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
Goldenwest
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2157

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:11 am    Post subject:

Right now, with these ridiculous prices buying is for suckers. All indications are these prices are unsustainable. However, some people may have to buy now for family reasons, etc....

Still if one doesn't have to buy now they shouldn't, unless their insanely wealthy and it doesn't matter
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 8:25 am    Post subject:

Goldenwest wrote:
Right now, with these ridiculous prices buying is for suckers. All indications are these prices are unsustainable. However, some people may have to buy now for family reasons, etc....

Still if one doesn't have to buy now they shouldn't, unless their insanely wealthy and it doesn't matter


Over the long term, the RE market always goes up. I would not recommend trying to time the market. Buy if and only what you can afford. But that should always be the case, regardless of market conditions.

I wonder if there is any 20 period in history where the value at 20-30 years after initial purchase is lower than the original purchase price.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Goldenwest
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2157

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:45 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Goldenwest wrote:
Right now, with these ridiculous prices buying is for suckers. All indications are these prices are unsustainable. However, some people may have to buy now for family reasons, etc....

Still if one doesn't have to buy now they shouldn't, unless their insanely wealthy and it doesn't matter


Over the long term, the RE market always goes up. I would not recommend trying to time the market. Buy if and only what you can afford. But that should always be the case, regardless of market conditions.

I wonder if there is any 20 period in history where the value at 20-30 years after initial purchase is lower than the original purchase price.


Sure over the long term house values go up. But we've seen skyrocketing prices in the last 5 years. In many areas prices have doubled at least. That increase has totally blown up the normal long term price valuation trend. The problem is wages have not increased at the same rate - not even close. So when house prices come back down to earth during a recession or downturn salary cuts and layoffs will happen too. For people overstretching themselves now, I think those things should be considered. I agree with you, in the end, people need to be comfortable financially when they buy -
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: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:06 am    Post subject:

one thing to factor in as well is that a rental at that price would be no where near as nice as the house you could mortgage. And most people value living in a nicer home in a nicer area as a price well paid.
Even if you dont plan on selling your home to cash in on the appreciation you would likely still come out ahead compared to renting because straight up rent prices for something comparable to what you could own is a good amount more unless you buy at absolute worst market conditions. Yes there's overhead like repairs and such but thoe savings of having a mortgage over renting plus the prospect of living in your home with no Principal and Interest owed after payoff outweigh the extra costs associated with owning.
_________________
tank.
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 11:09 am    Post subject:

Goldenwest wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Goldenwest wrote:
Right now, with these ridiculous prices buying is for suckers. All indications are these prices are unsustainable. However, some people may have to buy now for family reasons, etc....

Still if one doesn't have to buy now they shouldn't, unless their insanely wealthy and it doesn't matter


Over the long term, the RE market always goes up. I would not recommend trying to time the market. Buy if and only what you can afford. But that should always be the case, regardless of market conditions.

I wonder if there is any 20 period in history where the value at 20-30 years after initial purchase is lower than the original purchase price.


Sure over the long term house values go up. But we've seen skyrocketing prices in the last 5 years. In many areas prices have doubled at least. That increase has totally blown up the normal long term price valuation trend. The problem is wages have not increased at the same rate - not even close. So when house prices come back down to earth during a recession or downturn salary cuts and layoffs will happen too. For people overstretching themselves now, I think those things should be considered. I agree with you, in the end, people need to be comfortable financially when they buy -


Home ownership vs renting is a losing proposition in the short term. Same with car buying vs leasing.

Only buy if you are planning to keep the home for the long term. And if you are, then, what happens in a 5 year swing is pretty irrelevant.

I mean, it's not different than any other investment really. I haven't stopped contributing to my retirement account because we're near record highs either. Long term.
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: Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:57 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
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.


I didnít rent it in 1997, it was after the turn of the century. Condos there were going for around $400,000 (3 bedroom) and now are selling for around $450,000. I have been contributing to my retirement account for over 20 years. Prices are pretty static here, many owners in the complex are original owners from the 1980ís when it was built. I do agree other areas are more volatile, my mother in lawís house in Santa Barbara was worth over a million when the market was high and her condo worth $700,000. After the crash they both lost half their value but have rebounded. A 3 bedroom 1,300 square foot tract home worth a million bucks.
_________________
#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: Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:04 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
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.


I didnít rent it in 1997, it was after the turn of the century. Condos there were going for around $400,000 (3 bedroom) and now are selling for around $450,000. I have been contributing to my retirement account for over 20 years.


Ok but you said you would have been better off renting and putting your home money in to 401K.

How long have you been a homeowner? If its 6 months, or some short period of time, then yes, but over a long period of time it would NOT be better to rent and invest than buy and invest.
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: Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:11 pm    Post subject:

When was the crash, 2007? That was when we bought and then thought we had made a big mistake. But prices have rebounded and our condo has gone up about $25,000. My 401k brings in about $5,000 a month for the past year or so.
_________________
#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: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:10 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
When was the crash, 2007? That was when we bought and then thought we had made a big mistake. But prices have rebounded and our condo has gone up about $25,000. My 401k brings in about $5,000 a month for the past year or so.


I guess I'm not seeing this choice between renting/buying and 401K investing. I own a home and max my 401K. Not only is it legal and doable, it is recommended.

So the choice isn't rent and retirement vs buy. It's (rent and retirement) vs (buy and retirement). The latter > former in the long term but not the short.
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: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:58 pm    Post subject:

The choice is putting your money into one vehicle or two. Of course the smart choice is two, but you could make more with one.
_________________
#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: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:50 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
The choice is putting your money into one vehicle or two. Of course the smart choice is two, but you could make more with one.


This sounds like some sort of idiom, but it isn't.

What does "you could make more with one" even mean?

It would not be better to rent and then put what you have left in to retirement, then to buy and put what you have left in to retirement.

By retirement age, he who bought and put what they had left over in retirement will be significantly better off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
unleasHell
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 8390
Location: Stay Thirsty my Friends

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:20 pm    Post subject:

Well, let's see..

I bought my home for $195k and now its worth just under $700k, and I didn't pay any "rent" during the 20 years I've owned it...

Go ahead and call me a sucker...
_________________
BRING ON THE DANCING HORSES...!
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: Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:28 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
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


The prices from 1997 to 2017 aren't relevant here, the suggestion isn't not to have bought in 1997, and you also can't expand it to a universal market analysis (some places have high land taxes for example)

Housing prices are commonly misunderstood, we don't determine them, the lenders do, because for the majority of the market (basically anyone but the mansion class), it's the banks money it's being bought with, so it's about how much they are willing to lend.

Dual income households (not only do you have far more income per household but job loss risk is insulated), reduced children numbers (kids cost money) and flat inflation as far as the eye can see (this one is especially pertinent in the US, due to the high rate of fixed loans, uncommon elsewhere although admittedly i picked up that habit from my years in the US, lol) are probably the 3 largest factors to housing price increases in western nations.

Essentially we went from a market where 2 parents, 1 employed, 2.5 kids was the norm to 2 people, both employed, 1.5 kid is the norm, do a budget for these 2 groups, tabulate the disposable income, work out how much you're willing to lend them, and see how much that correlates with housing prices.... The 90's to today were a systemic adjustment to a changing dynamic, not happening anymore, well unless we go polygamy and no children, a mormon version of japan?

Financially I'm not sure whether buying today is worth it, some places yes, other places probably not so much, am I certain it will be profitable between now and 2037? nope, not at all, but then there are other factors besides the financial equation.
_________________
Entertainment comes before Sport in ESPN
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: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:32 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:


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
Then there's the 20yr of (20% down: $37K) in 401K minus the different between rent increase in 20yrs vs fixed mortgage monthly payment


Overall, buying still wins in the long run
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: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


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
Then there's the 20yr of (20% down: $37K) in 401K minus the different between rent increase in 20yrs vs fixed mortgage monthly payment


Overall, buying still wins in the long run


Wait, where did the bolded come from? I didn't say that part. Haha.
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: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:30 am    Post subject:

Telleris wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
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


The prices from 1997 to 2017 aren't relevant here, the suggestion isn't not to have bought in 1997, and you also can't expand it to a universal market analysis (some places have high land taxes for example)

Housing prices are commonly misunderstood, we don't determine them, the lenders do, because for the majority of the market (basically anyone but the mansion class), it's the banks money it's being bought with, so it's about how much they are willing to lend.

Dual income households (not only do you have far more income per household but job loss risk is insulated), reduced children numbers (kids cost money) and flat inflation as far as the eye can see (this one is especially pertinent in the US, due to the high rate of fixed loans, uncommon elsewhere although admittedly i picked up that habit from my years in the US, lol) are probably the 3 largest factors to housing price increases in western nations.

Essentially we went from a market where 2 parents, 1 employed, 2.5 kids was the norm to 2 people, both employed, 1.5 kid is the norm, do a budget for these 2 groups, tabulate the disposable income, work out how much you're willing to lend them, and see how much that correlates with housing prices.... The 90's to today were a systemic adjustment to a changing dynamic, not happening anymore, well unless we go polygamy and no children, a mormon version of japan?

Financially I'm not sure whether buying today is worth it, some places yes, other places probably not so much, am I certain it will be profitable between now and 2037? nope, not at all, but then there are other factors besides the financial equation.


Even if purchasing a home today isn't profitable 20 years from now, it is a virtual certainty, that it will be more mathematically favorable than where you would be in 20 years having rented the same place.

Exceptions would include if the world were to end before then, for instance.
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: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:57 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
governator wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


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

Then there's the 20yr of (20% down: $37K) in 401K minus the different between rent increase in 20yrs vs fixed mortgage monthly payment

Overall, buying still wins in the long run


Wait, where did the bolded come from? I didn't say that part. Haha.


That was me, wrote it on the wrong site of the quote
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: Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:05 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
governator wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


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

Then there's the 20yr of (20% down: $37K) in 401K minus the different between rent increase in 20yrs vs fixed mortgage monthly payment

Overall, buying still wins in the long run


Wait, where did the bolded come from? I didn't say that part. Haha.


That was me, wrote it on the wrong site of the quote


Ohh, I was scrolling around and scratching my head on that one. Haha.

Not to mention, that a percentage (let's say about 60%) of your mortgage payment goes right back to you in the form of a quasi savings account whereas 100% of your rent is lost.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
chipotleattack
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 1583

PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:41 pm    Post subject:

What about property taxes? It's a pretty big chunk of change every year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Goldenwest
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2157

PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:49 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


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
Then there's the 20yr of (20% down: $37K) in 401K minus the different between rent increase in 20yrs vs fixed mortgage monthly payment


Overall, buying still wins in the long run


Home value of 500k in 2017? In LA County?! What is that a tear down? Maybe i'm looking in the wrong neighborhood
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: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:23 am    Post subject:

Goldenwest wrote:
governator wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


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
Then there's the 20yr of (20% down: $37K) in 401K minus the different between rent increase in 20yrs vs fixed mortgage monthly payment


Overall, buying still wins in the long run


Home value of 500k in 2017? In LA County?! What is that a tear down? Maybe i'm looking in the wrong neighborhood


Current median home price in California.
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: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:26 am    Post subject:

chipotleattack wrote:
What about property taxes? It's a pretty big chunk of change every year.


Property taxes are tax deductible and while that still represents a chunk of change every year, keep in mind the renter is effectively paying the property tax on behalf of the owner. It's just rolled up in to rent and not tax deductible to the renter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeDunk
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 26047

PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:39 am    Post subject:

if you have equity and know what to do with it then its a great thing to own. If you're upside down/ under water then it's better to rent i guess.
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: Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:46 am    Post subject:

KobeDunk wrote:
if you have equity and know what to do with it then its a great thing to own. If you're upside down/ under water then it's better to rent i guess.


I still don't agree with that necessarily. It all depends on how much you're under water. Remember, when you rent, you are significantly underwater.

You'd have to be massively upside down on your house in order to make the underwater that you'll be renting a better option financially speaking.

Of course, then you also can't rent a $1,500 property for $3,500 either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 9852

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:38 pm    Post subject:

Hector the Pup wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
axs wrote:
I'm assuming everyone here that rather own than rent a place would also rather buy a car than lease?


Not an apt comparison. Cars only depreciate. (and before some ass comes along and says that some cars go on to become classic collectibles, that is far from the norm).


And I'm pretty sure that a house doesn't immediately depreciate 20% the moment you move in.


His neighbors' houses do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 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 3 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