Nobody likes renting. Nobody likes moving. If there wasn’t the premium cost from renting, there would be less pressure on these people to change their life arrangements.
When I was in college, renting made sense. I wasn’t going to be there but like two years. I wouldn’t have hardly accumulated any equity and had the pain of trying to sell at the end.
I’ve known people with like two year work assignments where renting made sense.
I cannot fathom it, but I have a coworker who swears by renting even though he hasn’t moved in years and has no intention to move ever. I think the ‘mantaining your own house is scary’ articles hit him hard and he’s now convinced that owning a household means you are somehow constantly having to fix things yourself for lots of money. So he may have been bamboozled, but certainly limited term living makes sense.
That’s not really true, one of my friends rented an apartment for about 2 years specifically because he didn’t knew if he wanted to live abroad or in a different city. Same goes for my sister she really didn’t want any long term commitments to have the freedom to go anywhere. She didn’t even wanted a 1 year phone contract.
Lots of young people rent because it gives them more freedom and less burden when they want to move.
Also about the premium cost, it really depends on the laws, like in the Netherlands after you have rented a house for over 1 year, the landlord can only raise the rent a certain percentage. Some people have been renting the same apartment for 30+ years and pay a ridiculous low rent.
It’s really interesting that rent can only raise by a small amount each year there. I’m rolling around in my head whether that would work in the US. What happens when the assessed value of the property raises over the years and causes the taxes to skyrocket? Do the landlords just sell the place in that case? I could see that being a good way to keep the market moving and give people a chance to enter owner-occupied homeownership.
You can sell, but you’ll get way less for a house that has a tenant, because the new owner can’t kick them out. I know someone that bought a house for a really great price, because it had a tenant that had lived there for 50 years or so. It was basically a 10 year waiting game until the tenant died (he was old when this person bought his place). But after that he sold the place for almost double what he paid. I do have to add that in those 10 years the housing market also went up a lot.
I want to add it might seem I like landlords, I don’t, but if we want to get mad at someone it should be the system we accepted as a people.
Nobody likes renting. Nobody likes moving. If there wasn’t the premium cost from renting, there would be less pressure on these people to change their life arrangements.
When I was in college, renting made sense. I wasn’t going to be there but like two years. I wouldn’t have hardly accumulated any equity and had the pain of trying to sell at the end.
I’ve known people with like two year work assignments where renting made sense.
I cannot fathom it, but I have a coworker who swears by renting even though he hasn’t moved in years and has no intention to move ever. I think the ‘mantaining your own house is scary’ articles hit him hard and he’s now convinced that owning a household means you are somehow constantly having to fix things yourself for lots of money. So he may have been bamboozled, but certainly limited term living makes sense.
That’s not really true, one of my friends rented an apartment for about 2 years specifically because he didn’t knew if he wanted to live abroad or in a different city. Same goes for my sister she really didn’t want any long term commitments to have the freedom to go anywhere. She didn’t even wanted a 1 year phone contract.
Lots of young people rent because it gives them more freedom and less burden when they want to move.
Also about the premium cost, it really depends on the laws, like in the Netherlands after you have rented a house for over 1 year, the landlord can only raise the rent a certain percentage. Some people have been renting the same apartment for 30+ years and pay a ridiculous low rent.
It’s really interesting that rent can only raise by a small amount each year there. I’m rolling around in my head whether that would work in the US. What happens when the assessed value of the property raises over the years and causes the taxes to skyrocket? Do the landlords just sell the place in that case? I could see that being a good way to keep the market moving and give people a chance to enter owner-occupied homeownership.
You can sell, but you’ll get way less for a house that has a tenant, because the new owner can’t kick them out. I know someone that bought a house for a really great price, because it had a tenant that had lived there for 50 years or so. It was basically a 10 year waiting game until the tenant died (he was old when this person bought his place). But after that he sold the place for almost double what he paid. I do have to add that in those 10 years the housing market also went up a lot.
I want to add it might seem I like landlords, I don’t, but if we want to get mad at someone it should be the system we accepted as a people.