Is buying a Home and living in it for SUCKERS???
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 27876

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:55 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
governator wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
My 401k has far out valued my home appreciation in the last 20 years.


including 20 yrs worth of rent $?


I would have been better off renting and putting my home purchase money in my retirement account. And I live in a desirable area.


But would you be able to afford rent in that desirable area?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rwongega
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 19812
Location: UCLA -> NY

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:23 pm    Post subject:

I inherited my current house. I'm paying up the wazoo in property taxes but it's still better than paying rent for a dinky little apartment or having to share with roommates considering I have the worst luck with roommates who aren't female (suddenly discovers schizophrenia roommate, kimchi smelling roommate who suddenly bursts out singing K-Pop at weird hours of the night, roommate who lets fat ass Mexican friend that snores like an elephant and smells like a taco truck's refuse sleep on my bed while I'm away, and those are just in the first 3 years of college) .
_________________
http://media.giphy.com/media/zNyBPu5hEFpu/giphy.gif
http://bartsblackboard.com/files/2009/11/The-Simpsons-05x18-Burns-Heir.jpg

RIP Jonathan Tang
RIP Alex Gruenberg

Free KBCB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Vancouver Fan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 14406

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:41 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
I would personally rather see my money go to something I own, that appreciates than to simply toss it to a landlord and have nothing to show for it in the long run.

If owning a home is being a "sucker", then I have "suckered" my way into some considerable money over the years by doubling my money on my first home and seeing my equity in my current home continually grow great in the time I have owned it.
Absolutely.
_________________
Music is my medicine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
audioaxes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 9160

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:33 pm    Post subject:

xxsicrokerxx wrote:
With this guy's logic you should never have a girlfriend or get married. That way you'll never be tied down. Never have to spend money on expensive dinners. Never need to buy her gifts. That way you'll save the money and invest in whatever you want.

but if you use the money you have to buy investment property instead of your primary residence you still have to turn around and rent something which would likely not be worth while.
Lets say you qualify for a house where your mortgage is 3k/month. But instead you get an investment property and rent something for 3k/month.... that investment has to be pulling in some major bank to be worth the hassle or renting and hassle of being an out of state landlord (you would have to go out of state to find a killer investment like that).
_________________
tank.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39661
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:56 pm    Post subject:

I didn't watch the video because it was pretty clear from the context that the guy was a blowhard. It sounds like he was saying that there is a scenario where you could purchase an income property and rent your living space and make money?

Sure. That is a possible scenario in some specific circumstances. But as the norm, putting money towards an actual holding that you own and will benefit from in the long run asked mum more sense.

Not to mention that living in a house you own means you get to call the shots. You are not beholding to a landlord's whims and rules.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Magic Ball
Rookie
Rookie


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:18 pm    Post subject:

Agree with DaManRules. I've bought my own home and am pleased with how the situation turned out.

The loudmouth in the video's "theory" may sound reasonable in his own mind, but how many times has it actually happened in the real world?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18920

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:45 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
governator wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
My 401k has far out valued my home appreciation in the last 20 years.


including 20 yrs worth of rent $?


I would have been better off renting and putting my home purchase money in my retirement account. And I live in a desirable area.


I don't even get how that is mathematically possible. Wouldn't you have been better off buying AND putting your home purchase money in your retirement account?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 6858

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:50 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
governator wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
My 401k has far out valued my home appreciation in the last 20 years.


including 20 yrs worth of rent $?


I would have been better off renting and putting my home purchase money in my retirement account. And I live in a desirable area.


I don't even get how that is mathematically possible. Wouldn't you have been better off buying AND putting your home purchase money in your retirement account?


Assuming 30yr fixed mortgage rate around 5%, to have monthly rent covers monthly mortgage + property tax, prob need to put down 20%. So basically is that initial 20% with 30yrs of 401k growth better that the value of the home 30yrs later (not counting increasing rent rate compared to fixed mortgage rate)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 120968
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:47 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
governator wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
My 401k has far out valued my home appreciation in the last 20 years.


including 20 yrs worth of rent $?


I would have been better off renting and putting my home purchase money in my retirement account. And I live in a desirable area.


But would you be able to afford rent in that desirable area?


Yes, before we bought we rented for over 10 years with no rent increase. We would still be paying the same.
_________________
#lakerclownshow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LAkers 4 Life
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 13854

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:22 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
governator wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
My 401k has far out valued my home appreciation in the last 20 years.


including 20 yrs worth of rent $?


I would have been better off renting and putting my home purchase money in my retirement account. And I live in a desirable area.


But would you be able to afford rent in that desirable area?


Yes, before we bought we rented for over 10 years with no rent increase. We would still be paying the same.


From an apartment complex?!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 27876

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:15 pm    Post subject:

LAkers 4 Life wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
governator wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
My 401k has far out valued my home appreciation in the last 20 years.


including 20 yrs worth of rent $?


I would have been better off renting and putting my home purchase money in my retirement account. And I live in a desirable area.


But would you be able to afford rent in that desirable area?


Yes, before we bought we rented for over 10 years with no rent increase. We would still be paying the same.


From an apartment complex?!


Yeah, that's hard to believe. In every apartment I ever rented, my rent went up within 2 years of living there. Finally we just purchased a house because it was cheaper. Still is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18920

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:04 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
governator wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
My 401k has far out valued my home appreciation in the last 20 years.


including 20 yrs worth of rent $?


I would have been better off renting and putting my home purchase money in my retirement account. And I live in a desirable area.


I don't even get how that is mathematically possible. Wouldn't you have been better off buying AND putting your home purchase money in your retirement account?


Assuming 30yr fixed mortgage rate around 5%, to have monthly rent covers monthly mortgage + property tax, prob need to put down 20%. So basically is that initial 20% with 30yrs of 401k growth better that the value of the home 30yrs later (not counting increasing rent rate compared to fixed mortgage rate)


Still doesn't add up for me.

In 1997, the average CA home was about $186K. 20% down on that is $37.2K. 20 years of compounding interest 6% makes that about $120K. Now lets say you pay rent at a very low $1,000/mo for 20 years. That's $240K in rent spent. So the $120K profit minus $240K is -$120K.

If you buy, then your $186K home is worth $500K today, and your mortgage of $148.8 is cut like in half over 20 years so lets say $75K left to pay.

That gives you a net of $500K - $75K = $425K. And that assumes a rent payment of $1,000/mo for 20 years.

Whats wrong in my equation? Am I missing something?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jonnybravo
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 23083

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:26 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
governator wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
governator wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
My 401k has far out valued my home appreciation in the last 20 years.


including 20 yrs worth of rent $?


I would have been better off renting and putting my home purchase money in my retirement account. And I live in a desirable area.


I don't even get how that is mathematically possible. Wouldn't you have been better off buying AND putting your home purchase money in your retirement account?


Assuming 30yr fixed mortgage rate around 5%, to have monthly rent covers monthly mortgage + property tax, prob need to put down 20%. So basically is that initial 20% with 30yrs of 401k growth better that the value of the home 30yrs later (not counting increasing rent rate compared to fixed mortgage rate)


Still doesn't add up for me.

In 1997, the average CA home was about $186K. 20% down on that is $37.2K. 20 years of compounding interest 6% makes that about $120K. Now lets say you pay rent at a very low $1,000/mo for 20 years. That's $240K in rent spent. So the $120K profit minus $240K is -$120K.

If you buy, then your $186K home is worth $500K today, and your mortgage of $148.8 is cut like in half over 20 years so lets say $75K left to pay.

That gives you a net of $500K - $75K = $425K. And that assumes a rent payment of $1,000/mo for 20 years.

Whats wrong in my equation? Am I missing something?


Pretty much this. The numbers wouldn't add up in any area of California at all. Just silly contrarian non-sense. That rent wouldn't be remotely close to $1000 in the latter half of homeownership and compounds the delta even further.
_________________
All Aboard the Paul George 2018 Train. CHOO CHOO!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 79097
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:34 am    Post subject:

Yeah, the big mistake is always comparing the mortgage, which (unless you're stupid) is a fixed amount, with rent, which will escalate over the years.
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Telleris
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2300

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:48 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
governator wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
governator wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
My 401k has far out valued my home appreciation in the last 20 years.


including 20 yrs worth of rent $?


I would have been better off renting and putting my home purchase money in my retirement account. And I live in a desirable area.


I don't even get how that is mathematically possible. Wouldn't you have been better off buying AND putting your home purchase money in your retirement account?


Assuming 30yr fixed mortgage rate around 5%, to have monthly rent covers monthly mortgage + property tax, prob need to put down 20%. So basically is that initial 20% with 30yrs of 401k growth better that the value of the home 30yrs later (not counting increasing rent rate compared to fixed mortgage rate)


Still doesn't add up for me.

In 1997, the average CA home was about $186K. 20% down on that is $37.2K. 20 years of compounding interest 6% makes that about $120K. Now lets say you pay rent at a very low $1,000/mo for 20 years. That's $240K in rent spent. So the $120K profit minus $240K is -$120K.

If you buy, then your $186K home is worth $500K today, and your mortgage of $148.8 is cut like in half over 20 years so lets say $75K left to pay.

That gives you a net of $500K - $75K = $425K. And that assumes a rent payment of $1,000/mo for 20 years.

Whats wrong in my equation? Am I missing something?


You're expecting that growth rate to continue? the factors predicating that can't really get that much better.
_________________
Entertainment comes before Sport in ESPN
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39661
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:09 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
governator wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
My 401k has far out valued my home appreciation in the last 20 years.


including 20 yrs worth of rent $?


I would have been better off renting and putting my home purchase money in my retirement account. And I live in a desirable area.


But would you be able to afford rent in that desirable area?


Yes, before we bought we rented for over 10 years with no rent increase. We would still be paying the same.


Unless you were renting from a relative or close friend who was helping you out rather than an actual landlord, there's no way this is true. Anyone who owns rental property is doing it as a business investment and thus will periodically raise the rent to some degree over the course of time. Even in areas with rent control regulations, the landlord would be raising rents in accordance with those limits. They would do to offset increase in expenses they would incur and to keep on track with the market.

No landlord, save for the exception I first noted, would ever not increase the rent over 10 years, much less in perpetuity.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18920

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:30 am    Post subject:

What growth rate? The home price?

I think the key factor people aren't considering is that at worst, your principal can essentially be withdrawn via sale of the home whereas your rent cannot.

Let's say you have two scenarios where you're paying to live in a $500K home that never appreciates.

Rent: Let's just assume rent for this $500K home stays fixed at $1,200/month over a 30 year period or averages out there. That is $432K in total rent payments made, with nothing to show for it at end of 30 years, so you are $432K in the hole.

Buy: $100K down, total cost of $400K mortgage with interest would be around $625K. After 30 years you'd have spent $725K but have a property worth $500K which means you are $225K in the hole.

This assumes ZERO appreciation over a 30 year period and an average rent payment of $1,200 for a home that was $500K 30 years ago.

Maybe something is wrong with my math, but over a long period of time, owning is always better financially, than renting/leasing, and how much better it is only increases with more time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GonzagaAlum
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Posts: 2798

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:04 am    Post subject:

Owning is always better especially if you have a backlog or create a backlog financially to ride out property bubbles here and there. So like letís say the housing crash hits again then yes for a short time it might be better to rent but long term itís still better to buy the 401k example was a good one. Thatís basically a house yes the 401k can take a dive for the stock market but then it eventually rallys. Personally to protect my home investment I try and prepay 6 months mortgage at all times. Not to mention the fact that after 2 years you donít pay gains so I could move and take more out of my 4 year old house than I have paid into it, and do so tax free.
_________________
How can I get a copy of a Laker game played on Sunday, March 11, 2001 Sonics/Lakers? If you know PM me please

I would be willing to pay you for it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 120968
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:17 am    Post subject:

LAkers 4 Life wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
governator wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
My 401k has far out valued my home appreciation in the last 20 years.


including 20 yrs worth of rent $?


I would have been better off renting and putting my home purchase money in my retirement account. And I live in a desirable area.


But would you be able to afford rent in that desirable area?


Yes, before we bought we rented for over 10 years with no rent increase. We would still be paying the same.


From an apartment complex?!


No, single owner condo. They were happy to get that rent check every month
_________________
#lakerclownshow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18920

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:31 am    Post subject:

Still don't see how the math adds up. If you had bought the place you rented in 1997, it would be worth 2.5x the purchase price.

The sum of rent payments would be worth $0 right now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LAkers 4 Life
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 13854

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:40 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
LAkers 4 Life wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
governator wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
My 401k has far out valued my home appreciation in the last 20 years.


including 20 yrs worth of rent $?


I would have been better off renting and putting my home purchase money in my retirement account. And I live in a desirable area.


But would you be able to afford rent in that desirable area?


Yes, before we bought we rented for over 10 years with no rent increase. We would still be paying the same.


From an apartment complex?!


No, single owner condo. They were happy to get that rent check every month


Well that makes more sense, but even then those are unique situations. Not all owner-occupied condos would have static rents.

I guess the other thing one must consider long term is the person's life situation. When children are factored in the equation, families usually want to move up into a bigger place to accommodate everyone compared to an empty-nester or a couple buying a starter home.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LAkers 4 Life
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 13854

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:49 am    Post subject:

rwongega wrote:
I inherited my current house. I'm paying up the wazoo in property taxes but it's still better than paying rent for a dinky little apartment or having to share with roommates considering I have the worst luck with roommates who aren't female (suddenly discovers schizophrenia roommate, kimchi smelling roommate who suddenly bursts out singing K-Pop at weird hours of the night, roommate who lets fat ass Mexican friend that snores like an elephant and smells like a taco truck's refuse sleep on my bed while I'm away, and those are just in the first 3 years of college) .


Was it a parent-to-child transfer so that you don't pay the property taxes on the reassessment?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rwongega
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 19812
Location: UCLA -> NY

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:07 pm    Post subject:

LAkers 4 Life wrote:
rwongega wrote:
I inherited my current house. I'm paying up the wazoo in property taxes but it's still better than paying rent for a dinky little apartment or having to share with roommates considering I have the worst luck with roommates who aren't female (suddenly discovers schizophrenia roommate, kimchi smelling roommate who suddenly bursts out singing K-Pop at weird hours of the night, roommate who lets fat ass Mexican friend that snores like an elephant and smells like a taco truck's refuse sleep on my bed while I'm away, and those are just in the first 3 years of college) .


Was it a parent-to-child transfer so that you don't pay the property taxes on the reassessment?


Yes, but it's still quite high. If they had reassessed, it'd be untenable for me to hold onto my childhood home.
_________________
http://media.giphy.com/media/zNyBPu5hEFpu/giphy.gif
http://bartsblackboard.com/files/2009/11/The-Simpsons-05x18-Burns-Heir.jpg

RIP Jonathan Tang
RIP Alex Gruenberg

Free KBCB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Telleris
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2300

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:54 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
What growth rate? The home price?

I think the key factor people aren't considering is that at worst, your principal can essentially be withdrawn via sale of the home whereas your rent cannot.

Let's say you have two scenarios where you're paying to live in a $500K home that never appreciates.

Rent: Let's just assume rent for this $500K home stays fixed at $1,200/month over a 30 year period or averages out there. That is $432K in total rent payments made, with nothing to show for it at end of 30 years, so you are $432K in the hole.

Buy: $100K down, total cost of $400K mortgage with interest would be around $625K. After 30 years you'd have spent $725K but have a property worth $500K which means you are $225K in the hole.

This assumes ZERO appreciation over a 30 year period and an average rent payment of $1,200 for a home that was $500K 30 years ago.

Maybe something is wrong with my math, but over a long period of time, owning is always better financially, than renting/leasing, and how much better it is only increases with more time.


I average about $5000 a year in overheads on my rental properties (i pay it, not the tenants), fair bit more than that on my home, those overheads don't exist if you're renting.

SoCal probably still has some heat in the market to gain, but much of the country, and really most of the world, not so much. So it really depends where you are, i got a bunch a cpl decades ago from an inheritance from my grandparents, back when property was dirt cheap, now I've moved back to Australia and they're all stupidly overvalued imo (we're talking 500k values on stuff i bought for 60k).
_________________
Entertainment comes before Sport in ESPN
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18920

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:36 am    Post subject:

Telleris wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
What growth rate? The home price?

I think the key factor people aren't considering is that at worst, your principal can essentially be withdrawn via sale of the home whereas your rent cannot.

Let's say you have two scenarios where you're paying to live in a $500K home that never appreciates.

Rent: Let's just assume rent for this $500K home stays fixed at $1,200/month over a 30 year period or averages out there. That is $432K in total rent payments made, with nothing to show for it at end of 30 years, so you are $432K in the hole.

Buy: $100K down, total cost of $400K mortgage with interest would be around $625K. After 30 years you'd have spent $725K but have a property worth $500K which means you are $225K in the hole.

This assumes ZERO appreciation over a 30 year period and an average rent payment of $1,200 for a home that was $500K 30 years ago.

Maybe something is wrong with my math, but over a long period of time, owning is always better financially, than renting/leasing, and how much better it is only increases with more time.


I average about $5000 a year in overheads on my rental properties (i pay it, not the tenants), fair bit more than that on my home, those overheads don't exist if you're renting.

SoCal probably still has some heat in the market to gain, but much of the country, and really most of the world, not so much. So it really depends where you are, i got a bunch a cpl decades ago from an inheritance from my grandparents, back when property was dirt cheap, now I've moved back to Australia and they're all stupidly overvalued imo (we're talking 500k values on stuff i bought for 60k).


Right but 60% of a mortgage payment is coming back to you with interest (on appreciation of the home). With rent, 0% of your rent payment is coming back to you.

Using VLFs example of being better of renting for 20 years than owning, which I wholeheartedly disagree with in any market in the US under typical conditions, let's break it down.

Average cost of CA home in 2017: $500K
Average cost of CA home in 1997: $186K

If the approx rent for a $500K home is $2,500, we can use the same multiplier and assume rent in 1997 for same home was $930/mo. Averaging it out, it's $1,715 per month.

Total cost of mortgage on $186K home assuming 20% down ($37K) is roughly $233K. Let's add in 1% cost of home for repairs/maintenance which would be $3,430 per year over 20 years. That's $69K. So total cost of the home, and I'm not including mortgage interest deduction incentive, is:

20% down: $37K
Total Cost of Mortgage: $233K ($149K principal + $84K interest payments)
Maintenance: $69K

Total Cost of Homeownership: $339K
Home Value in 2017: $500K
Balance: +$161,000 in your pocket (even more with MI deduction factored in)

Total Cost of Renting: $1,715 * 360 = $412K
Home Value in 2017: $0
Balance: -$412,000
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB