Rent or Own? (A Domicile Poll)

I own my own place, but have rented in the past. (We bought our house in 2007. Prior to that it was all renting, all the time.)

Rent, have only rented

And feel free to weigh in on the relative merits of each. I have friends who are big fixer-uppers and handymen or handywomen, and they love having their own place to work on and endlessly tinker with. That side of home ownership does not appeal to me very much. But maybe it would change if I actually owned a place, I don't know. I've been lucky in having good landlords who aren't jerks and fix things when they need it.

rent, have only rented, thinking about buying in a co-op. only reasons to do that really are stability and if the finances happen to work to our favor.

renter, think owning homes should be illegal

so you just want the man to have a monopoly on our housing?

at the very least imputed rent should be taxed

Renter now, owned in the past. Might own again in the future.

We bought because we knew we were going to be going to be living in one place for a very long time, and wanted the flexibility for making changes that ownership provides. We bought an older (1946)house in a close-in suburb with a walkable neighborhood and no HOA. Plus I just don't like sharing walls with other people. I had to do it growing up in Army housing, I had to do it in the condo we lived in when I was in high school, and I had to do it in all the apartments we rented over the years.

renter, think owning homes should be illegal

― iatee, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:43 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Unless you have the means to own like 10 of them and rent them to people obvs.

tax deduction if an owner

at the very least imputed rent should be taxed

― iatee, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:44 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

I like the cut of your jib

Own. Sometimes I wish I rented. I haven't had any preparation in life on trying to figure out on my own why the goddamn dishwasher or shower or toilet isn't working. When I rented, I could just call the landlord and he'd have a plumber out in a day or so. Not that I haven't called someone in when things were really bad, but they're a lot of fucking scratch. It was nice to have that all figured into the rent somehow.

at the very least imputed rent should be taxed

― iatee, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:44 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is silly. Maybe "imputed car lease fees" should also be taxed for people who own their cars outright.

I like the cut of your jib

It helps that my mother's boyfriend is a professional remodeler/handyman. I've paid for a plumber and an electrician exactly once in six years.

rental income is only taxed net of ownership and maintenance costs, so I don't understand the logic of taxing the entirety of "imputed rent"

own, but i never thought i would. renting never bothered me philosophically and i wanted to avoid the responsibility of fixing things at all costs. but i was able to find the perfect place, it was pretty much ready to go and has a very minimal amount of yard to mow & and walk to shovel. and it turns out you can pay people to repair things when they break.

Rent. I've lucked out with having good-to-great landlords, though.

well it could also be taxed net of maintenance costs

xps

rent. for most of the last 16 years i've rented from friends, which is mostly great. letting agencies are essentially vermin tho.

rental income is only taxed net of ownership and maintenance costs, so I don't understand the logic of taxing the entirety of "imputed rent"

― i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2), Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:03 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

I think yr conflating two different groups of people here

the other option would be to give renters a deduction for the amount they pay in rent

ha it sounds like phil and i own the same house, right down to the year. GET OFF MY LAWN etc

the other option would be to give renters a deduction for the amount they pay in rent

I think Massachusetts does that, or at least did up through 2001?

Rented for several years, then bought a condo when monthly rent for the types of places I wanted to live in crossed the threshold of what I was willing to pay in mortgage. Have put little to no serious money in the place, which is likely to change this year (need to replace the windows and redo the bathroom).

Rent, always have, will for the foreseeable future. Reasons:

-I can't imaging saving enough money for a down payment. It would take 20+ years at our current rate of saving. If I've rented that long, might as well ride out my life in rentals.
-I hate when things break and having to deal with it. I don't like fixing things up, I just want them to work. And if something does break I want to email one person and they'll have someone out to fix it and deal with everything involved.
-Short commute is one of the biggest factors in choosing where I want to live. I don't want to live further away from my job than I am now, and couldn't afford anything around here or closer.
-I really could only afford a condo, but then you've got all the annoying neighbor stuff to deal with, just like renting. It's harder to get out of if they are horrible.

well that would be good for state taxes but at the federal level, renters are still at a tax disadvantage xp

rental income is only taxed net of ownership and maintenance costs, so I don't understand the logic of taxing the entirety of "imputed rent"

― i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2), Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:03 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

I think yr conflating two different groups of people here

the other option would be to give renters a deduction for the amount they pay in rent

― 乒乓, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:09 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If the goal is to level the playing field with ownership and the mortgage interest deduction, it'd have to be a deduction that approximates the amount of the rent that's equivalent to mortgage interest (and I guess property taxes). I don't follow how imputed rent taxation levels the playing field at all. It seems bizarre to treat money you aren't paying in rent as "income" when you are basically spending that same money on ownership costs (assuming you don't own outright, which most people don't). Also if money you're not paying in rent is "income" you could justify taxing pretty much any item you own -- I'm not leasing my computer or my television, I bought them outright, therefore the money I'm not paying to rent them is income?

Plus we are turning our entire backyard into a food garden this year. We're planning on 12 4'x 4' beds. Try that with your fourth floor walkup.

I've only rented, never owned. Not in a financial position to own right now, but I've heard enough stories from people who've regretted that decision that even if my wife and I were better equipped, I'd want to wait until we felt much more comfortable with the idea of settling somewhere.

you've given a very good argument for getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction xp

if you level the playing field w/ those deductions you might as well have none, the only people losing out at that point are homeless people

xp

owned for 7 years, rented for about 7 before that. i hate when things break and having to deal with it only marginally less than when things break and having to deal with getting someone else to deal with it.

and property tax deductions, fwiw xp

I don't follow how imputed rent taxation levels the playing field at all. It seems bizarre to treat money you aren't paying in rent as "income" when you are basically spending that same money on ownership costs

landlords have ownership costs too

If the goal is to level the playing field with ownership and the mortgage interest deduction, it'd have to be a deduction that approximates the amount of the rent that's equivalent to mortgage interest (and I guess property taxes). I don't follow how imputed rent taxation levels the playing field at all. It seems bizarre to treat money you aren't paying in rent as "income" when you are basically spending that same money on ownership costs (assuming you don't own outright, which most people don't). Also if money you're not paying in rent is "income" you could justify taxing pretty much any item you own -- I'm not leasing my computer or my television, I bought them outright, therefore the money I'm not paying to rent them is income?

― i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2), Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:15 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark

putting aside the question of the mortgage interest deduction or even mortgages in general, the issue is that homeowners enjoy the consumption value of their homes tax-free while renters are taxed on the consumption of the places they live in. you can argue that homeowners paid for their properties with after-tax dollars like renters, but homeowners can sell their properties later and would only be taxed on any gain and might even be able to deduct any loss (i'm not sure). renters otoh pay for rent with after-tax dollars and never see those dollars preserved in any kind of basis. arguably you can put renters on an equal level with homeowners by making rent payments deductible.

and don't think the IRS hasn't thought about trying to tax you on imputed income from things you own!

like the key is thinking about a home not as a home but as an investment vehicle that you get to live in. you can easily reify that consumption value by renting the home out to someone else, and getting taxed on the rental income that you receive

Plus we are turning our entire backyard into a food garden this year. We're planning on 12 4'x 4' beds. Try that with your fourth floor walkup.

― ARE YOU HIRING A NANNY OR A SHAMAN (Phil D.), Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:18 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

We are doing something similar! Also in two weeks we should be getting the bees to start a little apiary. Definite advantages of ownership.

and that's probably true of your computer or television, if you charged people to watch your TV or use your computer you'd have to pay taxes on the money you received!

I should charge people to watch my bees.,

We thought about bees, but I don't know if we're ready for that. Plus my wife has been making serious moves toward becoming vegan so I think she's getting away from honey. Would be nice to have our own pollinators, though.

wait, is honey baby bees or something?

it's an animal product, ergo non-vegan

would be pretty baller if it was baby bees tho

So is alcohol, when you get right down to it. All that poor, exploited yeast.

yeast is classified as fungi and isn't an animal

Meant bacon wrapped Yeast

yeast wrapped in baby bees

the other option would be to give renters a deduction for the amount they pay in rent

I think Massachusetts does that, or at least did up through 2001?

still have this, thank god

Plus we are turning our entire backyard into a food garden this year. We're planning on 12 4'x 4' beds. Try that with your fourth floor walkup.

― ARE YOU HIRING A NANNY OR A SHAMAN (Phil D.), Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:18 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

We are doing something similar! Also in two weeks we should be getting the bees to start a little apiary. Definite advantages of ownership.

― how's life, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:41 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You can't do something like that if you rent a house?

Depends on the LL.

yahbut, when I rented a row house, I had a garden. It is not exclusive to ownership.

I SPECIFIED FOURTH FLOOR WALKUP RTFA

j/k

landlords have ownership costs too

― iatee, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:23 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not following your point. Landlords pay taxes on their income net of ownership costs.

and homeowners should pay taxes on the imputed rent income net of ownership costs

so what the rental value of their property minus mortgage, taxes, maintenance, etc.? Ok, in theory I can see the justification, but you're going to be talking about a lot of effort to calculate and collect a small amount of tax. And in many cases the rental value will actually be less than the ownership costs - do you then give the owner another tax break for his losses?

no you just call him dumb

The other reason tax schemes like that are often avoided is that they tend to penalize people who have assets but no income, e.g. retired person living on social security in his paid-off house.

in the big picture absent strong reasons why the social benefits to 'the ownership society' outweigh the negatives, the govt should do its best to have a completely neutral policy w/r/t own vs rent. imputed rent isn't the biggest issue in the world but it's just one of those things where the cards are still stacked in a certain direction.

people who have assets but no income are better off than people who have no income and no assets ie poor renters, who are indirectly paying for this as the only people not benefitting

to be clear, I have always been in favor of ending the mortgage interest tax deduction, but these are two different issues. The mortgage deduction is an extra bit of favoritism toward owners that is unneeded. Get rid of it and you still have the purported problem you guys are claiming, where owners are getting a tax-free "consumption benefit" that renters are not.

right

people who have assets but no income are better off than people who have no income and no assets ie poor renters, who are indirectly paying for this as the only people not benefitting

― iatee, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:06 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

except that poor renters are in a better position to pay rent that actually suits their income. Obviously you're response is going to be that the retired person should just be forced to sell his paid-off house since he can't afford the imputed income taxes. I just think it's a weirdly sterile and very young-person-oriented view to think we're all better off cast out into the marketplace to get the optimal rental deal and move every couple of years.

we're better off as a society when govt policy doesn't privilege rich people and people with assets yeah

hurting this is easy... just take my position that rental payments should be deductible

typical homeowner =/= rich person

somebody who has something that is worth a lot of money = rich person

I lived at home with my parents for five years after uni(paying rent to them), and then we were very fortunate that Emma's dad gave us the deposit for a house about six years ago. Five years in our flat, then moved to a house last November.

hurting this is easy... just take my position that rental payments should be deductible

― 乒乓, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:12 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If under an imputed income scheme, owners should pay tax on consumption benefit net of ownership costs, why should the other option be that renters can deduct their entire payment?

http://www.imputor.com/images/covers-db/imp001-cover.gif

somebody who has something that is worth a lot of money = rich person

― iatee, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:13 PM (8 minutes ago)

well except assuming they are somewhere in a standard 30 year mortgage cycle they don't actually "have" that thing

they have the equity in their house. that is something that is worth money. just like other things that are worth money, like money.

why are you guys arguing with iatee about property

do you just enjoy the sensation of hitting your head against a wall

that's one of the big reasons for buying a house

hahaha awesome xpost

haha

also then iatee i assume that you think that people who are underwater on their house should be able to fully deduct that amount from their adjusted gross income, which would be awesome economic policy obviously

i rent, but all housing should be collectively owned

sure I'll trade u that for getting rid of the mortgage income tax break

million of people being underwater is not some regular occurrence in the american housing market

well it is going to be for quite some time so

I rent now but I rly want to own someday bcz houses here are cheap and also I want to make it *mine* with hexagon bathroom tiles, pushbutton light switches, skylights, white walls w/ brightly colored trim, etc.

We own (5-time house buyer) but have rented in the past. If we move again I'd like to go back to renting a house.

somebody who has something that is worth a lot of money = rich person

― iatee, Wednesday, 27 March 2013 19:13 (27 minutes ago) Permalink

A person with a paid off $200K house and no income is not necessarily economically better off than a person earning $30K a year with no assets.

I have fantasized before about some kind of renter's equity -- like, some small percentage of the rent you pay could be tax-deducted and put into escrow against an eventual down payment. (Or eventually cashing out, if you never buy any property.) I have benefited tremendously from the advantages of renting, being able to move whenever I want or need to, not worrying about the deterioration of an asset, etc. But there is that whole thing of 20-plus years of monthly payments with nothing at all to show for them.

Mortgage income tax break? That's a yank thing, right?

If under an imputed income scheme, owners should pay tax on consumption benefit net of ownership costs, why should the other option be that renters can deduct their entire payment?

― i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2), Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:15 PM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark

well current income tax policy is pretty explicitly does not tax imputed income. i think an exception si worthwhile for renters, since housing is a basic human right (well at least in america) and there should be no reason to privilege homeowners v. renters at such a basic level. i'm sympathetic to your argument that rental income would be hard to impute and assess in many instances especially where there doesn't exist a historical rental market in that area (i.e. most suburbs), so that's why the inverse works - in places where people rent, the fair market value of the imputed rental income is easilydeterminable, because the imputed rental value has been externalized and put onto the market! and letting renters deduct that would put them on equal footing with home owners.

i shed many tears for your poor homeowning granny forced to pay imputed income taxes on the home that she owns, so wouldn't you also agree that you should also shed many tears for the (vastly more) number of people who rent and don't simply make enough money to buy a house? why should they take a tax hit? which side of the revolution do you want to be on, you capitalist, landlord-sympathizing dog??

you guys are the landlord-sympathizing dogs, you want to penalize ownership and make everyone into renters

A person with a paid off $200K house and no income is not necessarily economically better off than a person earning $30K a year with no assets.

'economically better off' is vague and kinda meaningless without context. the current policy regime helps everyone but renters and in the big picture that makes it regressive. that there exist income-poor old people who own their houses and live off social security doesn't change that big picture. the set of people in america who rent is poorer than the set of people who don't.

you guys are the landlord-sympathizing dogs, you want to penalize ownership and make everyone into renters

― i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2), Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:56 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

technically the us government wants to make everybody into homeowners by penalizing renters, we're not arguing for landlords, we're just arguing for equal footing for renters

you guys are the landlord-sympathizing dogs, you want to penalize ownership and make everyone into renters

― i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2),

ok Mr. Tea Party, let me pay a mortgage (with only a deposit down) that's the same amount as I pay for rent and then you might have a fucking argument.

in fact, the state should just forcibly seize all private property

also google

Hurting 2 - hates poor people AFAICT

that's really the only conclusion you can draw here

ok Mr. Tea Party, let me pay a mortgage (with only a deposit down) that's the same amount as I pay for rent and then you might have a fucking argument.

― Everybody wants a piece of the (Viceroy), Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:01 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is actually quite feasible in many places

iatee, dayo and viceroy -- champions of neo-feudalism

huh last time I checked mortages for condos in my area comparable to apartments I've lived in were like $1000 a pop compared to $500-600 rentals. But you're right I should find some way to save a few grand and move states.

lol not owning a home is a return to feudalism... except for the all the underlying federal laws and frameworks... whatev.

anyone who isn't for regressive taxes is probably a feudalist think about it

those condo owners should get a tax break for all the money they're losing every month compared to renting

anyone who isn't for regressive taxes is probably a feudalist think about it

― iatee, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:09 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

your argument for this being regressive isn't convincing. there is a correlation between renting and being poorer, but many renters are richer than many owners.

http://nmhc.files.cms-plus.com/ApartmentRenterIncome.jpg

renter. probably in a position to pay ridiculously inflated prices for a shoebox in inner melbourne but who the fuck buys into a bull market

you realize that chart is meaningless without posting the corresponding ownership chart xp

ya I was looking the site doesn't have one but median income in america is ~50k

many renters are richer than many owners

welp thats all i need to hear *tosses little red book into trash*

Jeff OTM

Also, we (well, I) had a garden in the last house we rented in NC. That is how I learned that I hate gardening and would be content living in a fourth-floor walkup forever (especially if that was the top floor and we had no asshole upstairs neighbors who apparently never EVER take off their high heels ever).

IMO the big difference between renting and owning is when you rent you pay your money to some other person, and when you "own" you pay your money to a bank with interest that you may possibly, if lucky or rich or stubborn enough to live in the same place for 30 years, will pay off and finally own. Once you own that piece of real estate the government will likely find a way to eventually force you out of it through eminent domain so wow, there goes your "investment."

A house is just a place to live in. Home ownership as a step to social mobility, IMO, is a myth propagated by lawyers and land speculators.

Anyway, I would support making rental payments deductable if mortgage PRINCIPAL payments and not just interest and taxes were deductible.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gS_JOSt4K6E/TTdLcAq_JVI/AAAAAAAAAL0/wxO95euZipo/s1600/net_worth_homeowner_renter.bmp

A house is just a place to live in. Home ownership as a step to social mobility, IMO, is a myth propagated by lawyers and land speculators.

― Everybody wants a piece of the (Viceroy), Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:19 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't think it's a step to social mobility, but it's a step to stability, a hedge against a rising rental market, and protection from being at the mercy of landlords. I don't know how old you are, but when you are young and without family you tend not to get the benefits of these things. Had I bought in my last neighborhood, I would not have been priced out of said neighborhood and forced to uproot my family and start again somewhere else. I already know that Iatee's answer is probably greater rent regulation but the reality is that we're getting further away from that, and it has its own problems.

Of course in another thread iatee will argue that none of that net worth actually "exists" because it can be disappeared with just a single market belly-up so idk what to believe now.

no, greater rent regulation is actually not good for young or poor people except for the ones already situated in an apartment

my solution is we build more apartments in places like where you live in queens

protection from being at the mercy of landlords

would rather be at the mercy of landlords than at the mercy of banks!

Usually you can call your landlord up and strike a bargain -- with banks, no such humanistic interaction is possible.

I mean even my current landlord is a total asshole who has never shown any remote interest in the property he owns and we convinced him to go to a month to month lease...

does 'net worth' include debt or

would rather be at the mercy of landlords than at the mercy of banks!

― max, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:27 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this seems like a very short view of the history of housing in the US

I mean, people paying standard 30-year fixed mortgages on time are not getting fucked by banks on a day-to-day basis to the extent that ordinary renters are getting fucked by landlords. And the worst thing that happens if you don't pay your mortgage is that you lose your house, which is the same thing that happens if you don't pay your rent!

Unless we repeal a bunch of federal laws about renter's rights I don't think we're in any danger of returning to the bad old days, tbh.

You can easily contest an eviction order and squat even longer even if they've won in court on that specific matter. I've personally known people living in a domicile two years after they were "evicted"...

I don't get fucked by my landlord anymore than I get fucked by the grocery store. it's a product with a market price and a handful of regulations. I get fucked by the nyc housing market for reasons completely beyond my landlord's control.

But I can't say the same for people dealing with foreclosure.

what? Eviction is the same whether you're a renter in default or a foreclosed owner.

My real opinion is that everyone who is wealthy enough to own two houses should buy one and rent it out to someone not as fortunate and not be a dick, and someone with enough wealth to buy one should wait until they can buy a second property to rent out.

Call me a utopian...

I don't know what you are thinking, eviction is not the same as foreclosure, especially if the landlord has demonstrated an unwillingness to work with the tenants.

i guess i dont quite see how im getting 'fucked' by my landlord

I didn't say you were

well he is a greedy greedy man, he could charge you $100 a month to live in new york city but he charges more instead, he's fucking you

The point isn't whether landlords are "greedy" it's whether you want to be at the mercy of the rental market.

Which, btw, is a cartel in NYC. There is not as much incentive as you seem to think to build enough apartments to create a non-crisis-level vacancy rate in this city.

no matter what you are at 'the mercy' of society, even when you buy a house that house exists in a context beyond your control

I'm not really sure where this sub-sub-debate went. When it started, my point was that Viceroy says that all the supposed benefits of ownership to the owner are fake. I made a case for why they might not be fake if you're not a young single person who doesn't give two shits if he has to move to the next Brooklyn neighborhood because that one will also have custom-built bikes and fair trade rum cocktails and the one you got priced out of was ruined by yuppies anyway.

i mean. purchasing, or attempting to purchase, a house, does not free me from the mercies of a market

hmmm its almost like that human being is not very representative of the average renter in america

or even the average renter in say, brooklyn

so my point with all this was really just why someone might WANT to own, not the larger policy debate

or even the average renter in say, brooklyn

― iatee, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:53 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the average renter in say brooklyn might prefer to keep his kids in the same school and continue to live near their grandparents

i mean. purchasing, or attempting to purchase, a house, does not free me from the mercies of a market

― max, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:52 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol yeah, nothing does, what is your point?

"Guys, seatbelts don't free me from the mercy of bad drivers"

i dont know, i dont know what your point was

no wait I give up you guys win, the longstanding American preference for homeownership is entirely bunk and based 100% on false premises because The Financial Crisis and my landlord is a good guy

longstanding american preferences tend to be bad things

Rented for 2 years after uni then made it a priority to own asap. wouldn't get on the property ladder now if w were in the same situation, we were kind of lucky. Hate the idea of your home being at the mercy of a stranger's mental health- it was bad enough just being part of a management company (for the flat we owned) run by the most awful maniac.

Rented in the U.S. and paid almost twice in rent what we paid on our mortgage, for a smaller place.

if seatbelts cost hundreds of thousands of dollars I would also be skeptical of govt policy that promoted seat belts

they might not be fake if you're not a young single person who doesn't give two shits if he has to move to the next Brooklyn neighborhood because that one will also have custom-built bikes and fair trade rum cocktails and the one you got priced out of was ruined by yuppies anyway.

LOL I currently live in the s a suburb of the largest city in IDAHO. sooo... uh, your experiences and "knowledge" are totally useless within my frame of existence.

But yeah I should move out of the East Side its way too much for my mid-level executive salary!

http://www.libertyjuice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/AmericanLoveItOrLeaveIt-StatueOfLib.jpg

renting is UNAMERICAN for christs sake how did we forget this

fwiw though, the NYC builder/landlord class is basically a cartel, and there are reasons you're not seeing more housing in queens as fast as we should be getting it based on our crisis-level vacancy rates

renting is UNAMERICAN for christs sake how did we forget this

― iatee, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 5:00 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No, almost everyone is wrong about what they want.

are all the nimbys on my community board part of this massive cartel, do they get paid off too

Owning here is basically impossible at this point unless you want to live in the country. I would need at least 40K just for the deposit/stamp duty, and on my own couldnt get a mortgage thatd cover more than a bedsit. Which blows. I desperately want to own my own place, I like the security.

otm

meanwhile our politicians are arguing about fucking boats

huh

Anyway, I would support making rental payments deductable if mortgage PRINCIPAL payments and not just interest and taxes were deductible.

― i've a cozy little flat in what is known as old man hat (Hurting 2), Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:20 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

eh youre confusing things, mortgage principal payments go towards putting equity into the investment asset, it's entirely separate from the use-value you derive from the house, I don't see what the point of deducting mortgage principal payments if at all... sounds like youre just trying to tip the tax scales even further towards homeowners

theres sort of a weird attitude inherent in thinking that the solution here is to remove positive things from home-owners to level the playing field - why not improve things for renters instead? i mean yeah yanking the rug out from peeps who own houses would level the playing field, but why level the playing field by just making things suck for everyone.

jjjusten that is literally what I am suggesting, improving the things for renters by letting them deduct rent payments from their income

oh i wasnt directing that at you necc, i just saw a bunch of "tear down the mortgage interest deduction regime" shit and thought hey why not make things better instead

well I believe in that too

everybody gets a tax break is kinda the same as nobody gets a tax break, or I mean it's not the same but it's just 'lower taxes for all, right now' which means higher taxes for all later.

well you can increase tax revenue while still giving tax breaks to some, like renters, who deserve it, for example you could probably cover the entirety of the 'tax break' to renters by just taxing capital gains at a higher rate, or increasing the highest tax bracket rate by a few more percentage points, double down on the estate tax, etc.

nobody needs tax breaks just for having to live someplace, people need tax breaks if they're poor or to incentivize social goals but 'I have to live someplace' doesn't merit a tax break because it's universal nor does your decision about whether to rent or own

like the point of the deduction is to incentivize people towards a certain social goal (~the ownership society~), if there is an equal and opposite incentive then there is no incentive anymore

if there is an equal and opposite incentive then there is no incentive anymore

― iatee, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:55 PM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark

yes, this is what i am arguing for

yeah but at that point its only there to make people like jjj feel like 'everybody wins'

people need tax breaks if they're poor

well as you point out poor people tend to be renters, so this would cover them and also make the tax code more conceptually sound :)

people like me

wait btw, do people not get a renters rebate based on income where you all are from? because thats crazy

i guess its technically a property tax refund? is this just a minnesota thing

im pretty sure rent is not deductible at the federal level nor is there a credit

right but dont other states have you get a (normally sizable) check back for renters at the same time as homeowners do their property taxes?

i got a gangload more money back as a renter from property tax than i ever have as a homeowner

that would require state legislators in 49 other states making it so

well hooray for us i guess

Co-owned a house in Austin with my ex-husband. He picked it out before he me and knowing what I know now, he probably chose it because he was tired of looking. It had a million issues, but location ended up being cool.

I had the foundation repaired, put in a new driveway....it was the size of a thimble so I had the old garage converted to a studio to get things out of storage. When I left the house (and marriage) I had spoken to an architect about expanding it and we were going to start that project. But looking back, it really wasn't a quality house and it would have been a colossal money pit.

He never cared much for it and I have driven by and see it sort of falling apart. He still had a renters mentality and let things go until they got so far gone it was uber pricey to reverse...like a broken joist and roof issues. Because of the five years of dealing with that house, happy to be a renter again and not have to worry about it all.

Taxes went up yearly and it was a hassle to go protest the increase yearly. Then the house was a shack in any other city or town but in Austin it was $220K for a poorly built 2-1 that needed a good $200K put into it.

right but dont other states have you get a (normally sizable) check back for renters at the same time as homeowners do their property taxes?

WTF magical moneyland do you live in.

love owning, good luck renters someday your dreams will come true

Minnesota trayce, apparently once again we did something right that I just assumed was general practice.

love renting, good luck revivalists xp

Oh hey, here's a fun thing that can happen sometimes in home ownership! In yesterday's mail:

The insurance indicated by the policy or application number above is being nonrenewed on the termination date listed above for the reason that the company is no longer writing this line of business in Mississippi.

like the point of the deduction is to incentivize people towards a certain social goal (~the ownership society~), if there is an equal and opposite incentive then there is no incentive anymore

― iatee, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:55 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

D's version (renter credit) is still a preferable way of going imo rather than an "imputed income" tax. I mean, there is a non-meaningless concept called cash flow. I don't think it's good to put people in positions where they can't afford the things they already own, and contrary to your suggestion upthread, the "homeowning fixed-income granny" is not some conservative strawman like the "family farmer" supposedly devastated by the estate tax, but represents the typical retired homeowner.

When I left the house (and marriage)

Yeah, this is another thing with owning a house -- from my observations of friends and relatives, it can make any personal trauma (divorce, job loss, chronic illness) that much more traumatic because you don't have the flexibility you get from renting. Especially post-housing crash, I knew several people stuck with property they needed to sell for various reasons and couldn't.

okay imputed income for all new home buyers, granny can keep her home.

xp

somebody who has something that is worth a lot of money

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/108892421_34e2e88fb3.jpg

ffs.

we're better off as a society when govt policy doesn't privilege rich people and people with assets yeah

― iatee, Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:12 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

u mean people like landlords?

people who own their own houses are landlords

whoa

property is theft vs. property is def

i see what you did there, but the legal definition is one individual who rents to another individual, so no

does 'net worth' include debt or

― Esteban Buttiérrez (Autumn Almanac), Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:33 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

fwiw net worth is = assets - liabilities so presumably yes.

I almost bought a townhouse around 1998. Had i done so, i'd be over $300,000 richer. Somehow the collapse of the housing bubble missed that neighbourhood. OTOH, some cherished life events would not have occurred had I moved there.

Always rented, looking to own in the next year - tbh its only because we want to have a bunch of dogs and not share a wall.

I am looking forward to one day owning a house again. However, right now, when I think about it I get seriously anxious. It would have to be a really well built house that doesn't leave me wondering if my record collection and victrola will go crashing through the floor...maybe a nice slab foundation next time, not pier beam. Although in Texas those slabs can really crack with a good drought. UGH!!!! Renting is fine.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

That 2:1 breakdown is about what I would have expected. Hope everyone remembered to get their April rent in.

was hoping there would be a few secret nytimesers among us

I own. I made the mistake of buying at the height of the boom and was "underwater" for a while but thankfully without ever NOT being able to make payments. Given the choice I'd probably rent, but I don't tend to regret these things.