There is a real sense in which buying a house is a form of
forced saving, which prevents you from wasting quite a bit
of your income on relatively frivolous stuff like consumption,
and that that is what particularly the financially hopeless
should be doing, locking themselves into that sort of forced
saving rather than wasting that income on other frivolous stuff.

Interesting point Rod

Something to chew on

wrote in message
...
Ive been following this thread with interest

And I think a point needs to be made that hasn't been
made yet. But if it has please excuse me.

That point is this:

Don buy TOO much house. Buy the amount of house you
need.

Seems like here in the US people are buying mini
mansions for only two people to live in. And getting
in massive debt for it

Good advice? Bad advice?

The rub there is in defining "too much" and "need" - what seems outrageously
luxurious (or restrictive) to one person may seem just right to someone
else.

You might as well enjoy what your earnings can buy - you sure can't take it
with you.

I find the term "mini-mansion" something of an oxymoron - a mansion is a
large imposing residence, or the house of the lord of a manor, or a separate
apartment or lodging in a large structure (it's also one of the 28 parts
into which the moon's monthly path through the sky is divided). From the
way you use the term, it seems that you intend the first meaning listed.
How do you have a small "large imposing residence"?

I suspect what most people mean by the term is "a house bigger than mine".
That's just jealousy/sour grapes.

"Timm Simpkins" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Ive been following this thread with interest

And I think a point needs to be made that hasn't been
made yet. But if it has please excuse me.

That point is this:

Don buy TOO much house. Buy the amount of house you
need.

Seems like here in the US people are buying mini
mansions for only two people to live in. And getting
in massive debt for it

Good advice? Bad advice?

I have to disagree. When I was growing up, we had 2 bathrooms and 7
girls.
There was no equitable apportioning of bathroom time, or toilet paper for
that matter. Therefore, I'm going to build a house with 3 bedrooms and 27
bathrooms, each one with a closet housing 3000 rolls of toilet paper.
Even
though I live alone and use a little over one roll of toilet paper per
month.

I thought it was just because there were so many people in the house that
caused the TP to be used so much, but I got married and noticed that my 1+
roll/month turned into 1 roll every 2-3 days. God only knows what women
need so much toilet paper for.

I hate to say it, but it's not women in particular. Some people's digestive
tracts empty more messily than others - it's not a correlated with the shape
of their skin.

Anyway, I have this recurring nightmare that I get up and all the
bathrooms
are locked and when I finally get in one there's no toilet paper. I end
up
waddling through the house with a magazine covering my privates looking
for
toilet paper, paper towels, or even small animals.

I'll fix that nightmare.

Lay that particular nightmare to rest - install a bidet.

"Larry Bud" wrote in message
om...
In the end, I suppose it's a matter of personal preference. But I do
wish my home-owning friends would cut out the holier-than-thou attitude.

I hear where you're coming from. My sister bugged me for 10 years
about "owning" (the BANK really owns it, for 30 years at least).

Nope - the bank or whoever holds the loan has a lein on the property, but
doesn't own it. For instance, if the place goes up in value, you as the
owner get to keep that appreciation, not the bank.

wrote in message
...

There is a real sense in which buying a house is a form of
forced saving, which prevents you from wasting quite a bit
of your income on relatively frivolous stuff like consumption,
and that that is what particularly the financially hopeless
should be doing, locking themselves into that sort of forced
saving rather than wasting that income on other frivolous stuff.

Interesting point Rod

Something to chew on

The contra that applys to those who are financially sensible
is that it makes sense to only buy the housing you actually
need and to invest the difference with the mortgages in
other areas, essentially so you spread your risk considerably.

Clearly its only the financially disciplined that will be able to do that.

And to complicate the issue even further, you can also make a
case for instead of saving aggressively for your dotage, it makes
more sense to spend sensibly on what you enjoy doing in your
younger years while you still have the energy and health to enjoy
it rather than accumulating a great stash but ending up too decrepit
to be able to do much with it and just pass it on to the kids.

I've basically done them all. I've always been in the very fortunate
position that someone has always been silly enough to pay me
very well to do what I would do for free if there wasnt anyone that
silly around. I've also been extremely frugal with the house, physically
building it from scratch myself, with what I borrowed to pay for the
materials paid off very quickly. So I spent quite a bit in my younger
years doing what I felt like doing, ended up rolling in it so I can do
whatever I feel like, including not bothering with formal work, and
got complete freedom to do what I like basically.

"v" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:10:57 -0400, someone wrote:

... Around here,
mortgage payments are often less than rents.

But the mortgage payment is just the start. The rent includes
maintenance, lawn care, reserves for replacement of appliances, HVAC
apparatus, etc. As an owner all that is in addition to the mortgage.
And can occur unexpectedly which is hard for those of limited means.

Well yabbut...

You said it - the rent includes those costs (in other words, you're still
paying for them), plus a profit for the landlord, plus the renter is
excluded from any tax benefits. Some of this stuff is good for a giggle -
my last apartment was on the 9th floor - "lawn care" is pretty meaningless.

"Lou" wrote:
You said it - the rent includes those costs (in other words, you're still
paying for them), plus a profit for the landlord

Well, maybe, depending on the rental market at any particular time.
Not sure what "profit" for the landlord means. Positive cash flow?

"v" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:58:03 -0400, someone wrote:


... That housing
payment _could_ be earning something in market appreciation after all.

Or losing in a down market. We here all the time on this NG from
people who bought with low $ down an now cannot escape without ruining
their finances & credit.

An amusing thing: folks post here all the time how you are better off
putting as little cash as possible into your house, so that you can
invest the rest of your money at higher rates of return. Well, the
renter has put down zero cash down. He is making all that money off
his larger investments elsewhere.

Really? The preponderance of opinion I've read _here_ over the last few
years is that you're better off making as high a down payment as possible
and paying off the mortgage as soon as possible.

Hey, I'm an owner, but I don't delude myself as to why. Housing is an
expense. You do not make money on it.

You KNOW that all money paid in rent is gone forever. That's not always the
case with owning. But have it your way.

"Lou" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
...
Ive been following this thread with interest

And I think a point needs to be made that hasn't been
made yet. But if it has please excuse me.

That point is this:

Don buy TOO much house. Buy the amount of house you
need.

Seems like here in the US people are buying mini
mansions for only two people to live in. And getting
in massive debt for it

Good advice? Bad advice?

The rub there is in defining "too much" and "need" - what seems outrageously
luxurious (or restrictive) to one person may seem just right to someone
else.

You might as well enjoy what your earnings can buy - you sure can't take it
with you.

I find the term "mini-mansion" something of an oxymoron

Nope, just a distinction over the range of mansions available.

- a mansion is a large imposing residence,

Yes. And a mini mansion is on the lower end of mansions.

And a mega mansion is at the other end of the range of mansions.

or the house of the lord of a manor, or a separate apartment
or lodging in a large structure (it's also one of the 28 parts
into which the moon's monthly path through the sky is divided).

Irrelevant to the current use.

From the way you use the term, it seems
that you intend the first meaning listed.

Nope.

How do you have a small "large imposing residence"?

Easy enough to live in the mini end of mansions, and the mega end too.

I suspect what most people mean by the term is "a house bigger than mine".

Nope. Clearly he means bigger than you NEED.

That's just jealousy/sour grapes.

Nope.

Timm Simpkins wrote:

"Applicants must have reasonable credit histories."

Poor credit isn't necessarily going to cut it.

You never know until you apply. I know of folks who were turned down from
commercial lenders and scored USDA mortgages. I know folks who had NO
credit history, having NEVER borrowed, and scored USDA mortgages.

It's a bureaucracy, folks, fill out the forms and get in line...

Bob Ward wrote in message
...
(Larry Bud) wrote

I hear where you're coming from. My sister bugged me for 10 years
about "owning" (the BANK really owns it, for 30 years at least). $
wise, you need to run the numbers, however there are a few perks
outside the money which you may not have considered:

Wrong. If the bank REALLY owned it, they
could come and paint purple polkadots on it,

Banks dont do stuff like that. That gets thrashed
out of bank employees at teller school.

or evict you on a whim.

They do get to evict you on a default.

Lou wrote:

I hate to say it, but it's not women in particular. [who use lotsa TP]

But you have to recognize that the ladies use TP for #1 & #2, while
gentlemen only use it for #2. And the frequency of #1 exceeds #2.

Male only dwellings tend to use little TP, and often choose rolls of nice
old tough Scottissue that last 2 - 3 months. When ladies are present, then
fluffy/soft/fragile rolls get consumed about 2 per week/per female.

For those who want to try out a portable battery powered bidet:
http://www.thefactoryoutlet.com/bidets/bidet2a.asp

It's great for those times when the restroom is out of TP.

jetgraphics wrote:

Lou wrote:

I hate to say it, but it's not women in particular. [who use lotsa TP]

But you have to recognize that the ladies use TP for #1 & #2, while
gentlemen only use it for #2. And the frequency of #1 exceeds #2.

Male only dwellings tend to use little TP, and often choose rolls of nice
old tough Scottissue that last 2 - 3 months. When ladies are present, then
fluffy/soft/fragile rolls get consumed about 2 per week/per female.

For those who want to try out a portable battery powered bidet:
http://www.thefactoryoutlet.com/bidets/bidet2a.asp

It's great for those times when the restroom is out of TP.

Heh. Every month when I go down I-95 into Miami, I am greeted with the modern
version of the Coppertone billboard. "Mr. Bidet - for a healthy tush"

http://www.bidet.com/meetmrbidet.htm

Personally, I thought the little girl with the Scottie dog was more artistic.

jetgraphics wrote:
Male only dwellings tend to use little TP, and often choose rolls of nice
old tough Scottissue that last 2 - 3 months.

Or go to Italy and check out the 3-foot diameter rolls of grade B
sandpaper in the public restrooms. That TP gets used up quick, you
can use it to refinish furniture. Someone came in while I was taking
a picture.

For those who want to try out a portable battery powered bidet:
http://www.thefactoryoutlet.com/bidets/bidet2a.asp

Do these things above really work well?

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:11:45 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:


Bob Ward wrote in message
...
(Larry Bud) wrote

I hear where you're coming from. My sister bugged me for 10 years
about "owning" (the BANK really owns it, for 30 years at least). $
wise, you need to run the numbers, however there are a few perks
outside the money which you may not have considered:

Wrong. If the bank REALLY owned it, they
could come and paint purple polkadots on it,

Banks dont do stuff like that. That gets thrashed
out of bank employees at teller school.

They don't because they can't. They don't own the unit, but you knew
that...

or evict you on a whim.

They do get to evict you on a default.

Only after due-process, but you knew that too, eh?

Exactly what is your point speedo? ...to hear your keyboard click?

--
Keith

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:30:11 +0000, Anthony Matonak wrote:

Keith wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:02:26 -0700, Sandy wrote:
It seems to me that I can rent a smaller place than I can buy. The
cost per square foot may be less when you buy a big (or not so big)
house, but for those who can live in a studio apartment, I suspect it
is more frugal.

I suspect you're wrong! If that were the case, why would anyone buy
rental property. Someone is making money, it might just as well be you!

I think this is why they invented condos and co-ops. These allow you
to buy a studio apartment instead of a house.

I think you're at least half right. It allowed landlords to get out
from under some high-priced high-maintenence real estate when no one else
wanted to buy their lumps. This is certainly the idea behind
new construction condos though.

--
Keith

In article ,
victor wrote:

Ok, ok, ok. My friends and family keep nagging at me to stop renting
and buy a house. I'm so sick of them droning on about points-this and
closing costs-that. But the more I think about, the less sense it seems
to make for me. Here's why:

1. "You'll save a fortune on taxes." True. But the property taxes
will pretty much cancel out any savings you got on the income taxes.

Not necessarily. Depends on what your financial situation is
and your mortgage interest payments.

2. "You're throwing rent money down the toilet." True. In all
likelihood, your mortgage payment will be twice your rent. By the time
you pay it off, you'll be drinking Ensure, wearing Depends, and too old
to maintain the house. Then you'll be wanting to move back to ... AN
APARTMENT! By that time, an assisted living apartment. And let's be
realistic. You're NOT going to be like those power couples in Money
magazine who claim they're going to pay off the mortgage in 5 years and
retire in 10. Yeah, right.

I live in an apartment. Two weeks ago, I walked in my apartment and
I found my air conditioner on when I had left it off before I went to
work. I thought someone was in my apartment and I was right. A
maintenance man was there to fix a busted pipe that leaked water on a
part of my carpet and down into the apartment below mine. I didn't
have to spend a dime on this repair and I didn't even have to call to
request it. If my apartment was my own condo, odds are, I would have been
stuck with a costly plumbing bill and more damage to my carpet. When my
roof leaked, a fix was as simple as calling my landlord's on-site
maintenance people. I know not all landlord-tenant relationships are
so good, but I was very careful before I signed my lease to investigate
that issue.

3. "It's one of the few things you buy that appreciate in value."
Assuming that you find someone who is willing to pay your inflated
selling price. Assuming that the neighborhood doesn't go down the
tubes. Assuming that the new house you buy will end costing as much as
you think it's going to (not!). Too many assumptions.

Not necessarily true. Most real estate does rise in value over time,
but there are no guarantees. If you buy in a neighborhood that looks
fine when you buy, but turns bad a few years later, the value of
your house might decline.

4. Maintenance. I'm lucky if I have time to clean my apartment, let
alone a house. I've worked customer service for plumbing, HVAC, and
home maintenance companies before, and I hear how much people pay for
this stuff. In an apartment, it's all FREE.

In the end, I suppose it's a matter of personal preference. But I do
wish my home-owning friends would cut out the holier-than-thou attitude.

Yup. I suppose eventually I will buy a house, but for now, its just too
convient to live in an apartment, plus I could never afford a house in
the area where I live and I love my neighborhood. All my utilities
except cable TV and phone are included in my rent and I am lucky enough
to live in a rent controlled building. There is no way I could live in
such a nice place if I had to own my unit.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:51:07 -0700, Steve wrote:

Keith wrote:
...Comparing mortgage payments to rent is meaningless in the absence
of complete information on the mortgage, the house, and the
opportunity costs. After all, if you paid cash for the house, your
mortgage payments would be zero - therefore, it would be stupid to pay
more than that for rent, correct?

No! You forgot your own "oppotunity" costs. Money is *never* free.

Uhhh, that's the reason for the

Sorreee! ;-)

--
Keith

In article ,
(Larry Bud) wrote:

In the end, I suppose it's a matter of personal preference. But I do
wish my home-owning friends would cut out the holier-than-thou attitude.

I hear where you're coming from. My sister bugged me for 10 years
about "owning" (the BANK really owns it, for 30 years at least). $
wise, you need to run the numbers, however there are a few perks
outside the money which you may not have considered:

1) A garage, and all the fun with it. If you like working on your
car, building stuff, etc, you're not going to have that luxury living
in an apt.

2) A basement. Same kinda deal with a garage. More room to put all
your junk

3) No sharing a wall with a neighbor. Crank that music or movie as
loud as you want it.

4) A backyard.

Huh? Where do you live? I know of lots of homes that share common walls
with other homes, have no back yards, or garages. New York City, for
example, is full of them.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:48:40 -0700, Steve wrote:

"Lou" wrote:
You said it - the rent includes those costs (in other words, you're still
paying for them), plus a profit for the landlord

Well, maybe, depending on the rental market at any particular time.
Not sure what "profit" for the landlord means. Positive cash flow?

Of course not! I don't have a "positive cash flow" on my stocks either.
Look at the long term. If landlords didn't make money there wouldn't be
any landlords. Add to that the tax breaks given to owner-occupied
dwellings and it's rather obvious that you're better off renting to
yourself than renting from someone who doesn't care a crap about your
financial well-being.

--
Keith

In article ,
Anthony Matonak wrote:

Keith wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:02:26 -0700, Sandy wrote:
It seems to me that I can rent a smaller place than I can buy. The
cost per square foot may be less when you buy a big (or not so big)
house, but for those who can live in a studio apartment, I suspect it
is more frugal.

I suspect you're wrong! If that were the case, why would anyone buy
rental property. Someone is making money, it might just as well be you!

I think this is why they invented condos and co-ops. These allow you
to buy a studio apartment instead of a house.

True, but condos tend to have lousy resale value and any decent condo
community is going to have a high monthly association fee. At least
that's my experience when I spent a few months shopping for a condo and
realized the deal I have renting is better.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:10:10 -0400, jetgraphics wrote:

Timm Simpkins wrote:

"Applicants must have reasonable credit histories."

Poor credit isn't necessarily going to cut it.

You never know until you apply. I know of folks who were turned down from
commercial lenders and scored USDA mortgages. I know folks who had NO
credit history, having NEVER borrowed, and scored USDA mortgages.

No credit bad credit. I had no credit when I bought my first home. No
problem. Now it's no problem getting any credit I want.

It's a bureaucracy, folks, fill out the forms and get in line...

Yeah, free money for the deadbeats? I don't think so!

--
Keith

Keith wrote in message
news
Rod Speed wrote
Bob Ward wrote
(Larry Bud) wrote

I hear where you're coming from. My sister bugged me for 10 years
about "owning" (the BANK really owns it, for 30 years at least). $
wise, you need to run the numbers, however there are a few perks
outside the money which you may not have considered:

Wrong. If the bank REALLY owned it, they
could come and paint purple polkadots on it,

Banks dont do stuff like that. That gets thrashed
out of bank employees at teller school.

They don't because they can't. They
don't own the unit, but you knew that...

That was one of those funky things often called a joke, joyce.

Dont laugh, see if I care.

or evict you on a whim.

They do get to evict you on a default.

Only after due-process, but you knew that too, eh?

Duh.

Exactly what is your point speedo?
...to hear your keyboard click?

What was yours, gutless ?

Flaunt your soh bypass ?

Shawn Hearn wrote in message
...
victor wrote

Ok, ok, ok. My friends and family keep nagging at me to stop
renting and buy a house. I'm so sick of them droning on about
points-this and closing costs-that. But the more I think about,
the less sense it seems to make for me. Here's why:

1. "You'll save a fortune on taxes." True. But the property taxes
will pretty much cancel out any savings you got on the income taxes.

Not necessarily. Depends on what your financial
situation is and your mortgage interest payments.

2. "You're throwing rent money down the toilet." True. In all
likelihood, your mortgage payment will be twice your rent. By
the time you pay it off, you'll be drinking Ensure, wearing Depends,
and too old to maintain the house. Then you'll be wanting to move
back to ... AN APARTMENT! By that time, an assisted living
apartment. And let's be realistic. You're NOT going to be like
those power couples in Money magazine who claim they're going
to pay off the mortgage in 5 years and retire in 10. Yeah, right.

I live in an apartment. Two weeks ago, I walked in my apartment
and I found my air conditioner on when I had left it off before I
went to work. I thought someone was in my apartment and I
was right. A maintenance man was there to fix a busted pipe
that leaked water on a part of my carpet and down into the
apartment below mine. I didn't have to spend a dime on this repair

Corse you did, that is built in to the rent you pay.

and I didn't even have to call to request it.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it. And with
plenty of rental situations, you may well have to call
more than once to get that sort of thing fixed too.

If my apartment was my own condo, odds are, I
would have been stuck with a costly plumbing bill

But that would be a question of paying for what needs
to be done when it needs to be done, rather than
paying for the possibility upfront, built into the rent.

and more damage to my carpet.

Which would normally be covered by your insurance.

When my roof leaked, a fix was as simple as calling
my landlord's on-site maintenance people. I know not all
landlord-tenant relationships are so good, but I was very
careful before I signed my lease to investigate that issue.

You can never be sure it will stay that way,
particularly when the ownership changes.

And you have no real control over what
happens to the rent over time either.

3. "It's one of the few things you buy that appreciate in value."
Assuming that you find someone who is willing to pay your inflated
selling price. Assuming that the neighborhood doesn't go down the
tubes. Assuming that the new house you buy will end costing as
much as you think it's going to (not!). Too many assumptions.

Not necessarily true. Most real estate does rise in value
over time, but there are no guarantees. If you buy in a
neighborhood that looks fine when you buy, but turns bad
a few years later, the value of your house might decline.

And you can be absolutely certain that you will never get
any capital appreciation on that amount you spend on rent.

Its obvious where the best odds lie.

4. Maintenance. I'm lucky if I have time to clean my apartment,
let alone a house. I've worked customer service for plumbing,
HVAC, and home maintenance companies before, and I hear
how much people pay for this stuff. In an apartment, it's all FREE.

In the end, I suppose it's a matter of personal preference. But I do
wish my home-owning friends would cut out the holier-than-thou attitude.

Yup. I suppose eventually I will buy a house, but
for now, its just too convient to live in an apartment,

Sure, its got some real advantages,
particularly if you move around much.

plus I could never afford a house in the area
where I live and I love my neighborhood.

Thats a pretty dubious claim unless it isnt possible to buy
an individual apartment rather than a block of them etc.

All my utilities except cable TV and phone are included in my
rent and I am lucky enough to live in a rent controlled building.

Not relevant to the general question when most dont.

There is no way I could live in such a nice place if I had to own my unit.

Sure, there are certainly a few situations where stupid
politicians have essentially bought votes that way.

Keith wrote:
...Comparing mortgage payments to rent is meaningless in the absence
of complete information on the mortgage, the house, and the
opportunity costs. After all, if you paid cash for the house, your
mortgage payments would be zero - therefore, it would be stupid to pay
more than that for rent, correct?

No! You forgot your own "oppotunity" costs. Money is *never* free.

Uhhh, that's the reason for the

Sorreee! ;-)

Keith wrote:
You said it - the rent includes those costs (in other words, you're still
paying for them), plus a profit for the landlord

Well, maybe, depending on the rental market at any particular time.
Not sure what "profit" for the landlord means. Positive cash flow?

Of course not! I don't have a "positive cash flow" on my stocks either.
Look at the long term. If landlords didn't make money there wouldn't be
any landlords.

Ok, I'll ask again - if it's not related to cash flow, what does "make
money" mean for a landlord?

"Steve" wrote in message
...
Keith wrote:
You said it - the rent includes those costs (in other words, you're
still
paying for them), plus a profit for the landlord

Well, maybe, depending on the rental market at any particular time.
Not sure what "profit" for the landlord means. Positive cash flow?

Of course not! I don't have a "positive cash flow" on my stocks either.
Look at the long term. If landlords didn't make money there wouldn't be
any landlords.

Ok, I'll ask again - if it's not related to cash flow, what does "make
money" mean for a landlord?

If the mortgage is getting paid, and maintenance is taken care of, that is
income since it is paying for itself and generally increasing in value at
the same time.

I showed in another post how a person with a very undesirable interest rate
could make a 15% return on his initial down payment, and after that mortgage
is paid off, the return is even greater. On top of that, the amount that
was going to mortgage is cash flow.

Cash flow is desirable for landlords, but not absolutely necessary for a
long term investment.

"jetgraphics" wrote in message
...
Lou wrote:

I hate to say it, but it's not women in particular. [who use lotsa TP]

But you have to recognize that the ladies use TP for #1 & #2, while
gentlemen only use it for #2. And the frequency of #1 exceeds #2.

Male only dwellings tend to use little TP, and often choose rolls of nice
old tough Scottissue that last 2 - 3 months. When ladies are present, then
fluffy/soft/fragile rolls get consumed about 2 per week/per female.

Well, I get the large rolls of Charmin, since I end up using way too much of
that 80 grit 1 ply John Wayne TP. All that stuff seems to do is smear stuff
around.

D. Gerasimatos wrote:

In article HmYIc.81351$Oq2.39538@attbi_s52,
SoCalMike wrote:

id have to invest $840,000 at a *guaranteed* 10% rate of return to make
enough money off the interest to pay a $700/mo rent payment.

and if i had $840,000... i sure as hell wouldnt be living in a $700/mo
apartment. id own at least one house.



You might want to check those numbers again.

doh! damn decimal point. ok- $84k to invest, just to pay the "rent".


Dimitri

Timm Simpkins wrote:

"v" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:10:57 -0400, someone wrote:


... Around here,
mortgage payments are often less than rents.


But the mortgage payment is just the start. The rent includes
maintenance, lawn care, reserves for replacement of appliances, HVAC
apparatus, etc. As an owner all that is in addition to the mortgage.
And can occur unexpectedly which is hard for those of limited means.


How do you think the landlord does it? It doesn't come out of his pocket.
They save a percentage of the rent from each unit/home to account for those
things. A homeowner could do the same thing, but the biggest reason that
people don't buy homes isn't because of much financial thought, it's because
they have screwed up their credit, and can't seem to save money.

i only had to put down $6k, and co-workers were amazed (well, not
really- they know how i am) that i was able to come up with it.

those are the same people that go on dinner dates every week in their
new SUVs, and are maxed out on credit cards.

its just a matter of priorities, and *thinking*. whats more important at
the moment? a home, or a pimpin ride?

ironically (or not) , ive got everything figured out and budgeted so
that i COULD go out and make payments on a new SUV, if i wanted. and
still have a home to live in.

but right now, im researching entry-level road bikes, since my 6 year
old mtn bike isnt really cutting it, speed wise. mebbe ill save that for
a seperate thread...


There aint nuthin' cheaper than renting, that's why poor people don't
buy houses.


poor people are generally poor because they don't know how to spend what
they have wisely, and save what's left. If they could, they would probably
not be poor, and be able to buy a house.

Really? The preponderance of opinion I've read _here_ over the last few
years is that you're better off making as high a down payment as possible
and paying off the mortgage as soon as possible.

it all depends on what strategy you want to take. you dont want to leave
yourself strapped, and you still need an emergency fund.

whats the purpose of putting all your money down, and having nothing
left to buy appliances or cover emergencies like car breakdowns? i left
myself a big cushion and put down as little as possible. not "frugal",
just "prudent".

i can afford to make extra premium payments, and maybe ill do that. or
maybe ill put the money into my 401k? i know i dont want to be here the
rest of my life, so why tie up more money? as long as im not taking out
a home equity line and living it up, im doing ok.

OTOH, if $100k fell from the sky, it would be nice to pay the place off
and live rent free while saving up for another place. or drop to part
time and go back to school full time.

True, but condos tend to have lousy resale value and any decent condo
community is going to have a high monthly association fee. At least
that's my experience when I spent a few months shopping for a condo and
realized the deal I have renting is better.

condo values in california lag the housing market, but not by much.

a lot of older "empty nesters" are cashing out on their homes and
buying maintenance free (relatively) condos.

a lot of new families cant come up with the $300k+ for a house, so they
go condo too.

my monthly assn fee is a relative bargain... covers everything outside
the door and insurance on the structure. you pay it too, but its built
in to your rent.

In article ,
Keith wrote:

Of course not! I don't have a "positive cash flow" on my stocks either.
Look at the long term. If landlords didn't make money there wouldn't be
any landlords. Add to that the tax breaks given to owner-occupied
dwellings and it's rather obvious that you're better off renting to
yourself than renting from someone who doesn't care a crap about your
financial well-being.


There was a time when people bought stocks because of the positive cash
flow (dividends). I guess that was before Tulip Mania, er Dot Bombs.


Dimitri

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:30:57 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
wrote:

"jetgraphics" wrote in message
...
Male only dwellings tend to use little TP, and often choose rolls of nice
old tough Scottissue that last 2 - 3 months. When ladies are present, then
fluffy/soft/fragile rolls get consumed about 2 per week/per female.

Well, I get the large rolls of Charmin, since I end up using way too much of
that 80 grit 1 ply John Wayne TP. All that stuff seems to do is smear stuff
around.

The supercheap TP doesn't do more than smear "stuff" around, correct,
but Scott TP and its generic equivalent (which I buy at BJ's), Exeter,
are almost as good as Charmin at wiping up the stuff, but don't clog
the toilets.

Keith wrote:

Poor credit isn't necessarily going to cut it.

You never know until you apply. I know of folks who were turned down from
commercial lenders and scored USDA mortgages. I know folks who had NO
credit history, having NEVER borrowed, and scored USDA mortgages.

No credit bad credit. I had no credit when I bought my first home. No
problem. Now it's no problem getting any credit I want.

Yeah - as long as they can get a piece of the action.

It's a bureaucracy, folks, fill out the forms and get in line...

Yeah, free money for the deadbeats? I don't think so!

They interview to determine if the cause of the bad credit has been
eradicated. Obviously, bad things happen to good people, sometimes. Don't
presume the worst about everyone.

Do you think it's good to kick someone when he's down?
Or is it better to help him to stand on his feet?

wrote:

For those who want to try out a portable battery powered bidet:
http://www.thefactoryoutlet.com/bidets/bidet2a.asp

Do these things above really work well?

YUP.
The pump can put out a nice spray, almost stinging when the batteries are
new.
And for those who aren't sure one load of warm water will do, take an extra
water bottle to refill the reservoir.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:31:23 -0500, wrote:

Ive been following this thread with interest

And I think a point needs to be made that hasn't been
made yet. But if it has please excuse me.

That point is this:

Don buy TOO much house. Buy the amount of house you
need.

Seems like here in the US people are buying mini
mansions for only two people to live in. And getting
in massive debt for it

Good advice? Bad advice?
Good adviswe to apoint. Better might be

1. Buy what you can afford

2. Buy enough for your needs. That is if youre young and married, and
want four kids, buy a house that will grow with the kids. Yes you can
buy a one and a half beenroom home, but if you plan to stay in the
area and can afford the house thats big enoug NOW, get it.

Mark wrote:
To follow up more on #2 - if you can afford it now, get it now. Simply
because, if you know you'll want/need something bigger down the road, you may
not be able to afford it then. House prices go up - and fast. They may slow
down for a period, but they always go up.

No, they don't always go up. Sometimes they go down. Or people just
won't sell until they can break even, just like in the stock market.

SoCalMike wrote in message news:V95Jc.75316$IQ4.69694@attbi_s02...
True, but condos tend to have lousy resale value and any decent condo
community is going to have a high monthly association fee. At least
that's my experience when I spent a few months shopping for a condo and
realized the deal I have renting is better.

condo values in california lag the housing market, but not by much.

In the Boston area, condo values are appreciating faster than single
families, due to the reasons you state below, plus the fact that
there's few areas left to build new housing.

a lot of older "empty nesters" are cashing out on their homes and
buying maintenance free (relatively) condos.

a lot of new families cant come up with the $300k+ for a house, so they
go condo too.

my monthly assn fee is a relative bargain... covers everything outside
the door and insurance on the structure. you pay it too, but its built
in to your rent.