Default User BR wrote:
crowd79 wrote:I've been pondering about buying a house for a few years now. I live in a very low-cost living area with low home prices, and been looking at possibly getting a 100k house outside town in a few years. As it turns out, continuing to rent my side of the duplex (shared with landlord-lives on other side) at $390 per month here in the city w/ water, sewer included plus shared internet is cheaper than home buying over 30 years, if I invest the difference into retirement as opposed to an average home appreciation of 3% in my area. Also, would not claim mortgage deduction with just a 4% interest mortgage payment, for example....
Are you comparing identical properties? If you're looking at buying single-family houses versus 1/2 of a duplex, that isn't apples-to-apples.
True. But I would add, does taking out a mortgage not impact your retirement savings? Insisting on rental parity makes sense only if the additional dollars spent over renting don't impact your ability to save for retirement, consume your emergency fund, etc. I guess I'll call this the 'savings parity' argument.
I think a lot of the should I buy or rent questions on this board and on other boards have an unspoken assumption behind them. The person asking the question suspects they won't be able to save as much and want to be told that their house appreciation will more than make up for a lack of savings over 30 years. For those who can save enough for retirement and get a home this isn't an issue.