MemberSince99 wrote:Viking I feel like I still rent just from the government. They can raise my rent at will to whatever they want just like a landlord can it's just called property taxes instead of rent. Tax toll tariff what's the difference in the end it's money they take from you.
You might enjoy fantasizing that it's yours but it's really not. You can't do what you want to it without their permission for many things. Your car if you want to you can replace the engine in it. But if you want to replace your house plumbing the government wants to jump right into that.
They say it's for your own good but I fail to see how in the case where my water heater was replaced the plumber said that while my piping was to code when it was put in it would need to be larger for current code, and that an inspector would force it all to be redone at a cost of thousands. And I would see no benefit for that it would only meet an arbitrary standard that will probably change again.
If that's for my own good then I don't need the nanny state thank you very much.
I have no problem with code standards per se I have a problem with them forcing them into older homes at a massive cost when what you have is fine and works well for no gain for the money spent. If you think that's cool then why not force all older cars to meet current safety and emission standards? Too expensive? Well so is replacing your plumbing.The case could be made that there is more value in reducing emissions than forcing my house to be piped with one inch lines vs the three quarters that was the standard when it was piped.
But in our system an inspector would force that change on a homeowner simply because the bureaucracy demands it. Can't afford it? Too bad so sad screw you is their view you will comply.
If it feels better to imagine it's yours I can't disagree with that but it's not really yours.
I quite agree. That and homeowners associations are why I personally have zero interest in ever becoming a homeowner. Honestly I'm much
more comfortable with the idea as an investment strategy rather than something I'd want to be burdened with in my personal life.
CarefulBuilder14 wrote:It's long-term car loans that bug me. If a person takes 5 or so years to pay off a tax-disadvantaged loan for a depreciating asset, "responsible" isn't quite the word that comes to mind. Yet, to FICO, it's simply an installment loan with a long history, indicating low risk.
I'm not saying everyone should only buy what they can pay for up front...but 3 years should be long enough.
I quite agree with this too.
All that said, I can sort of see how having a mortgage requires more 'skill.' As Takashi and thom02099 said the barrier of entry involved in getting one to begin with requires an extra level of financial skill. Or perhaps 'tenacity,' 'financial literacy,' or 'financial resources' would be more apt terms than 'skill,' but regardless I can see all those things positively impacting one's reliability as a borrower.
The time horizon is also significant. Successfully managing a mortgage for 30 years is certainly a better test of financial endurance than a 1 year rental lease.
Bottom line: Having a mortgage is a better indicator of stability than renting.