Rent or Buy a house (assuming you can afford both)?

Post Reply New Topic

20 years ago, I bought a 4-bedroom ranch-style home in West Anaheim for 183,000 USD.  At last appraisal, it was worth over 850,000 USD.  That is much more than a mere 1 to 2 percent per year..

As the saying for real-estate goes~ "Location, Location Location". The area can play a huge part & sometimes the land value increase much faster than the house value.

Playing the stock market is a bit of a skill & gamble. The stock market in general can increase a lot but you can still lose money if you invested in the wrong things. My parents had a bit of money invested into mutual funds at their banks to be available for after dad retired when they needed it or could really use it. My dad retired a year & a half ago after Covid got bad partly cuz his work was getting slow, he was self-employed but usually worked for a contractor & dad didn't want to look for work. He's a little concerned because the mutual funds went down some during the last few years when not even accounting for inflation. My parents don't need the money unless something happens but my parents are frugal people due to growing up poor & being very poor when they 1st got married even thou they worked their way up to lower-middle class. I remember the recession that started when the millennium hit because the big banks were mishandling investments like mutual funds so they could try & make more profit for themselves at their customers expense. I would trust buying real-estate & buying savings bonds a lot more than I would trust investing in the stock market unless I had aLOT of money I could afford to lose. Buying real-estate is much less of a risk considering how rapidly hew-mon population is increasing despite all the Covid deaths & savings bonds are guaranteed fixed interest that is kinda insured/protected by the federal government.

I was just quoting the 100 year average on housing appreciation but i bet you could of done a lot better if you rented and put the rest in stock market.Not to mention all the expenses and liabilities and taxes and stuff.I would only buy a regular suburban or urban personal residence in Texas if I had the parsonage exemtion to make it tax free.And also it can take 3 years to get your money if you need it from your house but you could have the next day if you had it in the stock market.Schiller said that real estate has only appreciated about 1 to 2 percent over the past 50 years whereas the American stock market has been running 7 to 10 percent over the past century.

Last edited by Texasmoneyman300 on 03 May 2022, 3:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

welll you actually lose money on bonds because of inflation.I would not say the stock market is a game of actual skill if you just in a index fund.You only lose money with a index fund if you sell low.Like stock market crashes are the best time to load up on stock so you can get richer.However it is nice to have a asset that you can pass to your kids or family or your favorite charity or whatever.It also gives something to borrow against in case you need to like if you wanted to put it up as collateral for an investment.I guess part of it is the property taxes here for me.So I am trying to find a way to live in a tax free real estate situation by being a preacher.Because in Texas and America you can have I think you can have a nice house tax free if you are in the clergy as long as the congregation owns it.But I may rent instead because I think I could could write off against my rent off my income tax.

Definitely buy - at least that's the common consensus here.
Decades later, in a different life situation, you end up with some real estate that, apart from its market value, has its inherent value as a home.

Most of a housing increase is just keeping up with inflation or maybe even losing money in real terms.

AFAIK, dollar has not lost 75% of its value since 2002.
Housing increase in America has been way faster than overall inflation for several decades now.
That's one of causes for current American homelessness crisis, btw.

I know in America you will most likely have more money with renting and putting the rest in stock market vs the American dream of buying a McMansion.However most renters are not disciplines enough to do that.I heard in America the American dream was a scheme by the bank and corporations to make money and have a captive workforce.I am more of a commune guy.I have never truly wanted to buy my own house in the suburbs.I have always wanted to live on a ranch commune in the country.

I was speaking over a a of 100 years.Sure you are going to get roaring prices in some of that.But I only consider a house a financial move if I am renting it out and being a landlord.I am saving up for some real estate now to buy possibly so I can be a landlord.The schiller index says buying a house is not a good way to get rich in real terms for most people in America.

As long as there's no serious disruption, maybe.
If there is a disruption, you end up with what you physically have, your social network and your skills.
Stock shares don't have inherent value. A house does.

I'm not a suburb person either, I'm an urban co-op dweller.

But you won't live 100 years after your investment. You can't even be sure if your country exists 100 years from now, not to mention stock market.

Well I would rather have a .30-06 deer rifle and and some land out in the boonies if it came to that.Stocks do have inherant value because they are are slices of a corpation that can pay you cash money.And some stocks pay more and do better in criss situations.Your right......I will be dead in 100 years but I will still have control over my millions in the stock market due to my dynasty trust so my money will still be handled how I want for many years after my death per American law.The stock market will be around for as long as there is a earth.Warren Buffet said never bet against America so I am not going to bet against the health of America.The house would be uninhabitable in 100 years and losing money and the stocks would be worth hundreds of millions if not billions in a 100 years.I own stocks like Walmart and Chevron which do better when times are critical in the economy so I just make more money in bad times.And bad times are the best time to invest in shares.

Last edited by Texasmoneyman300 on 03 May 2022, 4:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Some land in the boonies would not be a bad investment, indeed.
Stocks have values only as long as the corporation system woks. When a corporation falls, all its slices become worthless.
Your dynasty plans are, sorry to tell it to you, mere fantasies. Families are a complicated matter one can't control, only contribute.

Well here in America and Texas families are controlled by their patriarchs and matriarches for long after they are gone in some cases.

Last edited by Texasmoneyman300 on 03 May 2022, 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Are you aware of the fact that there were no USA 250 years ago?
Good luck with your plans for millenia!

Fair enough.But I still disagree.Goodit point.However there is a whole industry in America today that keeps families wealthy for generations.It may not be millennial but maybe a few centuries.I am going to need the luck lol.I am saving up for land in the boonies to survive the apocoalypse.Or at least a bunker in Austin.

The first corporation started in maybe the 300s A.D as a corporation or so I have read. so I am confident that corporations will always be around in some way.The stock market has been in existence since the 1600s so I think WW3 is the only way that take it down for a century.