As a homeowner what weighs me down most is insurance, by a large margin. It keeps increasing while the coverage decreases. It’s a huge racket in my opinion
Do you live in Florida?
Oklahoma 🙃rates go up each year due to tornados, at least that’s what they say. Even though i live in a heavily populated area that’ll never get hit.
I had to put a new roof on cause of softball sized hail caused by the infamous may 2013 storm that damn near leveled Moore Oklahoma. But other than that, no storm damage ever
Even though i live in a heavily populated area that’ll never get hit.
I don’t think tornadoes care.
The article talks a lot about mortgages. How does the math work if you pay in full at the time of purchase?
Renting could never compare to owning, as Equity is the biggest source of wealth for the middle class in the US. Not owning equity to pass on to your kids is one of the worst mistakes you can make. IF you can afford that sort of thing.
Raising your kid(s) right is better than passing any monetary wealth on to them. If they grow up knowing that they’re set and will inherit your money/house, they may get lazy and just depend on that wealth. That money will be gone after the 3rd generation.
Kinda shitty that people are downvoting this. Raising your kids right includes giving them the education they need to live and acquire wealth as well, so it’s not like this is wrong.
Equity is pointless when your $30,000 roof and $20,000 HVAC break at the same time and you’re taking out a 20 year home equity loan to replace them. (And good luck with the $70,000 windows.)
2-4x reality, but yeah…
Not at all, these are (roughly) prices for 2-3 bedroom single-family homes. If curious, check AIs for any reasonably successful region around the country like Raleigh, San Jose, Austin, etc. Prices are about the same. I looked up the cost for a dual system for a larger home (that would have 2x AC, 2x furnace) and that jumped to $30k-40k for HVAC. Water heater install (gas, tank) can run $800-3000 depending on the market.
Asking others for prices for windows, I think the spread was somewhere between $50k-90k, although it’s been a while since I asked peeps. That’s before actually going after specialty windows.
Prices have skyrocketed since the pandemic.
Those costs might reflect new build estimates, not regular repair or replacement, which is the point of your OG post. Furnace repair is like $300-500 if you can’t DIY and replacement is $3-7k depending on fuel and region.
Furnace repair is stupid in cost if you can’t do it yourself. Replacement you mentioned is half the cost. Double it for AC. Still $14k. Even $7k is an unpleasant surprise. Mid-range equipment you aren’t replacing in 5 years makes the cost go up as well.
Edit: those numbers are still way low. I’ve seen $10k-12k for just a furnace.
you divide the amount of money that it costs by the amount of dollars you would pay to rent something like that per month and then figure that’s how long it’ll take for you to look at a duck instead of a chicken
Then add a few years, since you’ll be the one paying to replace wear items like roof, carpets, and appliances.
That’s true in general. And if you assume a perfectly efficient market, yes, renting would never be cheaper than buying. On the other hand, if markets were perfectly efficient, no company would ever be able to make a profit at all.
One market distortion is that in certain times, people will actually pay a premium for renting. People aren’t perfectly rational actors. Or moreover, they prioritize things beyond just simple cost. Even if buying is more expensive that renting, all costs considered, often people will pay more just for the stability and certainty that comes with home ownership.
The housing market is also distorted by all the present owners with locked-in 30-year mortgages. This has suppressed the supply of existing homes on the market. Rental companies don’t get access to federally-subsidized 30 year mortgages, so they are less subject to this interest rate lock-in.
I pointed out a few things, but these are a few of many. The key thing to realize is that housing is highly illiquid, and its production, ownership, and sale is heavily regulated, taxed, and subsidized. It’s a heavily regulated market. This means that the market will not always follow basic econ 101 behavior. Yes, in theory, rentals will include all costs. But that is rarely the case.
In fact, in a perfectly efficient market, it’s likely that neither buying nor renting would be beneficial. If everyone acted perfectly rationally all the time, the cost of renting would exactly equal the cost of buying. And in that world, buying would never be worth it, simply because it wouldn’t be worth the extra hassle to safe not a single penny.
The cost of renting or buying would be negligible if we prioritized human needs over the human want to hoard wealth
I might still not understand but… Landlords have to pay insurance as well. Why would they be the exception. They have all the same costs and also want to make a profit. How can rent be cheaper then?
Two things: first, landlords aren’t entitled to a profit, and second, landlord input costs might be completely different from an owner resident.
On the first point, if the landlord’s costs are $2000/month, and the market rent for that unit is $1900/month, the landlord would rather lose $100/month on a lease than lose $2000/month on a vacant property.
On the second, it might be that the landlord bought the place when it was much cheaper, or has a much lower interest rate than what is available today. So if the landlord’s costs are $2000/month for a property that would now cost $4000/month at today’s purchase prices and interest rates, but can rent for $3000/month at a profit to himself.
Similarly, some volume landlords can spread certain costs around and not pay nearly as much as an owner resident. It might cost $1200 to hire a plumber to do a 6-hour job, but it also might cost $150 to simply have a plumber on the payroll to do that job, if you’ve got enough steady work that it’s cheaper to have him around.
It might be that a homeowner also bought home when it was cheaper. Come on, get a grip.
That’s not part of this comparison. The comparison in this article and the metric it covers is for people who are renting versus buying in 2024. The renter in 2024 can rent from a landlord who purchased in 2010, and is borrowing at 2020 interest rates. But a buyer today is buying at 2024 prices and 2024 interest rates.
Because if you buy a house, it’s just you and the bank, so you need to cover the banks risk for you as an individual, meaning higher interest rates. Larger purchases, or a group of houses are covered by different loan types, flexible rates at for example international rated plus half a point… and that is mich cheaper. The rate might fluctuate… but if the government strongarms the fed to keep the loans practically free, companies borrow for free plus half a point. And that is a lot of difference.
This ignores the difference after 5-10 years. Rent keeps going up.
Maintenance cost and property taxes too though.
Still cheaper to own, if you have the initial funds or loan to buy and know you won’t be leaving the area for awhile. If you rent a property those maintenance and tax and insurance and interest costs associated with owning it are just passed on to you in to your rent, plus a profit margin so the owner can make money off renting it out to you. Owning the same property would cost less, over time, and not just that, but you would have something to show for it.
What you forget is the cost of opportunity: the money that is stuck in a house is money that would yield income if it was invested somewhere else. Long term stock markets typically return 7%+, while rental return (or the rent you save by buying) can be anywhere from 3 to 7% depending on market, minus maintenance and other holding costs.
So there’s no fast and hard guarantee that owning or renting is best - you need to run a proper simulation with the right parametres taking everything into account. In markets with low rental returns, renting is typically optimal.
Where is the money that is stuck in the house, that would hypothetically be able to be invested if not spent on the house? You have to pay to live somewhere, and if you’re paying less to purchase than rent, that is money saved which is available to invest. Do you mean the up-front downpayment money needed to acquire a mortgage in the first place (typically 10-20% of the purchase cost), that could be invested in the market instead for a higher return than slowly building equity through principal payments?
Let me give you an overly simplified example. You are in a property market where rental yield is 3% (happens in some cities)
You could put a million dollar into buying a house and save $30k in rent every year
or
You could rent a million dollar house for $30k, and invest your million dollar in the market at 7%, returning $70k per year
Obviously this gets more complicated with mortgages, taxes, maintenance, interest rates, etc. but the gist of it is that owning your home always comes with an opportunity cost, every dollar of house equity is a dollar that isn’t invested somewhere else. Depending on circumstances, renting might be the most economical choice.
This is interesting. I do get that if you have initial money to buy a house outright, there are better mostly safe things you can invest in, to get a higher return on investment than a house. If I got a 30 year mortgage in 1994 and paid $1M over that time to pay it off on say, a 5% fixed rate with no PMI or downpayment required, the purchase price was probably closer to $500K assuming 2.5% average annual inflation. And average housing inflation since then was more like 2.8%, so factoring in maintenance and taxes and insurance, guessing no real appreciation over that time. But the quality of life difference to an apartment of the same cost would I think in most cases more than make up for it.
I think where I’m stuck is, we’re starting from the idea of having $1M in hand to start out with to buy a house outright or rent + invest, where a much more common situation is either: I have not got anything saved up, so I can neither invest nor get a mortgage without an initial downpayment; or else, I have enough saved up for a downpayment or PMI and hopefully a secure enough income to pay the mortgage every month.
In my case, mortgage + escrow + maintenance costs are still less than half what I was paying for my cheapest studio apt nearly a decade later, and a much better quality of life because of the extra savings. My neighbors are renting a nearly identical house, and it’s criminal how much they have to pay to stay there. I wouldn’t be able to afford rent here.
On paper, owning a home is almost always more expensive than renting — about 14% more, on average, after factoring in expenses like insurance, taxes, and upkeep.
I’d be interested in seeing how they arrived at the 14% number.
When I bought my first home a couple of decades ago I moved out of my 1 bedroom apartment which I was paying a monthly rent of $700/month into a small starter home with a mortgage of $1000/month. 20 years later that exact same apartment rents for $1350/month. All of the years I lived there my house payment never rose higher than the $1000/month mortgage payment while the rent on the apartment apparently continued to increase year over year. Meanwhile I ended up selling the starter home for $110,000 than my purchase prices nearly 20 years ago.
So is their 14% number just calculated on the first month of each (renting vs buying)?
Once you factor in things it mentions like insurance, taxes, upkeep along with others like a down payment then it’s very easy to see where the 14% numbers comes from. Frankly, I’m surprised it’s only 14%. There’s a lot of additional and hidden costs with home ownership.
The difference is those “costs” are going towards buying equity that you then get to keep. Maintaining a house is expensive but it is an asset that maintains value. This article really doesn’t seem to understand that which shows a very basic misunderstanding of the wealth math that goes into home ownership.
Renting may be cheaper month to month but you’re literally pouring that money down a black hole never to be seen in your hands again.
Granted, building equity doesn’t matter when you’re already have no cash paycheck-to-paycheck for either.
I rent a house for $4600/mo. To buy this same house in the same neighborhood, it would be roughly $1.6m, tho prices are starting to fall a little on these higher cost neighborhoods, so let’s say $1.5m for a deal.
With a 20% down-payment on a 30 year fixed rate loan, it would be close to $10000/mo (including insurance and property taxes).
Also, the lions share of your mortgage goes to paying down interest for the first decade or so.
So let’s say $1k goes to principle per month. You’re still burning twice as much money owning as renting.
The only financial upside is that you may be able to sell for more than you paid. Minus Realtor fees, whatever renovations / maintenance you made over the years, etc.
The current market is insane.
Edit - so I’m not talking in complete generalities, I glanced at the interest/principal ratio. No idea how accurate this is.
After a year of mortgage payments, 31% of your money starts to go toward the principal. You see 45% going toward principal after ten years and 67% going toward principal after year 20.
https://www.americanfinancing.net/mortgage-basics/mortgage-payment-explained
I don’t know what the ratio is in the first year, maybe 100% interest?
So at a monthly payment of $9800, $7864 of which is towards mortgage, that’s $2437 / mo towards principal from years 2-9.
So essentially you’re burning $7363 instead of $4600 for the hope that your house increases in value when you sell it.
Fiscally speaking. There are a lot of other pros and cons to owning.
That is the state of the buy v rent trade-off on that house TODAY. In 10 years, the rent on that house will go up but the mortgage will stay the same. Regardless of the equity you build in owning (which can be leveraged for other things even if you don’t sell), your “rent” stays fixed while renting goes up every year.
Companies are able to take longer term stances and can sustain short term losses. They buy a house and keep it for 10 years, long enough that those losses transition to profits.
That’s making done huge assumptions that you have no way of knowing will be reality.
Rent may go up. It may go down.
Housing prices may go up. It may go down.
Locking yourself into a mortgage for “fixed rent” may end up closing you hundreds of thousands more than apples to apples rent. Taking the above scenario, you’re paying about $360k more in the first 10 years than you would renting, if rent prices don’t go up over that time period.
Yes, both rent and housing tend to go up over time. But who knows what the immediate future holds anymore. Housing prices are starting to contract. There’s more push for high density housing, which people generally think will lower rent (I disagree, but I’m against the grain here).
One thing I’ve learned from economists is that despite all their expertise, they’re very bad at predicting big events that have huge impacts on the economy. And we’ve been getting a lot of those the last few decades.
Oh come on, that’s being extremely, EXTREMELY… I can’t find the word. Not pedantic, not pessimistic, and not near sighted. Whatever the term is for when you take the absolute extreme edge case to try making a point.
Rent will always go up over time due to inflation. Yes, you might have dips for a year or two, but landlords will always raise the rent based on inflation at the minimum. And regardless of big drops in house prices during economy crashes, your mortgage does not go up over time outside of adjustments to taxes and insurance. Even when there was the worst housing crash in US history in 2008, my rent never dropped. My rent kept going up every single year by the maximum amount the city allowed under rent control. Housing prices dropped, which allowed me to buy a house. And in your case where you talk about losing $360k due to buying instead of renting over 10 years, you are ignoring that $245k will be going to buying down the principle (amortization calculations for a 6% loan on $1.5M for 30 years). You spent $552,000 at a bare minimum, assuming no rent increases (impossibly unlikely), and have 0 to show for it. The owner spent almost exactly twice that but has $245k in equity on top of whatever equity had grown from house prince inflation over 10 years. Every year it gets better for the homeowner, especially when you hit 30 years and have paid off the house… while you are still renting.
In reality, when I bought my house 12 years ago my mortgage was $3900 (with taxes and insurance) and rent would have been $4000. Now, my mortgage is $4100 and rent is $6000.
Now, I’m also ignoring the money that can be made investing the money you save renting vs buying. But if we use your assumptions, then there is no guarantee you’ll make money investing your money.
How would your point of view differ if you had bought your house right before the crash? Your entire outlook on the wisdom of paying yourself via principal vs a landlord seems to be based on your particular (lucky) circumstance that you got into the market at a time where your monthly cost for mortgage was comparable to rent prices at the time. So locking it in time was a good decision.
That is not the case anymore. I have presented numbers to support that argument, even if it’s overly simplified for simple calculations.
And you’re seemingly ignoring the distinct possibility that housing prices may tank, at which case locking your rate at twice comparable rent would be a terrible situation.
Right now, my money is parked in other investments. We are keeping an eye on the housing market, but paying $300k as a down-payment for the privilege of doubling my monthly housing cost does not seem like a financially prudent decision, when my money is making more in its current investments. And given that if we took a loan out now, we’d probably refinance for a lower interest rate at a later time, reseting the interest/principal schedule anyway.
This is the reality of the market right now. Your outlook is not applicable in today’s paradigm.
No, not all of them. Insurance, property tax, and maintenance do not go to equity.
Property taxes are still partly tax deductible. Also even at my low mortgage rate of 3%, I get about $450/mo. back via the mortgage interest tax deduction, worth about $300/mo. over the standard deduction IIRC. I am not sure if they factor these things into the 14% number.
It’s not common for people to itemize any longer after Trump’s tax updates a few years ago
Those tax updates screwed me. Yes, it temporarily raised the tax deduction, but it also capped the tax deductions if you were above the standard. His changes cost me a couple grand a year.
It’s not common for people to itemize any longer after Trump’s tax updates a few years ago
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 Trump passed put in place permanent tax cuts for corporations and temporary tax cuts for individuals. The individuals tax cuts expire next year in 2025 so in 2026 the current standard deduction for single filers of $14,600 drops to $8,300. For joint filers is currently $29,000 and dropping to $16,600. source
Unless these tax cuts for individuals are renewed, we might see many more folks itemizing again because the standard deduction is too small again.
The part of that which REALLY hurt me was the cap on how much you could deduct. I itemized even with the increase in higher standard deduction, so capping my deduction hurt me a lot.
