( continues...) save and invest, didn't they? ($233.30 per month for our buyers to save or invest).

Over a period of 76 months, doesn't that mean our buyers had the ability to save/invest an additional $17,730.80, by the end of that 76 months, in comparison to the renters?***

As I can't emphasize enough, I suck at math. Also? Whenever I enter into this kind of discussion, certain I see things clearly, someone comes along and shows me just how wrong I am.

I welcome that, not because I am so secure in my mathing, but because I'd really rather understand the conversation, than think I am right.

***eta

If I am half right in any of it, it would have cost our renters $81,300 more to rent over that period, than it would have cost our buyers to buy with a mortgage

*and*

our buyers had $17,730.80 more available to save/invest than did our renters. So aren't our buyers better off to the tune of almost $100,000 when the 76 months are through?

Is the gist of Gus' argument that if you can't pay cash for a house, you should be renting? 'Cause that's what I was taking away from it.

I think he's saying that when you factor in the total interest paid, the actual price of the house becomes far greater the asking price. For example, if you take out a $100K mortgage for 30 years at 8.5%, after thirty years you'll have paid $177K in interest on top of the $100K, so your house costs $277K instead of the $100K it would cost if you paid cash. (I'm ignoring the down payment, because you *are* paying that up front in either scenario, so it cancels out.)

The thing is, if you don't buy a house, you'd have to pay rent for that entire time. $277K over thirty years works out to about $770/month (plus taxes). Can you rent the equivalent living quarters for less? Also, it's likely the house will appreciate in value, so in thirty years you may have paid $277K for a $190K house.

Even if you had the cash, you'd probably be better off taking out the mortgage (especially now since rates are far lower than they are in my example), and investing the $100K in a mutual fund. The overall return from the mutual fund would probably be far greater over the long haul than the interest you pay on your house.

Edit: Or, what Cindy said...

Something you probably don't want to see while flying...

from this site of aviation mishaps and crashes. Nothing gory that I've seen so far....

I'm with Cindy here. Our house was $98,000 and we put $20,000 down (largely from the profit from our first house that was $45,000 and we sold for $67,000 (nice 3 bedroom house, crappy schools and high crime rate)) we have a 15 year loan at 5.75% so our mortgage payment is around $800 . We would probably have to pay about $1000 to have a slightly smaller 3 bedroom apartment without the 1/2 acre yard. Already we have simliar houses in the neighborhood going for $125,000. So we're roughly equal or slightly ahead on rent (taking into account expenses for repairs and such), getting a tax break, getting a yard, two garages, and some extra space. Plus, if we don't sell, we'll own it outright in 12 years.

OK, this one is funny: [link]

And this one: [link]

tommyrot, those links just tell me to not steal his bandwidth.

I think there is a cap on server connections. Wait and it will probably work.

Try copy and pasting into a new browser window.

It may just be default anti-hotlinking practice. Lord knows I'm working out how to best handle that myself (so far I'm defaulting to an image that's yonks and yonks wide, hopefully to mess up the screens of anyone including my pics in their HTML).

OK, I guess you have to go to the main page first: [link]

Then click on "oops2.jpg" and "rubber_02.jpg"

eta: and "AirtranAir.jpg"

Lookit my cousin! She's all growed up.