Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

EScroogeJr (< 20)

One thing that always surprised me...



March 26, 2008 – Comments (7) that homeowners are so willing to complain about how miserable they are as compared to renters, and yet are so reluctant to become renters. Come on, people! If taxes, insurance, and worries about HELOC availability are so burdensome for you, what kind of masochistic streak forces you to ask government to keep you in your houses when you can easily join the happy race of tenants and get rid of that burden of property once and for all? Anyone? Alstry and the angry homeowners storming Bear Sterns buildings?

7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 26, 2008 at 5:19 PM, FourthAxis (< 20) wrote:

One of us must be bipolar, because I either love or hate your perspective.  This one is awesome though.  I live in SoCal in a cherrry spot and I rent.  In fact...If my rent didn't change...I could rent for 100 years before I had enough to buy one of the houses around my apartment.  ;D  Fool on.

Report this comment
#2) On March 26, 2008 at 5:23 PM, VTEngineer2001 (< 20) wrote:

I agree. Careless people wanting the biggest house on the block. And they blame the lenders as if they led them astray. If the lenders told them it was safe to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge without a parachute would they do it? I say careless b/c it takes an awful careless person to buy a house and not run the numbers!

Report this comment
#3) On March 26, 2008 at 6:08 PM, EScroogeJr (< 20) wrote:

FourthAxis, my post was really a thinly veiled jibe against the folks who want to have a welfare state in reverve, where homeownership would function as the eligibility criterion for getting public assistance.

Report this comment
#4) On March 26, 2008 at 6:43 PM, redearth329 (99.70) wrote:

God, am I the only one who thinks I can't afford to rent anymore. I live in the NYC area, and I would love to have a mortgage (instead of rent) for the obvious tax benefits. Unfortunately, even the crappiest house around here costs 200,000 dollars. And I'm talking crappy. Once the (decent) houses get down around $150,000, which is what they're worth, I'm buying two, though! And I'm renting one out to those sucker renters.

Report this comment
#5) On March 26, 2008 at 7:16 PM, EScroogeJr (< 20) wrote:

"Unfortunately, even the crappiest house around here costs 200,000 dollars."

You're lucky. In my part of NYC, $200,000 will buy you a 2-bedroom coop in a really ugly slum or a 1-bedroom coop on the border of a slum, and to add insult to injury, you probably won't even be allowed to sublet it. So much for sucker renters.

Report this comment
#6) On March 26, 2008 at 8:01 PM, redearth329 (99.70) wrote:

That's true. To be honest, I'm talking about the Hudson county (New Jersey) area, where the median house price is $400,000. I'm talking about really, really crappy houses.

Report this comment
#7) On March 27, 2008 at 4:37 PM, ByrneShill (81.85) wrote:

LOL, In my neck of the wood, 200k will buy you a nice cottage in the suburb or a nice 3bed-2bath in the city.

Crappy slum 1-bedroom can't even be bought, only rented.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners