Well, it's just that few people seem to get that, while the MI deduction is nice to have if you have to have a mortgage, it always means you are paying more to the bank in interest than you are saving in taxes.

In my case if it were not for some charitable deductions, my mortgage deduction wouldn't be enough to itemize so I would have an effectively zero deduction for my mortgage interest.

We've got about nine years to go on our mortgage now, we're starting to weigh the pros and cons of getting a nicer house vs. not having a mortgage.

Even if you own a home, you still have to "throw away" money on expenses like property taxes and mortgage interest (and likely more than you were throwing away in rent). In fact, for the first five years, you are basically paying all interest on your mortgage. For example, on a 30-year, $250,000 mortgage at 7% interest, your first 60 payments would total about $100,000. Of that you "throw away" about $85,000 on interest payments.

That parenthetical's a biggie, though. Even including our coop maintenance fee, we're paying less for housing now (with a mortgage) than we were renting 2 years ago.

And since your rent is mostly paying your landlord's mortgage & property taxes...I'm not sure I really see what his argument is. You're paying those things whether you rent or own, the only difference is who you pay it to.

Part of it is timing and location, but we have made out big time on home ownership. Our first house we lived in for about 5 years. We bought it for $45,000 and sold it for $67,000 with a mortgage payment that was little more than for a 1 bedroom apartment. This was a nice house with a good yard, 3 bedrooms, garage, basement, central air, no big problems to fix. Horrific school district though, hence the good price.

Even including our coop maintenance fee, we're paying less for housing now (with a mortgage) than we were renting 2 years ago.

I think it really depends on the market. I recently saw something that studied specific areas and, for example, it is much cheaper to be renting an equivalent house in the Sunset (ocean side of SF) than owning one.

More important, perhaps, is the fact that people overbuy. That is, they buy a much bigger place than they would rent.

Also, as with cars, a lot of people feel they need to trade up fairly quickly (or they move), so they lose some of the benefits of ownership because they don't stay put.

Yeah, we are paying way less mortgage than typical rents in our area. It just depends on where you live, when you bought, and when you sell.

I think it really depends on the market. I recently saw something that studied specific areas and, for example, it is much cheaper to be renting an equivalent house in the Sunset (ocean side of SF) than owning one.

Yes. Thanks to rent stabilization, my out-of-pocket would likely double if I were to buy an apartment reasonably equivalent to the one I rent now.

And since your rent is mostly paying your landlord's mortgage & property taxes...I'm not sure I really see what his argument is. You're paying those things whether you rent or own, the only difference is who you pay it to.

I see your point, but in our case, we aren't even coming close to paying that the monthly mortgage payment on this property would be if we bought it outright. We would have to have put down at least $200,000 to have a mortgage payment as low as our rent payment.

Hi everyone. I woke up feeling crummy on multiple levels and am sitting in bed feeling sorry for myself instead of starting the massive pile of work ahead of me. Pathetic.

Yes. Thanks to rent stabilization, my out-of-pocket would likely double if I were to buy an apartment reasonably equivalent to the one I rent now.

I don't think that rent stabilization is actually the main factor that makes market rate rent in NYC so insane.

We would have to have put down at least $200,000 to have a mortgage payment as low as our rent payment.

I went to California when I was in my old house. I mentioned in a conversation that it was a 3BR house I bought for $45,000 and I think some locals almost went into shock.

If anyone wants an update on Gustav news WWL just sent me this.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has called a news conference with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and FEMA Administrator David Paulison on Hurricane Gustav.

WWL will bring you live coverage on WWL AM & FM and WWL.com from the Joint Field Office in Baton Rouge at 4:45pm. They will provide detailed information on the latest preparations, evacuation plans and more.

The current Gustav forecast track from the National Hurricane Center calls for the storm to move into the Gulf Sunday and head for the Louisiana coast as a category three hurricane with winds up to 130 miles per hour. For now, landfall is predicted Tuesday morning near Houma, Louisiana.

The cone of error still, however, spreads from Florida through Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.