lolubuntu

lolubuntu t1_irm7r8v wrote

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind going back in time to 2020 and tossing some cash down and buying a house. Timing the market is hard though.

Home ownership as a FORCED savings plan has some benefits though - namely that it forces undisciplined people to toss $$$ into something other than new cars and booze.

It's just that all BS considered it's often a wash vs just putting money in an index fund.

And you would likely end up ahead, living in a tiny shoebox apartment and chasing $$$. 5 years at a FAANG banking (net of taxes) $100-200k a year is enough to basically buy a house, cash.

Home ownership is kind of fetishized at this point. It feels almost like the same level of circle jerk as it was back in 2006... though I could be off.

I'll probably buy a house when I'm sick of the rat race and decide to semi-retire (aka have enough $$$ to retire outright but want more spending $$$, something to do and the prestige of being a "semi-retired 30-something year old college professor" over just being unemployed).

1

lolubuntu t1_irm3zb7 wrote

>First a technicality, home ownership is a leveraged investment

You can leverage stocks as well, though not as aggressively. Though calls are a thing.

>that also provides several tax benefits that offset Dow index investments advantages. So it wouldn't be calculated a a 2x roi over the time period and was likely cash positive relative to renting before they sold it.

Depends on income.

If you're in a lower income tax bracket (under $160,000) it makes less sense because the tax benefits are lower.

If you're high income and in a state like California, it makes more sense as your marginal tax rate is around 50%.

BUT this assumes that owning a house has 0 impact on income. There are studies showing that when controlling for education and a few other factors, home ownership reduces income. People are less likely to job hop. "look I saved $100k on rent the last 10 years" sounds kind of stupid if you missed out on $500k in income AND you opted for 2-4x the square footage you otherwise would have... and you spent half your free time mowing, cleaning gutters, painting, etc.

Also, taxes ARE a thing. Using a 1.5% tax rate each year, in the short to mid-run you can end up paying almost as much on property tax as you would on rent overall in A LOT of places.

This also applies on the back end if you ever try to realize appreciation as well, though there are SOME exceptions to that if you lived in a residence 2/5 years.

1

lolubuntu t1_irlypt8 wrote

https://www.inflationtool.com/us-dollar/1970-to-present-value

25 x 7.7 = 192.5

So overall while the nominal price is up ~16x, the 'real' price is only ~2x higher after factoring in inflation.

Yeah, 400 is worth more than 200, but it's not night/day different. You would likely end up in the same (or better) living in a small place and tossing A LOT of money into stocks. The DJIA was at ~750 in 1970. It's presently at ~30,000, which is 40x higher.

1