[angra_mainyu]

What's wrong with renting? I refuse to buy until I hit at least my 40s and/or start a family and decide I will stay put in a place.

I've seen people go through the incredible pain of having to either turn down job offers because they can't sell in a month's time and relocate or be drowned in the myriad issues involved in selling/renting out.

Personally I can't justify buying a house to myself until I either hit my 40s or have picked a corner of the world I want to settle down with a family and probably die and get buried there.

EDIT: why downvote? I'm not opposing people buying houses, I'm opposing demonizing renting out when for lots of people it's the preferred option.

[petepete]

If you're able to save while renting, fair.

Lots of people can't and get stuck in the cycle. In the UK at least, they're often just paying other peoples' mortgages.

[chgs]

U.K. has a viscous cycle where if your parents are in commuting distance of London you can live with them for a few years and the money you save from not renting will fund a deposit. By the time you’re 30 you can then by and your career will have progressed

If you can’t benefit from that then you spend that deposit on renting, which means you can’t buy in your 30s and are trapped in the rent cycle.

[angra_mainyu]

Odd, renting while I lived in the UK was the only way I was able to save.

If I had attempted to buy, I would literally have financially died (not to mention wouldn't have been able to pursue better jobs elsewhere at the drop of a hat - month's notice).

[proneb1rd]

Not only UK, Europe in general is stuck in this nonsense. People buy properties, tenants pay their mortgage. In 15 years the property is yours mostly at the expense of someone else plus it gained in value. After owning it for so long and selling the property you probably pay lower capital gains from that too. Unless you put all that money in the right stocks in 2010, renting just doesn’t make all that much sense in this economy.

[akudha]

This is the thing that is so depressing. I know someone who owns 6 apartments, 5 of which he has rented out and his family is living in the 6th. Every couple of years, he will save enough money for the down payment, buy an apartment and his tenants end up paying the mortgage.

His tenants will never be able to save enough money for a down payment, so they are stuck in a endless cycle of paying someone else's mortgage, just for the privilege of having a roof over their heads. If wages were fair, if mega corps like Blackrock weren't allowed to buy entire neighborhoods, maybe his tenants will have a fighting chance of owning a place for themselves, even if it is just a small two bedroom apartment.

A dude I used to work with - he used to buy a couple of apartments in buildings right when they get started (he has contacts all over a major city). By the time the buildings are finished 3 years later, the "value" of those apartments have already gone up anywhere from 10 to 20 percent or more, depending on the area. He'd sell for a profit, rinse and repeat. His only goal is to flip - sometimes he buys apartments without even looking at them. Of course it is legal, but is it ethical?

This whole thing is just depressing.

[rufus_foreman]

>> What's wrong with renting?

The problem with renting, in areas like the parent poster is talking about, is that in those areas almost anyone who can hold down a full time job, even a low wage job, can afford to buy a house. When you rent an apartment, you end up living around the people who can't hold down a full time job. Which is not always ideal.

[spicyusername]

    why downvote

    for lots of people it's the preferred option.

I am going to guess the down votes represent dissent from the idea that renting is generally the preferred option.

Renting is definitely more flexible, but it is also basically just a regressive tax that transfers wealth from those at the lower end of the income distribution to those closer to the top.

If housing was affordable, I think you'd find that most would opt to own and there would be less ability for those with means to prey on those without.

[tzs]

By that kind of reasoning what purchased goods or services I get from any entity wealthier than me aren't a regressive tax? For instance I bought a sandwich from Subway yesterday rather than making one at home, because it was more convenient. Was that a regressive tax on my food?