before in this thread though so w/e.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:So do landlords take a loss out of the goodness of their hearts on those expenses then? Landlords absolutely can take losses on those expenses. Just like anything else, the value of what the landlord is offering has nothing to do with the cost to the landlord. If renters incomes aren't increasing enough to drive up rents to an amount that the landlord is profitable then the landlord is going to be subsidizing the tenant or not have a tenant at all and eat the entire cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Does buying a condo carry the same hidden costs as home ownership? I am perfectly content to rent for awhile if not forever since LA prices are insane but realistically I am a few years away from being able able to put down 20% on a nice place if I was so inclined.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Yeah, in every market there are situations where things have to be sold at a loss. If a farmer grows a bunch of tomatoes and the price of tomatoes drops below their cost for him to grow, he's not going to say "hmph" and not sell them, he's gonna eat the loss and make something best. (Or he already sold tomato futures for an amount above his costs before growing them and will just fulfill the contracts but that's not the point.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Mantle posted:Landlords absolutely can take losses on those expenses. Just like anything else, the value of what the landlord is offering has nothing to do with the cost to the landlord. If renters incomes aren't increasing enough to drive up rents to an amount that the landlord is profitable then the landlord is going to be subsidizing the tenant or not have a tenant at all and eat the entire cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Christ Pseudoscientist posted:Does buying a condo carry the same hidden costs as home ownership? I am perfectly content to rent for awhile if not forever since LA prices are insane but realistically I am a few years away from being able able to put down 20% on a nice place if I was so inclined. No, they've got a somewhat different set of hidden costs. Condo HOA's in particular are scary; a bad association can run up horrible expenses, have large unexpected fees, and destroy your property value in the process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Easychair Bootson posted:Yes, and over time it's the renters who are in turn paying that cost of less than 100% occupancy. If you're trying to make the point that not all landlords make money on every property I'll give you that, but the broader point being made is that there are certain costs and risks associated with housing, and since most landlords aren't in business for philanthropic reasons those costs are bundled into the rent. Thats true, but irrelevant if you are doing a rent vs buy decision. The costs that the landlord incurs will not match the costs that you can expect to incur as a homeowner, because their costs are subject to different circumstances. What matters is how much you can reasonably expect to pay in rent, compared to how much you can reasonably expect to pay for all expenses incurred in ownership. That people bring this point up shows that they are thinking emotionally ("I want to pay myself and not the landlord!") rather than rationally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Christ Pseudoscientist posted:Does buying a condo carry the same hidden costs as home ownership? I am perfectly content to rent for awhile if not forever since LA prices are insane but realistically I am a few years away from being able able to put down 20% on a nice place if I was so inclined. It carries some. The condo association that you pay fees to is supposed to handle communal costs that would be impractical to assign to individual owners, such as landscaping, gyms, pools, etc. You would have to actually ask what's covered though. You will almost certainly have to pay the costs for utilities, for water heaters and furnaces if each unit has their own, refrigerators, repairs to infrastructure wholely contained by your unit for which you are responsible, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
ryde posted:Thats true, but irrelevant if you are doing a rent vs buy decision. The costs that the landlord incurs will not match the costs that you can expect to incur as a homeowner, because their costs are subject to different circumstances. What matters is how much you can reasonably expect to pay in rent, compared to how much you can reasonably expect to pay for all expenses incurred in ownership. That people bring this point up shows that they are thinking emotionally ("I want to pay myself and not the landlord!") rather than rationally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Kind of poo poo not tipping them. One of the places one of my friends works at has an all-inclusive package for $737,000 where they'll fly your groupies in on a 737 and the table service is included.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
What a bunch of chumps. Kors Gold only runs $16k. Also, if I run up a $52,000 bar tab and it shows up with charges for Cokes on it, I am stuffing it up somebody's rear end. South Beach sucks. Edit: Don't eat at Jerry's, it sucks even for South Beach. Edit II: Haha, that piece of poo poo closed down this year. Never mind about Jerry's.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Easychair Bootson posted:Yes, and over time it's the renters who are in turn paying that cost of less than 100% occupancy. I don't understand what this means. Can you give an example?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:Uh, apparently it's really good with money if your house value doubled in a year I make very good money and in most places would make stupid money but obviously I can't afford to buy a house in my own neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
So I was curious about what kind of vodka you can buy for $18k. I highly recommend reading the Kors vodka site. It is amazing. Enter a world of pure prestige : http://korsvodka.com
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Geizkragen posted:So I was curious about what kind of vodka you can buy for $18k. I highly recommend reading the Kors vodka site. It is amazing. Lmao, you'd have thought they could have afforded better copywriting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Mantle posted:I don't understand what this means. Can you give an example? Instead of applying that to one landlord with 10 units, apply it to renting in general. Renters are paying for flexibility, among other things. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Renting is the best because I like to move and I like to stack piles of cash instead of be house poor, but renting in a city with no rent control sucks because, oh hey, we're jacking your rent up 30% and that's totally legal!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:Kind of poo poo not tipping them. One of the places one of my friends works at has an all-inclusive package for $737,000 where they'll fly your groupies in on a 737 and the table service is included. This is the itemized receipt. Usually the receipt you tip on just has Total and then a line for a tip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Easychair Bootson posted:A landlord owns 10 units. At any given time there is a chance that one or more of them will be unoccupied and not generating revenue. He is charging his renters an amount that gives him an acceptable return on the risk due to vacancy that he is assuming. If the market is such that he can't do that (i.e. the vacancy rate is high enough that his renters aren't willing to pay the amount he needs to charge) he'll invest his money elsewhere. I would argue that supply of rental properties is less elastic than the demand - it's easier to move once a lease is up than to sell a property because rents are down. There are a bunch costs incurred whenever it is transferred like broker fees and takes a large amount of work and time. If a landlord wants to sell because no one will rent at the price, they probably are still going to sign on tenants at the market rate rather than let the units go vacant and lose even more. Rent going down/staying the same is probably correlated with decreasing property values as well[citation needed], so they may well be underwater on their mortgages. Obviously it's not sustainable in the long term, but there are certainly circumstances where landlords are forced to rent units at below-cost prices because not renting them is worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Easychair Bootson posted:I was just agreeing with the point that it's silly to make a pro-renting argument based on the idea that it's the landlord who writes the check for the property taxes (for example). If anything, I suspect that a renter pays more than his share because he's ostensibly covering for his portion plus a percentage of vacancy. But as you say, the circumstances are totally different, so the best one can do is what you mentioned, which is to make as close of an apples to apples comparison as is possible. You need to run the numbers in each individual market, since there are a ton of variables that can adjust the balance of what is what. Where I live (Vancouver BC) unless you are putting 40-50% down on a mortgage odds are renting will be cheaper from a cashflow perspective. That is completely ignoring the speculation on appreciation, which is anyone's guess. What the market will bear determines the price of rent. If a landlord needs to pull $3K from a 2BR apartment in a bad neighbourhood to make the mortgage + taxes + maintenance equation work, that has absolutely nothing to do with what renters are going to be able to pay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Bad with homeownership.chat: just had our first kirby guy. $2100 for a kirby for only $86 a month for 3 years?! Sign. Me. Up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Bad with homeownership.chat: just had our first kirby guy. $2100 for a kirby for only $86 a month for 3 years?! Sign. Me. Up. You had better be joking
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Of course there are differences in markets and individual circumstances. I'm not saying that renting cannot make sense financially. This discussion stemmed from a comment that renters don't have to pay certain costs like insurance, taxes, and opportunity cost, but it seems obvious that they (in general, not necessarily individually) do. On a more subjective note, I feel like a lot of the advantage to buying is that you can choose to do so when the market is at a certain point (hopefully low) and then you're pretty much locked in. As a renter, you're more at the whim of market fluctuations. When you're young and mobile it's easy to roll with the punches. When you've got a couple of kids and those fluctuations price you out of their school district, that's a different story. Just another variable among many. I'll shut up about my perceived nuances of the rent vs. buy debate and go back to shaking my head at reddit dummies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Easychair Bootson posted:Of course there are differences in markets and individual circumstances. I'm not saying that renting cannot make sense I think of renting as akin to buying group health insurance rather than self-insuring. As a group, you will end up bearing out the average costs, and the landlords will tend to profit. However, you don't risk going bankrupt in a shithole, and depending on location you have more rights as a tenant to livable conditions, which homeowners have no guarantee of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:Renting is the best because I like to move and I like to stack piles of cash instead of be house poor, but renting in a city with no rent control sucks because, oh hey, we're jacking your rent up 30% and that's totally legal! The flip side is that the city does have rent control and a shortage on rental units or exemptions that certainly protect you from 30% rent bumps, because you'll pay much more than that to even move in. Rent control is stupid and absolutely horrible for any residential market, like literally any other price ceiling. fruition posted:Wanted to make sure no one missed this quote. My brother-in-law made this very same argument about the benefits of renting in a well-off neighborhood instead of buying and he got de_stroyed by our scary father-in-law. Poor guy thought the $10k+/year property taxes weren't baked into his rent payment LoL Bonus for arguments with family: Next time someone tells your "those illegals" don't pay taxes, point out their median income (below poverty line) and that property and sales taxes exist and are factored into whatever rent they pay to make it clear that they probably pay a larger net tax share than their representative citizen within their income bracket. MJBuddy fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:Rent control is stupid and absolutely horrible for any residential market, like literally any other price ceiling. Rent control where I live means you are limited in the annual increases you can throw at existing tenants, (inflation +2% generally) and not hard caps on the price of any apartment. Considering it's aimed at preventing exploitive behavior from landlords vs. tenants, I have no issue with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
EgonSpengler posted:Rent control where I live means you are limited in the annual increases you can throw at existing tenants, (inflation +2% generally) and not hard caps on the price of any apartment. Considering it's aimed at preventing exploitive behavior from landlords vs. tenants, I have no issue with it. Intentions = / = results. I hate horrible landlords, but reality is reality and rent control produces worse landlords too from the services side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I would argue that supply of rental properties is less elastic than the demand - it's easier to move once a lease is up than to sell a property because rents are down. There are a bunch costs incurred whenever it is transferred like broker fees and takes a large amount of work and time. If a landlord wants to sell because no one will rent at the price, they probably are still going to sign on tenants at the market rate rather than let the units go vacant and lose even more. Rent going down/staying the same is probably correlated with decreasing property values as well[citation needed], so they may well be underwater on their mortgages. Obviously it's not sustainable in the long term, but there are certainly circumstances where landlords are forced to rent units at below-cost prices because not renting them is worse. In the short term a renter may get away with paying below market value. A good example was the housing bubble, where it became increasingly easy to buy a house, pushing apartment rents down. So if you were renting then, good job. Of course when the bubble burst all those newly foreclosed upon homeowners flooded the rental market, driving prices up again. That means the tenant's market in 2005 was a landlord's market by 2010. So rent long enough and you'll probably pay the same proportion of property taxes in your rent that a homeowner would pay out in escrow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
EgonSpengler posted:Rent control where I live means you are limited in the annual increases you can throw at existing tenants, (inflation +2% generally) and not hard caps on the price of any apartment. Considering it's aimed at preventing exploitive behavior from landlords vs. tenants, I have no issue with it. Yes, and so people newly moving in face even higher rents to subsidize the long-term tenants. Meanwhile, the existing residents have a strong incentive to not move because of the crushing rent increase, and so landlords can let their buildings fall apart with impunity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
You know what's bad with money? Central air. Hey let's cool a massive amount of air that I'm not even using right now. And then pay thousands to replace it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:In the short term a renter may get away with paying below market value. A good example was the housing bubble, where it became increasingly easy to buy a house, pushing apartment rents down. So if you were renting then, good job. Right, while recognizing momentary exceptions to the general principle created by the high transaction costs and illiquidity of rental units, in the long run it is profitable to be a landlord, just like any other economic deployment of capital and just like it has always been since the first human to exert ownership over the use of land
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:You had better be joking Serious as a heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Serious as a heart attack. My parents bought a kirby when I was just a few years old and even now my mother still owns and uses it. They are really nice vacuums - better than a Dyson imo, even though it still has a bag. If you could get a brand new one for 500-600, I think it would be worth every penny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
EgonSpengler posted:Where I live (Vancouver BC) unless you are putting 40-50% down on a mortgage odds are renting will be cheaper from a cashflow perspective. I'm going to start calling out this usage of the word cheaper as incorrect when used to describe cashflow. My definition of cheaper means it adds more to your net worth than the other option, irrespective of value. If you use the word cheaper to describe cashflow then you end up with logical statements such as "it's cheaper to buy a car for $200/month for 100 months than it is to to buy a car for $250/mo for 6 months. This is not the case. Also this defeats the argument that buying is paying yourself when renting is throwing away money when looking solely at monthly payments because it forces you to consider how much of those mortgage payments are increasing your equity as opposed to paying interest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 08:55
|
|