Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

222

Rent
Mortgage
Fuck You!

(post is archived)

[–] • 12 pts

At least with a mortgage you are building equity and owning something

[–] • 11 pts (edited )

At least with a mortgage you are building equity and owning something

True, you will 'build equity' (a banking term which defies logical explanation) and you will have a title document recorded with your county, but whether you ever really "own" your home is questionable. If you don't pay your taxes, or if you violate planning, building or zoning codes, you can be heavily penalized and/or your property will be siezed and auctioned off to someone else. Notice that when you read your title deed, i says that you are "vested" as a "tenant."

[–] • 5 pts

Al of that is true, but with renting you get all that with the bonus of one more layer of legal non-ownership on top coupled with paying the jew's interest and taxes on behalf of the owner while he gets the equity.

[–] • 2 pts

gets the equity

Then pay 3-4% closing costs to then turn around and pay 6% realtors commission and a further 2-3% closing costs over any timeframe under 10 years and tell me all about the equity you accumulated.

[–] • 2 pts

You can always move to Nevada and get an allodial title.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I do have title to property in Nevada, although I don't (yet) live there. Thanks for this, I will explore the idea further.

[–] • 2 pts

whether you ever really "own" your home is questionable

Partially true. I can't sell something I don't own. But I can sell my home.

you will 'build equity' (a banking term which defies logical explanation)

Equity makes sense. It means that if I sell my home, I give a chunk of the money to the bank, but the money I'll get to keep is called equity.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I can't sell something I don't own. But I can sell my home.

You don't really "sell" your home. You file a new deed with the government and "vest" the "tenancy" to someone else.

..and they have the audacity to call it "real" property

[–] • 2 pts

You are exactly right. Same concept as them towing (taking) your $20,000 car for $500 in parking tickets. That happened to me when I was younger and it made me realize you don’t truly own anything in this country

[–] • 1 pt

That's an Americanism. If you own the deeds to your house then they can't just take your house from you. In America they can take your home for not paying property tax, the same isn't true with say council tax in the UK, they can't take your home.

[–] • 2 pts

They can also take your property for eminent domain. If they want a wider road it's theirs. Supreme court ruled the government can take your property if they think they can make more money. But property ownership is still better than rent.

[–] • 0 pt

Thats still better than renting

[–] • 1 pt

Thats still better than renting

Yes, in a lot of ways it seems to be. But for some people, renting is good because the landlord assumes responsibilities such as property maintenance, repairs, etc.

[–] • 0 pt

And giving kikes interest

[–] • 0 pt

Right but your only other option to get a house is to save up $250,000+

[–] • 4 pts

A home is actually a highly leverage investment that has a very high probability of appreciation.

[–] • 2 pts

Appreciated value can be a bit misleading. For one if you sell your house for more than you paid for it then you pay tax on the capital gains. As well not just your house has appreciated but the whole market as well so when you go to buy a new place you'll be paying current ie. higher market prices. Of course if you bought the place as an investment then that's not relevant.

I'm not saying there isn't a benefit but I am saying that it's very possibly not as great as people assume.

[–] • 3 pts

You keep rolling over the profits into the next house. You get a one time sale where you can take the profit tax free. Usually when you are retired and downsizing or moving to a lower cost area.

[–] • 0 pt

Will the appreciation outpace (((inflation)))?

[–] • 1 pt

Equally high probability of excessive, constantly increasing property tax to fund the expansion of the communistic State.

Doesn't matter if you think you own it. Stop paying the property tax and you'll find out who really owns it.

In the US, there is very little difference between rent & own - you're still a renter in both cases.

[–] • 0 pt

A person after my own heart. I believe that property tax should be eliminated. Hopefully by a constitutional amendment. I got on this kick when my great aunt had to keep selling off portions of her farm to pay the property taxes. I started the movement to get rid of property taxes for those over 65. It was then picked up by others. It is still in its infancy. In the case of Virginia, they make it a pain in the butt to get a small break (tons of financial records).

[–] • 0 pt

Only property tax? How about all taxes.

[–] • 3 pts

Mortgage. If niggers move in next to me, as a renter, I can just move. Selling a house can take months.

[–] • 2 pts

They both have advantages. Renting - I'm not responsible if a pipe bursts. If I own and a pipe bursts, not only do I get to pay to fix the pipe and the damage from the burst, but I still have to make the mortgage payment.

[–] • 1 pt

This is the correct answer.

It isn't that rent is always better, or that home ownership is always better, it entirely depends on your situation.

In most people's situations, home ownership is better than renting.

But there are many scenarios where it is better to rent. Keep your mind open, understand the numbers/debt/interest/appreciation/taxes, chart out your net worth using both scenarios, and figure out for your income/geography/lifestyle, which one will put you further ahead.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Pay half and own nothing or pay double and own something. It just depends on your goals and financial situation.

[–] • 2 pts

fixed rate mortgage > rent > variable rate mortgage. But more broadly it depends on whether you are living beyond your means or not.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

Since mortgages front load the interest it means that for a significant portion of the mtge term you are mostly paying the interest portion of the total mtge. You don't actually start significantly paying down the house portion until later in the term. So the notion that you're meaningfully building equity doesn't actually apply until well into the mtge term. With 50 year mortgages becoming more common -- because the buyer cannot afford the monthly payments for a 25 year mtge -- this amplifies the effect

And don't forget that even though you don't own the house -- the bank does -- you are 100% responsible for all of the costs of the upkeep and repairs. You've got the mortgage payment, plus utilities, taxes, upkeep and that's a lot of money not to mention a car loan or two. And though sure the value of the house may go up there's no guarantee of it.

I get that people like the idea of owning their own home but unless you can pay it off relatively quickly a mortgage is a bad proposition.

[edit] Mortgages can be made to work in your favor, obviously, but it depends on the situation. It also depends upon luck because many factors are not under your control. Remember 2008?

At the time I made my comment above rent was being voted as worse than a mortgage by a significant margin. Now it's even greater at something like 8:1. I think this underscores how common it is for people who have been under the yoke of paying rent to view getting a mortgage as superior, so that they could "have their own place". My point is only that this is not necessarily the case. In fact I think that for the majority of mortgage holders all they've done is trade evils, and that an argument can be made that a mortgage is a greater evil.

But there are exceptions, and hats off to you.

I used to be a landlord. It was common for the younger tenants ie. young couples who had the appearance of wanting to be in the place for a longer term to eventually approach me to ask about switching from paying rent to putting the money toward the purchase of the place. In effect a mortgage. In every case they were completely uninformed about what would be involved in getting a mortgage. For example at the time a minimum of 10% was required for a down payment (now it's 30%) and since most of these people were living pay cheq to pay cheq that was a non-starter. And then when we'd talk about how mortgages work it was just more nails in the coffin for them at that time. But if they'd been able to scrape together the down payment and had steady jobs the banks would have fallen over themselves to give them a mortgage.

[–] • 4 pts (edited )

So the notion that you're meaningfully building equity doesn't actually apply until well into the mtge term.

If prices were flat that would be true. I bought my first house a little over 10 years ago for $300k. I paid $60k down and $1,200 a month for 4 years. I sold the house for $550,000. I paid in $118,000 over those 4 years and after paying off the mortgage walked away with $230,000. I put that into another house that we paid $650,000 for. Between the $230,000 down and 7 years of mortgage payments I've paid in $390,000. The house is appraised at $1.1M today. If I sold today my net would be about $700,000.

Turning $60,000 in savings into $700,000 over 11 years is a 25% annual ROI, and that's after paying all the front-loaded jew usury. The icing on the cake is that my mortgage payment has been less than the rent on a 2-bedroom apartment for all of these 11 years.

I literally got paid $5,300 a month every month for 11 years to live in a house. To rent the equivalent would cost me about that, so it would have cost me $10,000 a month more to rent than to own.

[–] • 2 pts

My mortgage is sub 3.2%, inflation is 15%. The bank is paying me to borrow money when considering the time value of it. Why would I ever pay a loan off early with negative interest rates?

[–] • 0 pt

Because having debt at all, ever, sucks.

[–] • 1 pt

A fully owned investment works the same way. It starts small and grows slowly at first, like your equity. Then at the end it grows quickly. Principle payments are essentially the same things as reinvesting dividends. Reinvestment is compounding.

Linear growth js actually the default, not exponential. If you have one widget, say a rental house, your income is constant. It never grows in real terms. Your widget income only has the potential to grow exponentially if you use your earnings to buy more widgets. Now a house is too big a widget to buy one per month and actually see exponential returns. If you had 1000 rentals already you could do this. So how do you reinvest your profits? Well, finance. You buy a portion of a house instead of a whole one. When you make a principle payment that's what you're doing.

[–] • 0 pt

front load the interest

No. That's not how amortization works. You borrow 300k you are paying interest in 300k. You pay it down to 150k you are paying interest on 150k. You pay it down to 20k you are paying interest on 20k.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

You're not wrong BUT since the repayment schedule is arranged so that the interest is preferably paid down first that means the principal remains high until towards the end of the term. In this way the bank maximizes the amount of interest they earn over the term because, as you mention, you pay interest on the remaining principal https://budgeting.thenest.com/frontloaded-mortgage-work-24047.html

As the article points out mortgages don't have to be front loaded but they usually are.

Paying off the mortgage early is the way to minimize the interest this but you need to make sure that your mortgage includes provisions to increase the regular payment amount and to pay down the principal without penalty at specific intervals.

[–] • 0 pt

I have no idea what the fuck I am reading. You borrow amount X at rate Y and pay back in Z months. You pay interest on your outstanding principal. There isn't interest that accumulates month over month. I haven't had a mortgage with a prepayment penalty but I also haven't had a mortgage above 4% either.

[–] • 1 pt

Rent is worse. Imagine continuing to pay a layaway charge AFTER paying it off. That's rent

[–] • 1 pt

harder to get kicked out of a mortgaged home methinks

[–] • 1 pt

It's easy as pie, simply miss a mtge payment and the bank is in the position to re-possess 'your' house.

At least as a renter the landlord has to go through a process that can take months to have a renter removed for not paying rent or some other breach of their rental agreement. And I've heard that in some places landlords are no longer even able to do that.

[–] • 1 pt

Unless your making a ton of money and constantly moving, its better to have a mortgage by far.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Live in a city or suburbs? Rent for a while but long term you're just paying for a space to stay without owning anything you can pass on to your offspring or sell. Get a house an mortgage as soon as your financially able to. Life goals in this order > find woman -> marry -> buy a home -> procreate -> procreate again

Load more (8 replies)