Back to Patrick.net crack. Patrick himself has an article up now complaining about HUD. I agree with him on how badly HUD presents things ("Home," "Dear Future Homeowner," and such) but there are two things that he ignores here that are kind of critical: long term ownership and the local nature of housing.
In California, Nevada, and several other places the cost difference to buy vs. rent is not really worth it. For me, on the other hand, my house would cost about the same to rent as my current mortgage + taxes + insurance today. This means that I am better off buying even if housing and rent stay flat.
But even this ignores what is often the reason that buying is more expensive in the short term: a mortgage is like rent control that, at the end, leaves you owning the dwelling. It is a hedge against inflation. A guarantee that in 15 years, when I am hopefully making more money, I get to save/invest/spend a larger fraction because my mortgage hasn't changed. In 15-30 years (whenever it is paid off) I get very cheap housing--taxes and insurance only--and that when I retire my likely lower income will be plenty because I WON'T HAVE TO PAY RENT AT ALL!
The house hopping behavior of the past couple decades is not what house ownership is really about. It was a modern invention that only existed because people had ridiculous notions about how fast a house would/should appreciate.
Buying a house is expensive. Moving into a new house 5 years down the road should mean taking a net loss. It won't everywhere, and there will always be some people able to profit with house buying and selling, but for people who are buying a house to live in the investment is one that in the past has really only worked long term for the vast majority of house owners.
No comments:
Post a Comment