Another owner basically lives for FREE....

Owners have tons of gravy, including a multi-million dollar payout when they retire or 30 more years of rent free living. The deduction is almost a moot point, and most owners earn too much anyway. Take the million dollar lottery payout at retirement and be happy.

Renters, they can't afford to buy. They will need to be broke renters until they can amass 6-figures liquid. Most idiots can not manage to do this. Hence, they do not get the jackpot at retirement and 30 years of rent-free living, to boot. Lifelong paycheck to paycheck renters?

Buyer buys $80k townhouse in 1980. Sells it for $6mm when he retires. And no, saying he could have taken that $8k downpayment to the racetrack and put it all on some horse (or investing into a company on the verge of bankruptcy) is not a valid opportunity cost comparison, you blithering imbecile.

What if stupid renter eventually buys in old age? Owners would be living rent-free at that age. Instead, she subjects herself to $60,000 a year in rent. LOL, nice "retirement" sucker. Correct, she is a ginormous fool. This is a case of "too little, too late" She should have bought something back in the 1970s or 1980s, like other people her age. She'd be sitting on millions and be living rent free. A true idiot renter who had made things even worse. At the least, should have moved to a $1500 studio.

Maybe not NYC, but owners have literally recouped 100% of the cost of their apartment in the 10 years of paying below market cost to own than to rent (owning is much cheaper than renting). Even if the apartment was today valued at $0, owners am still ahead. Wrap your mind around that.

2 years ago, I recall seeing $200k studios being posted here. Of course, some of SE crazies told buyers they were CRAZY. Now, there seem to be none of these $200k studios. If the cheapest studios are now listing for $300k, can we infer that the smart investors who bought 2 years ago are now sitting on a 6-figure profit cushion? Pretty damn incredible. Live for $1000/mo, and get paid $100k to do so. A renter doesn't see that sort of money in a lifetime!

Renters LOSE: Bought in 1983 for $1m. Sold in 2012 for $8mil. Owner walks away with a $7m profit. Renter's profit? $0. Yes, those brilliant renters can avoid the increasing cost of electricity and point out the 6 people who bought in 2009 who are underwater. They are so frickin' smart! Just think owners live for free for decades after paying off the mortgage. And get $7 million bucks as a parting gift.

Renters get ZERO percent return. And, renters pay MORE every single month, both during the mortgage and after it's retired.

Average renter net worth $5k
Average owner net worth $250k

Renting is for short-term thinkers. People used to say Manhattan was overpriced in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Guess what? Anyone who paid off their mortgage over 30 years was looking at a jackpot of wealthy when they retired. Renters? Nothing. Just sniveling ants trying to keep their rent control. If you take a long term perspective, buying is ALWAYS a no-brainer jackpot lottery system for your retirement. And, no, being down on your purchase from 2010 does not negate this.

Wow, anyone who bought a studio or 1BR in the 1990s is sitting on about $300,000 of cold hard cash for apartment sitting. Real estate is truly a money tree, if there ever was one. Oh, and you'be be living mortgage free by now as well. For the rest of your life.

NOT BUYING NOW VS. NOT BUYING EVER? BIG difference. Sure, this is a stupid time to buy at inflated prices after prices have gone up x00% in the last x years. Anyone who already bought from 1850 to 2008 has made out like a robber baron. That boat has sailed. Anyone who bought in 2009 or 2010 lost lost money. BUT, anyone who never EVER buys in their entire lifetime is a stupid f*cking renter idiot funding someone else's retirement. It's an important clarification that some here are too dumb to understand.

I am 100% agreement that prices are headed down. If you're not already sitting on a mountain of pre-2008 profit, then don't bother. That ship has sailed. Owners should now just concentrate on paying off the mortgage, and living rent free for the rest of their lives. Renters, well, I guess can just keep paying off their master's mortgage.

So the moral of the story is:
* If you pay $25K for 7 rooms you're smart (assuming, of course, you've diverted the difference to equities and other more sensible investments)
* If you pay any more than that, you're dealboy-dumb and have no money for anything else, least of all investments

Mr. Fontanelli, who is also an artist, lives in a one-bedroom in a 1929 Tudor Deco building on Irving Place in Gramercy. The space is noisy and the kitchen just four by five feet, but the apartment was a deal when Mr. Fontanelli bought it 15 years ago for $138,000.

Mr. Sjogren, who works at Gallery Stock, a photo agency, got an even better deal, a 14th-floor studio on Horatio Street in the Village that he bought 20 years ago for $62,000. At about 450 square feet, the apartment is beyond cozy, but thanks to a spectacular unobstructed view of downtown Manhattan, light floods the space well into the evening.

450sf, dealboy, this seems small time for you.

He's kind of a small deal.

Jesus dealboy. OK already. We got it. Buying is better than renting. Unless you're brooks2 (look for his old posts).

You two should just have a dealboy/brooks2 thread all to yourselves where you endlessly smash each other back and forth with renting vs. buying ad infinitum.

( From Star Trek "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi97fXRkgss )

> anyone who never EVER buys in their entire lifetime is a stupid f*cking renter idiot funding someone else's retirement. It's an important clarification that some here are too dumb to understand.

we will both inherit plenty of real estate free and clear with very low carrying costs when both of our parents die, all +75. so we are renting for a limited time-frame. and plan to retire early as well, in about 13 years, so committing to a 30 year mtg isn't wise.

if prices were set based on a 15 year mtg... that would be another story.

as families become smaller and smaller, our situation will not be unusual at all. we also have only 1 kid, so imagine. he will end up receiving all the real estate from both sides.

so when it comes to net worth, the "problem" many GenX and younger will face is not about accumulating real estate, but more about turning the overall portfolio more liquid (less real estate based).

> we also have only 1 kid,

Why just 1? There are two of you.

dumboy is challenged by the most simple math--to engage him re investment decisions and planning is dumb.