Hacker News Reader

Comment by NTDF9 | Hacker News Reader

>> That means zero property tax

As a tangent, I've always wondered if my understanding that property is no guarantee of survival is incorrect.

When I was younger, I used to think having a fully-owned house is survival forever, since you have no more payments to make (besides utils). As I grew up and looked into the details, I realized property taxes stick with a property forever.

This begs the question. Why buy a house at all? It's not like if you are laid off, disabled or just incapable of finding and keeping a job, you will still have a dwelling to squat and survive in.

This makes a house a liability more than an asset (in survival terms, not monetary terms) in my mind.

Am I thinking right?

View on HN

People wait to long to pay off their mortgage. Once that thing is out of the picture you can't imagine how fast you can save money. Like another poster said, my prop taxes are 3-4K per year and there's no way I could rent anywhere close to that in my neighborhood. Loans are a financial treadmill that everyone gets on and thinks that's normal. Once you get out from under loans you start to see things like property taxes as another treadmill. My water and sewer bill... Oh right, I'm not allowed to have a septic system or well in my area.

But let me tell you, there are 100,000 cabins in rural Michigan that can be had for under $50K and you could outfit with solar and a well and grow a garden - maybe even some farm animals in certain areas. You'll be 1/2 hour from the nearest hospital though, which retired people seem to want near by. With the number of HN readers who favor telecommuting, it surprises me that so many still concentrate is some of the highest rent areas in the country.

Property taxes for my house are $3000 a year. In the same area, my rent for a much smaller place was about to be $1800 a month. On disability, I could scrape up $250 a month fairly easily.

I don't have to worry about rent increasing every year or a change in management.

It has value. And thus you can sell it or borrow against that value. The alternative of renting does not maintain value. You pay to live there for a month and then at the end of that month your value disappears.

It is true that a house has its downsides and requires more effort. That is true of most anything with value.

>> The alternative of renting does not maintain value

What if renting is cheaper than buying (example SF bay area)?

More importantly, what if the purchase of house is made with the expectation of growth in value of the house and that expectation turns out to be incorrect after 30 years (as in Detroit)?

Beyond a certain cost of a house, wouldn't it be advisable to plunk money in funds rather than a house (and hoping it builds equity)?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com