On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:24:54 +1000, someone wrote:

When you rent, your landlord still has to pay property taxes,
mortgage, maintenance, deal with less than 100% occupancy
and/or deadbeat tenants, and make a profit besides.

Not necessarily on that last....

Sometimes, NEITHER is really the point. Some people don't mind paying
for the landlord's overhead & profit as a management fee to have
everything taken care of for them.

When I travel, I stay in a hotel. When you travel, maybe you pitch a
tent and camp. I do NOT stay in the hotel because I think it is
cheaper.

OP on this thread doesn't want to buy. His decision can be rational
EVEN IF IT IS LESS PROFITABLE", if he doesn't want the
responsibilities of ownership.
-v.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:25:01 GMT, someone wrote:

perpetually leasing a car means car payments forever, and thats not frugal.

But not everyone is trying to be frugal!

Personally, I have been BUYING my cars for the last 20 years or so.
However, I buy new cars. I seldom keep one for more than 100k miles
or 4-5 years. That's not "frugal" nor do I mean it to be.

If somebody wants to have a new car every three or four years, what's
wrong with them choosing to do so? And if YOU want to save money by
not having one, that's fine too, but don't go acting all holy and
superior about it. Unless you do charitable works with the money you
save, you are still spending it on yourself so what's to be holy
about.

-v.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:48:29 +0000 (UTC), someone wrote:

In outlying suburbs of Atlanta, GA, new homes (3 Br, 2 Ba, W/2 car
garage) start at $95,000 - $105,000.

Dimitri

Before everybody starts flaming - Dim, I agree with you that the
person talking about the $95k houses is talking about new. I think
the person who is attacking thinks you are talking about the person
who posted about the $35k houses (not new).

One Q is, what are the sizes and amenities in those $95k homes? A
starter 3-BR could be 1200 s.f. With all low end features, and built
buy non-union labor in a low wage area, a house could indeed be built
for less than that. And of course you know that the big difference is
the land value.

I would like to know what a building lot goes for in each of the areas
mentioned!

-v.

v wrote in message
...

When you rent, your landlord still has to pay property taxes,
mortgage, maintenance, deal with less than 100% occupancy
and/or deadbeat tenants, and make a profit besides.

Not necessarily on that last....

Sometimes, NEITHER is really the point.

Sure, but this other stuff you're bringing up now has nothing much
to do with the original question, reasons for buying a house.

Some people don't mind paying for the landlord's
overhead & profit as a management fee to have
everything taken care of for them.

Sure, renting has some advantages, and some downsides too.

When I travel, I stay in a hotel. When you
travel, maybe you pitch a tent and camp.

I do both, actually. Depends on the circumstances.

I do NOT stay in the hotel because I think it is cheaper.

Sure, few do.

OP on this thread doesn't want to buy.

Dunno, its less clear if he was essentially
asking if there was some flaw in his logic.

His decision can be rational EVEN IF IT IS LESS PROFITABLE",
if he doesn't want the responsibilities of ownership.

Sure, but there are real economic downsides with not buying too.

And other real downsides too, particularly on being able to do
what you like with the property, make any changes you like etc.

And real advantages with renting, particularly if you need to
or choose to move around quite a bit. Lot easier when renting.

v wrote in message
...

And you mentioned how few appliances are essential,
so its OK for the homeowner to live without a 'fridge
for a few months if they can't afford one

Just one of the few that is close to essential.

- but can you imagine if Mr. Landlord said to
a tenant, sorry I can't replace you fridge for a
few month, I'm kinda strapped right now....

Academic when fridges dont fail that often and a cheap standin
is always possible if you dont have the cash for a new one.

For people who are handy or have the means to pay
for the greater luxury of owned housing, ownership is
fine. But they should not act so holier than thou about it.

Just rubbing your nose in the financial basics.

Ha ha ha Rod. I have owned investment property since 1978.

Irrelevant to whether you can manage the financial basics.

You clearly got it wrong with that particular question being
discussed there, that possibility of an essential appliance failing.

I have likely both made and lost more
money in real estate than you ever have.

Unlikely, and likely I have been doing it
since before you were even born, too.

I have testified as an expert witness on numerous
property value disputes involving real estate parcels
of $1m to $100m +. Also MBA and Attorney.

Is this where we're all supposed to swoon is it ?

reams of your puerile attempts at insults any 3 year
old could leave for dead flushed where they belong

I was JUST commenting on that 'But they should not act
so holier than thou about it' comment, you posturing prat.

v wrote in message
...

perpetually leasing a car means car
payments forever, and thats not frugal.

But not everyone is trying to be frugal!

Pity the OP posted to a frugal group.

Do TRY to keep up.

Personally, I have been BUYING my cars for the
last 20 years or so. However, I buy new cars. I
seldom keep one for more than 100k miles or 4-5
years. That's not "frugal" nor do I mean it to be.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

If somebody wants to have a new car every three or
four years, what's wrong with them choosing to do so?

Nothing. It just aint very frugal, stupid.

And if YOU want to save money by not having one, that's
fine too, but don't go acting all holy and superior about it.

Pity the OP posted to a frugal group.

Do TRY to keep up.

Unless you do charitable works with the money
you save, you are still spending it on yourself

Not necessarily. He could die with it unspent.

so what's to be holy about.

You're the one with pathetic little fantasys about 'holy'

v wrote:

One Q is, what are the sizes and amenities in those $95k homes?

Generally, 3 bed, 2 ba, (master suite, with large tub in master bath, twin
sinks), builder grade kitchen cabs, LR, Dining. Some designs have "bonus
room" (leftover unfinished space). Wood trim around all windows, doors.
Popcorn finish on ceiling.
Options might include fireplace, variations in lighting and trim. Driveway
paved (concrete or asphalt). Lot size varies from 1/2 acre to as small as
1/4 acre. Two car garage with sprinkler system and remote openers.
HVAC usually forced air, ducted. Gas fired furnaces in areas where natural
gas is available.

A
starter 3-BR could be 1200 s.f.

1400 s.f. - Homes usually have no basement, nor attic, so storage is an
issue, sometimes.

With all low end features,

Such as?
One builder used single hung windows, instead of double hung. Is that "low
end"?

and built
buy non-union labor in a low wage area, a house could indeed be built
for less than that. And of course you know that the big difference is
the land value.

I would like to know what a building lot goes for in each of the areas
mentioned!

Undeveloped suburban acreage runs from $5k to $25k/acre. Developers carve it
up and sell lots for $7.5 k and up.

v wrote in message
...

In outlying suburbs of Atlanta, GA, new homes (3 Br, 2 Ba, W/2 car
garage) start at $95,000 - $105,000.

Dimitri

Before everybody starts flaming - Dim, I agree with you that
the person talking about the $95k houses is talking about new.
I think the person who is attacking

You wouldnt know what an attack was if attacked your lard arse, fool.

thinks you are talking about the person
who posted about the $35k houses (not new).

One Q is, what are the sizes and amenities in those $95k homes? A
starter 3-BR could be 1200 s.f. With all low end features, and built
buy non-union labor in a low wage area, a house could indeed be built
for less than that. And of course you know that the big difference is
the land value.

I would like to know what a building lot goes for in each of the areas
mentioned!

ameijers wrote:
I daresay that even in the low-cost south, they are likely entry-level
modulars, not 'real' houses, with garages tacked on the end.

You dare incorrectly.
Modular homes they are not.

These prices are for "real homes". The garages may be alongside or
underneath, depending on lot terrain. Popular design is raised ranch with
split foyer or split level.


Here's an example found on realtor.com in
Dallas, GA
$93,500, 3 br, 2 ba
MLS ID#: 1469475

Single Family Property
Area: 192
Subdivision: JONES MILL
County: PAULDING
Single family style
Detached home
Traditional style
Split-level
Year built: 2001
3 total bedroom(s)
2 total full bath(s)
Breakfast area/room
Separate living room
Bathroom(s) on upper level(s)
Bedroom(s) on upper level(s)
Laundry in basement
Factory built fireplace
Great room fireplace
Wall to wall carpeting
Central air conditioning
Central heat
Electric water heater
Dishwasher
Range and oven
Garage
2 car garage
Partial basement
Aluminum siding
Deck
Wooded Lot
Composition roof
Lot size is between 1/2 and 1 acre
Level lot
Septic sewer system
Public water supply
Estimated annual taxes: $887


"Used homes" can be found for less, in the outlying areas.


The livin' is good in Dixie...

"v" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:25:01 GMT, someone wrote:

perpetually leasing a car means car payments forever, and thats not
frugal.

But not everyone is trying to be frugal!

Personally, I have been BUYING my cars for the last 20 years or so.
However, I buy new cars. I seldom keep one for more than 100k miles
or 4-5 years. That's not "frugal" nor do I mean it to be.

Without the people to eat the depreciation on new cars purely for vanity,
there wouldn't be any used cars for the intelligent people to buy for vanity
and frugality.


If somebody wants to have a new car every three or four years, what's
wrong with them choosing to do so? And if YOU want to save money by
not having one, that's fine too, but don't go acting all holy and
superior about it. Unless you do charitable works with the money you
save, you are still spending it on yourself so what's to be holy
about.

-v.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:44:09 -0400, someone wrote:


....sell lots for $7.5 k and up.

Wow, that sure looks dirt cheap. Hey Dim check that out! What do
they get in your area (if there are any).

-v.

In article , v wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:44:09 -0400, someone wrote:

....sell lots for $7.5 k and up.

Wow, that sure looks dirt cheap. Hey Dim check that out! What do
they get in your area (if there are any).


You can buy lots in the California desert for that price. Anyway, what
I am boggling at is how cheap the new houses are. Even if I have the
lot paid for free and clear I could not have a house built for $100K.
To have the lot and profit included in that is incredible. A coworker
just added a bedroom and bathroom to his house (maybe 200 square feet)
and that cost $100K. That was with builder-grade fixtures and didn't even
include finished details like molding on the windows and door frames.


I realize that labor in CA is much more expensive (I guess our illegal
immigrants need more to survive here than their illegal immigrants) but
at some point won't just the lumber for a new house come out to $30-40K?
Add in roofing, foundation, driveway, drywall, septic, and such and maybe you
hit $75K in materials alone. I wish I could have a house built for $90K.
I'd build one right now.


Dimitri

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:49:23 +0000 (UTC), (D.
Gerasimatos) wrote:

You can buy lots in the California desert for that price. Anyway, what
I am boggling at is how cheap the new houses are. Even if I have the
lot paid for free and clear I could not have a house built for $100K.
To have the lot and profit included in that is incredible. A coworker
just added a bedroom and bathroom to his house (maybe 200 square feet)
and that cost $100K. That was with builder-grade fixtures and didn't even
include finished details like molding on the windows and door frames.


There is something missing from this story because $500 a square foot for an
unfinished space is *extremely* high even for California.

In article ,
doubter wrote:

There is something missing from this story because $500 a square foot for an
unfinished space is *extremely* high even for California.


Maybe it's 350 square feet. I don't know exactly. The point is the same.


Dimitri

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:29:53 +0000 (UTC), (D.
Gerasimatos) wrote:

In article ,
doubter wrote:

There is something missing from this story because $500 a square foot for an
unfinished space is *extremely* high even for California.


Maybe it's 350 square feet. I don't know exactly. The point is the same.

Or maybe it was 500 or 700 sq ft? You are changing the story and therefore the
point is not the same. Maybe the existing slab had to be torn up to plumb the
new bathroom. You made my point: we are not getting the complete story so your
numbers don't support any conclusion.

Dimitri, you may have a very valid point but you have yet to make it. Too many
unknowns.

In article ,
doubter wrote:

Or maybe it was 500 or 700 sq ft? You are changing the story and therefore the
point is not the same. Maybe the existing slab had to be torn up to plumb the
new bathroom. You made my point: we are not getting the complete story so your
numbers don't support any conclusion.

Dimitri, you may have a very valid point but you have yet to make it. Too many
unknowns.


No. I think you are confused. What is relevant here is that an *addition*
of 2 rooms to a house in CA costs more than an ENTIRE HOUSE (including land)
in Georgia. The details are not relevant. It could be a 1000 square foot
addition and nothing changes.


Dimitri

doubter wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:49:23 +0000 (UTC), (D.
Gerasimatos) wrote:

You can buy lots in the California desert for that price. Anyway, what
I am boggling at is how cheap the new houses are. Even if I have the
lot paid for free and clear I could not have a house built for $100K.
To have the lot and profit included in that is incredible. A coworker
just added a bedroom and bathroom to his house (maybe 200 square feet)
and that cost $100K. That was with builder-grade fixtures and didn't even
include finished details like molding on the windows and door frames.


There is something missing from this story because $500 a square foot for an
unfinished space is *extremely* high even for California.

Yeah. 200 sq feet is practically the size of a closet, isn't it? I
can't imagine a bedroom *and* a bath being 200 sf. Hmmm.

jen

In article ,
shinypenny wrote:

Yeah. 200 sq feet is practically the size of a closet, isn't it? I
can't imagine a bedroom *and* a bath being 200 sf. Hmmm.


Bathroom is maybe 6x9 and bedroom maybe 15x10.


Dimitri

"shinypenny" wrote in message
om...
doubter wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:49:23 +0000 (UTC), (D.
Gerasimatos) wrote:

You can buy lots in the California desert for that price. Anyway, what
I am boggling at is how cheap the new houses are. Even if I have the
lot paid for free and clear I could not have a house built for $100K.
To have the lot and profit included in that is incredible. A coworker
just added a bedroom and bathroom to his house (maybe 200 square feet)
and that cost $100K. That was with builder-grade fixtures and didn't
even
include finished details like molding on the windows and door frames.


There is something missing from this story because $500 a square foot
for an
unfinished space is *extremely* high even for California.

Yeah. 200 sq feet is practically the size of a closet, isn't it? I
can't imagine a bedroom *and* a bath being 200 sf. Hmmm.

Actually, I've seen homes that could make two bedrooms out of 200 Sq. Ft.
That's a 20x10 space, and you could easily fit a bedroom and a bathroom in
that.

(shinypenny) wrote in message . com...

Yeah. 200 sq feet is practically the size of a closet, isn't it? I
can't imagine a bedroom *and* a bath being 200 sf. Hmmm.

My closet is about 18 square feet. Hmmm.

My largest bedroom is about 128 sf and my bathroom is about 50 sf.

Of course, my house was built in 1947, so it's not supersized as
today's houses are.

I'd like more space for bookshelves, but I can't imagine what I'd
do with bigger rooms. (But then, I'm comfortable having my furniture
perpetually in one arrangement. Some people like more flexibility.)

Cindy Hamilton

"Cindy hamilton" wrote in message
om...
(shinypenny) wrote in message
. com...

Yeah. 200 sq feet is practically the size of a closet, isn't it? I
can't imagine a bedroom *and* a bath being 200 sf. Hmmm.

My closet is about 18 square feet. Hmmm.

My largest bedroom is about 128 sf and my bathroom is about 50 sf.

Of course, my house was built in 1947, so it's not supersized as
today's houses are.

What are you talking about? It seems that todays houses seem to try to fit
more rooms in a smaller space. It's rare to find a bedroom larger than
about 120 square feet except master bedrooms.


I'd like more space for bookshelves, but I can't imagine what I'd
do with bigger rooms. (But then, I'm comfortable having my furniture
perpetually in one arrangement. Some people like more flexibility.)

Cindy Hamilton

In article ,
Timm Simpkins wrote:

What are you talking about? It seems that todays houses seem to try to fit
more rooms in a smaller space. It's rare to find a bedroom larger than
about 120 square feet except master bedrooms.


No. Today's houses have larger rooms and fewer of them. Witness the advent
of the 'great room' and the 'open kitchen'. Victorians loved to have a
million little rooms. I have two bedrooms in my house (1920s) that would
probably be one room today. The house originally had three rooms (pantry,
service porch, and kitchen) where today there is only the kitchen.
(Previous owners joined the three little 8x6 rooms into one contiguous
kitchen). What was the last modern house you were in that had a parlor/
sitting room, library, and music room? Today's houses have 'family rooms'
or 'media rooms' but generally just one of them three times the size of the
rooms in older houses. You don't even want to know how small (and few in
number) the bathrooms were then as compared to now. The same is true of
closets. Many modern houses have walk-in closets the size of the bedrooms
in my house.


Dimitri

(D. Gerasimatos) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Timm Simpkins wrote:

What are you talking about? It seems that todays houses seem to try to fit
more rooms in a smaller space. It's rare to find a bedroom larger than
about 120 square feet except master bedrooms.


No. Today's houses have larger rooms and fewer of them. Witness the advent
of the 'great room' and the 'open kitchen'. Victorians loved to have a
million little rooms. I have two bedrooms in my house (1920s) that would
probably be one room today. The house originally had three rooms (pantry,
service porch, and kitchen) where today there is only the kitchen.
(Previous owners joined the three little 8x6 rooms into one contiguous
kitchen). What was the last modern house you were in that had a parlor/
sitting room, library, and music room? Today's houses have 'family rooms'
or 'media rooms' but generally just one of them three times the size of the
rooms in older houses. You don't even want to know how small (and few in
number) the bathrooms were then as compared to now. The same is true of
closets. Many modern houses have walk-in closets the size of the bedrooms
in my house.


Dimitri

Exactly! When I see an ad for a 2400-sf, three-bedroom house (constrasted
with my 1200-sf, three-bedroom house), I figure it probably has somewhat larger
rooms overall plus a family room (which mine doesn't have). If the rooms
weren't larger, that'd be a 1200-sf family room, and I can't quite picture
that.

Cindy Hamilton

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:41:26 +0000 (UTC), someone wrote:

...What is relevant here is that an *addition*
of 2 rooms to a house in CA costs more than an ENTIRE HOUSE (including land)
in Georgia.

The "addition" part is very relevant. Especially if its a built up
urban or tight suburban area where there is trouble acessing the work
area, and/or existing landscaping to be careful of and/or replace.
Additions often involve tearing out/open and then re-doing/replacing
existing features. It is also axiomatic that (all else being equal)
the smaller the s.f. the higher the $/s.f.

Building the same cookie cutters in an open field where nothing
impedes the various phases will be much cheaper. But yes the
difference is still striking.

-v.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:25:31 +0000 (UTC), someone wrote:

Dim, so what does a lot go for IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD (and not in the
lowest priced remote areas of your state) or is the conmparison not
relevant because there are no "empty" lots (in which case the price of
the poorest condition existing house to be torn down, might be the
closest fit).

-v.

In article , v wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:25:31 +0000 (UTC), someone wrote:

Dim, so what does a lot go for IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD (and not in the
lowest priced remote areas of your state) or is the conmparison not
relevant because there are no "empty" lots (in which case the price of
the poorest condition existing house to be torn down, might be the
closest fit).


There aren't really any empty lots. There are a few and occasionally one
gets developed. I have no idea what those sell for when they do sell. They
tend to be much larger than average lots and why they were never developed is
beyond me. Someone probably bought them for speculative purposes years ago
and held onto them, maybe thinking they would ultimately build a dream
home on them. (They are surprisingly more common in the tonier areas where
houses sell for millions.) I would say that one of these sells every
year or every couple of years and there are probably only a dozen left.
A mansion is usually built on them, but sometimes they are split into
2-3-4 smaller lots with mini-mansions on them (i.e. one $3.5 million house
or four $1.2 million houses depending on if the person wants an estate or
wants to make some money).


I do know that a house was torn-down on my street within the last 3 years.
The house that was torn-down was 800 square feet on a 7500 square foot
lot. The price was $285,000 or so. A 5 bedroom, 3 bath house was built
there and it just went on the market today with an asking price of $889,000.
I would guess that the same tear-down property on the market *now* (as opposed
to 2002) would sell for over $400,000 given appreciation since then. I
don't even live on a particularly expensive street. Properties tend to sell
for above the SoCal median, but not *too* much above. The same property in
a truly desirable location (e.g. the beach) would sell for much more,
maybe even 3x as much.


Dimitri

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Timm Simpkins wrote:

What are you talking about? It seems that todays houses seem to try to
fit
more rooms in a smaller space. It's rare to find a bedroom larger than
about 120 square feet except master bedrooms.


No. Today's houses have larger rooms and fewer of them. Witness the advent
of the 'great room' and the 'open kitchen'. Victorians loved to have a
million little rooms. I have two bedrooms in my house (1920s) that would
probably be one room today. The house originally had three rooms (pantry,
service porch, and kitchen) where today there is only the kitchen.
(Previous owners joined the three little 8x6 rooms into one contiguous
kitchen). What was the last modern house you were in that had a parlor/
sitting room, library, and music room? Today's houses have 'family rooms'
or 'media rooms' but generally just one of them three times the size of
the
rooms in older houses. You don't even want to know how small (and few in
number) the bathrooms were then as compared to now. The same is true of
closets. Many modern houses have walk-in closets the size of the bedrooms
in my house.

Well, I just know that when I was growing up, the older the house, the
larger the rooms. That has seemed to stay fairly constant for me. On the
other hand, larger houses tend to have larger rooms since it's rare that one
needs a 3000 square foot house for their 2.5 children. The same amount of
rooms, plus additional stuff is normal.

The house I live in now I designed, so the bedrooms are 13'x14' except the
master bedroom. That's still small to me, so the house I'm building will
have even bigger rooms, but I'm moving from a 2800 sq. foot house to a 4200
sq. foot house. That leaves much more space for bedrooms.

Where I live it's common for there to be a living room and a family room,
but if you have a small house you're only going to have a living room that
serves both purposes, kind of like most apartments.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:35:27 -0400ate, Don K witnessed to the world:
^"JazzMan" wrote in message ...
^ So, as good an investment a house looks like on paper, here
^ in the real world it cannot work for many people because the
^ entry price is just too high.
^
^Well to buy a house you do need to save up enough of
^a down-payment that will enable you to finance the rest
^from your income. Maybe that means living with your parents
^for 10 more years before out moving into your own. Or maybe
^it means sharing a place with roommates while you build up
^some cash or getting additional training to get a better job.
^
^As always, you will find that people with more cash and more
^income have more options.
^
^Don
^
^
^
I've lived in my current house for 18 yrs and all sortsa lil things are
going wrong. I'm ready to unload it and get a doublewide. Yeah, I know
they don't increase in value, but they beat living in a crummy
apartment.
--
Squirrel Girl

Squirreling it away for a rainy day!
Ain't it fun being cheap?

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:58:27 GMT, someone wrote:

... I'm ready to unload it and get a doublewide. Yeah, I know
they don't increase in value, but they beat living in a crummy
apartment.
--
Squirrel Girl

I just *had* to see who called herself "Squirrel Girl".


-v.

(not squirelling anything - burn it NOW)

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:58:27 GMT, someone wrote:

I've lived in my current house for 18 yrs and all sortsa lil things are
going wrong. I'm ready to unload it.....
--
Squirrel Girl

That's what I'm talking about. Home ownership is not for everyone.
Even if you claim they are "just" stupid and dumb, doesn't change the
FACT that some people are better off NOT being responsible for the
upkeep of a home, NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON.

-v.

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 21:36:58 GMTate, v witnessed to the world:
^On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:58:27 GMT, someone wrote:
^
^... I'm ready to unload it and get a doublewide. Yeah, I know
^they don't increase in value, but they beat living in a crummy
^apartment.
^--
^Squirrel Girl
^
^I just *had* to see who called herself "Squirrel Girl".
^
^
^-v.
^
^(not squirelling anything - burn it NOW)
^
Wanna pic? Not that impressive (I'm freshly 51) but if ya send me an
email at wickeddreamsATlovergirlDOTcom I'll forward ya one.

Also call myself Squirrel Girl cause I love the critters! Have raised 6
of 'em. Amazing, clean, clever, amusing animals!!

Have ya seen the squirrel pic making the rounds called "Hellooooooo
Ladies!"? I'll send ya that too if you like. One of my male squirrels
made HIM look (ahem) underendowed! Filbert (his name) useta scoop up his
'nads in both front paws and clean'em. What a hoot!! I love critters...
no false modesty there!!!

So now you know the REST of the story (apologies to Paul Harvey).

--
Squirrel Girl

Squirreling it away for a rainy day!
Ain't it fun being cheap?

v wrote:

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:58:27 GMT, someone wrote:


I've lived in my current house for 18 yrs and all sortsa lil things are
going wrong. I'm ready to unload it.....
--
Squirrel Girl


That's what I'm talking about. Home ownership is not for everyone.
Even if you claim they are "just" stupid and dumb, doesn't change the
FACT that some people are better off NOT being responsible for the
upkeep of a home, NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON.

hey- ill agree with that. id also admit that the best thing *some*
people can do is perpetually lease cars, since they cant be bothered to
do anything but put gas in em.

-v.

SoCalMike wrote:



v wrote:

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:58:27 GMT, someone wrote:


I've lived in my current house for 18 yrs and all sortsa lil things
are going wrong. I'm ready to unload it.....
--
Squirrel Girl


That's what I'm talking about. Home ownership is not for everyone.
Even if you claim they are "just" stupid and dumb, doesn't change the
FACT that some people are better off NOT being responsible for the
upkeep of a home, NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON.


hey- ill agree with that. id also admit that the best thing *some*
people can do is perpetually lease cars, since they cant be bothered to
do anything but put gas in em.


-v.
frugal use of apostaphes (sp)??? LOL Given the recent thread of that
topic, I couldn't resist

"George" wrote in message ...
"victor" wrote in message
news
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.

Here's my reason to buy a home: You need a place to live. If you own
it, or eventually will own it after paying it off, you can control it.

I've always suspected that it might be cheaper and simpler in the long
run to rent. But if you rent, somebody else controls your home, not
you. If they want to kick you out and move their friends in, or sell
the place, or tear it down, the landlord can do that at any time. If
you own the place, you're in control. With a few possible exceptions,
it's yours, so you can do what you like with the place, let your kids
inherit it, etc.

Many things do make sense to me to rent. For example, I've rented cars
occasionally. But you need to have a home all the time, so you might
as well own it, IMHO.

(snip)

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.

Well, you pay for it through your rent, but it's not free. But one
thing I do miss from my renting days is that when something went wrong
is that I could call the landlord and it was his problem, not mine.

BTW, one reason I'm not a landlord myself is that I wouldn't want
people calling me up and asking me to fix things.

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 agree that the idea of owning a home because you need a place to
live in gets ignored. To me, that's the obvious and best reason to own
a home.

"George" wrote in message ...
"victor" wrote in message
news
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.

(snip)

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!

Maybe so, but if you own, you'll have something valuable to include in
your estate for your family, friends, a charity, etc. Leaving an
estate is very important to some people.

(snip)

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.

I agree there are risks. But there are risks involved in renting too,
like the rent rising, as compared to paying the same monthly payment
on a fixed-interest mortgage for 30 years. After some years go by,
that monthly payment can look pretty low. Another risk is that a
landlord can decide to kick you out, go condo with the place, sell it,
tear it down, etc. and you'll have no say in that matter.

(snip)

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.

OK by me. Don't buy unless you want to.

One thing I've notice: Buying that first home is really hard, but then
the second and later homes are much easier. As a homeowner, you're
kinda already in the game and have a home that's probably appreciated,
making it easier to afford the new place. Selling that provides a
springboard into the next home, IME. Kinda like having an old car to
trade in when you buy a new car, except a home probably has maintained
or appreciated in value.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:48:47 -0700, N wrote:

"George" wrote in message ...
"victor" wrote in message
news
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.

Here's my reason to buy a home: You need a place to live. If you own
it, or eventually will own it after paying it off, you can control it.

You "control" it as soon as you sign the settlement papers. The bank
doesn't control what you don't allow them to control. (and the political
entity controls far more, whether or not you have a mortgage)

I've always suspected that it might be cheaper and simpler in the long
run to rent.

You would suspect wrongly. What is the incentive of a landlord to rent,
if he isn't going to make money off you? Also note that *you* have tax
advantages by owning that any landlord would give his eye-teeth for.
Renting is silly, from a long-term financial standpoint. Just as leasing
a car is silly for most.

But if you rent, somebody else controls your home, not you.

I thought you just said that you don't control it until you pay it off?
(obviously not true).

If they want to kick you out and move their friends in, or sell the
place, or tear it down, the landlord can do that at any time. If you own
the place, you're in control. With a few possible exceptions, it's
yours, so you can do what you like with the place, let your kids inherit
it, etc.

Many things do make sense to me to rent. For example, I've rented cars
occasionally. But you need to have a home all the time, so you might as
well own it, IMHO.

Renting must be considered a short-term proposal. It's hard to imagine a
(long term) situation where renting is better than owning. Yes, I
rent cars for a few days at a time (business and when I'm going to put
more miles on the car than I'm willing to put on my *own*).

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.

Well, you pay for it through your rent, but it's not free. But one thing
I do miss from my renting days is that when something went wrong is that
I could call the landlord and it was his problem, not mine.

If you an get ahold of him. If he's willing to fix it. I had a ceiling
leak and sheetrock missing in an appartment for more than a year. I've
also had very responsive landlords. None as responsive as I, when it
needs to be done *NOW*.

BTW, one reason I'm not a landlord myself is that I wouldn't want people
calling me up and asking me to fix things.

Bingo! You don't suppose that they like it either? They must be getting
paid for the grief, no?

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 agree that the idea of owning a home because you need a place to live
in gets ignored. To me, that's the obvious and best reason to own a home.

It's also an excellent investment. ...given that one must live somewhere.

--
Keith

Keith wrote:
Renting must be considered a short-term proposal.

I remember reading an article in Britain where they
did the calculation. The break even point between
renting and owning was 4 years.

Owning has large costs during the actual purchase
process (eg you are paying all sorts of fees to people)
and it has larger potential costing events
(eg expensive structural or appliance repairs).
There are also some costs with selling.

Renting has one cost upfront (the refundable deposit)
and a predictable monthly cost. To a certain extent
it is comparable to insurance since you pay the fixed
rent so that you don't have to pay the larger random
events.

I don't know what the breakeven point is in the US.
I suspect that it is state dependent, and even tax
dependent (eg when property taxes are tied to purchase
price with an annual rise limit less than the rate
of increase of house prices).

Anyway 4 years is probably also a reasonable break
even point in the US. Therefore the guideline would
be to rent if you intend to stay in a house for
less than 4 years, and buy if you intend to stay
for more than 4. YMMV.

Roger

Roger Binns wrote in
message news
Keith wrote:

Renting must be considered a short-term proposal.

I remember reading an article in Britain where
they did the calculation. The break even point
between renting and owning was 4 years.

There can never be a nice tidy break even point.

Most obviously when the prices boom just after you have bought.

Owning has large costs during the actual purchase
process (eg you are paying all sorts of fees to people)

Some do, some dont.

and it has larger potential costing events
(eg expensive structural or appliance repairs).

And that can never be something that can even be averaged,
say between a new house when that stuff is mostly covered
by warrantys and an older dump when it cant.

There are also some costs with selling.

Depends entirely on how you do the selling.

Renting has one cost upfront (the refundable
deposit) and a predictable monthly cost.

Not necessarily. The rent can be increased.

To a certain extent it is comparable to insurance
since you pay the fixed rent so that you don't
have to pay the larger random events.

Bull****, most obviously with rent increases.

I don't know what the breakeven point is in the US.

There is no such animal and there cant be.

I suspect that it is state dependent,

Its MUCH more dependant on the type of property.

Most obviously when you buy and the prices boom.

and even tax dependent (eg when property taxes
are tied to purchase price with an annual rise limit
less than the rate of increase of house prices).

Thats a pretty small part of the price changes over time.

Anyway 4 years is probably also a
reasonable break even point in the US.

Nope, most obviously where the prices are booming.

Therefore the guideline would be to rent if you
intend to stay in a house for less than 4 years,
and buy if you intend to stay for more than 4.

Only if you're into mindlessly superficial numbers plucked out of your arse.

YMMV.

RWAV

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 18:50:51 +1000, someone wrote:

To a certain extent it is comparable to insurance
since you pay the fixed rent so that you don't
have to pay the larger random events.

Bull****, most obviously with rent increases.

For the period of the annual lease, your rent is fixed, and all
repairs are included in it, it is indeed as if it was "averaged" for
that period. Now next year maybe there will be a rent increase, but
again it will be averaged for that next period. In no case does the
tenant have to unexpectedly pay a sudden expense of several thousand
dollars for mainenance of the building or its appliances.



I don't know what the breakeven point is in the US.

There is no such animal and there cant be.

There can certainly be an "average" or "typical" point, if you define
the basic conditions you are figuring for. Just because its not the
same for everyone doesn't mean there is no such concept. If you
continue to claim that absolutely no such calculations can be made,
then you are in effect conceding that in some instances it CAN be
cheaper to rent, since you won't be able to calc otherwise either!

Go ahead and rant and call names again if you want, but why is it that
you get so cranked up about it, what's it to you if someone would
rather rent????

-v.

On 2 Aug 2004 10:58:16 -0700, someone wrote:

... a home probably has maintained
or appreciated in value.

And so will the prices of all the replacement homes.

Your pesonal housing is a COST. If it were really an "investment"
then you could make more by investing more, i.e. save money by buying
an even bigger more expensive house. Now, if you want to buy some
additional houses, and can rent them out for more than it costs to
acquire and operate them, then THOSE are your real estate
"investments". But the one you live in is an EXPENSE to you.

At best, there is some investment component that offsets SOME of the
expense. And people who discount the expense by saying they "would
have" rented anyway so that portion doesn't count, are 'double
counting', to be consistent, if they rented, then they should discount
that and pretend they have free rent, since they "would have" still
paid rent.

I have owned income and investment property since I was 23 years old,
and presently develope land "on the side" (I own other active
businesses), and I know the diference between which is income and
which is spending.

-v.