Quote: (12-22-2014 12:50 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:
Quote: (12-22-2014 12:31 PM)kr4t0s Wrote:
Quote: (12-22-2014 09:27 AM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:
If you understand the time value of money, then 270000 in 25 years will probably be less than 170000 today. Your dollar is never worth as much as it is today, I have a friend who insists upon buying month to month memberships because of this phenomena.
Ok i get your point. What i dislike of the idea is to become a debt slave of a bank for 25 years.
I think its better if one can afford it of course, to just shell out full cash, but always minding how much % you can burn from your savings. I currently think that i would spend 40% max of my current savings for buying a property....
Here's where people get confused: If something is an asset, debt is good. If something is a liability that depreciates, debt is bad. Now, in your scenario, because you want to not rent it out, then you would be correct to buy it and not be making a monthly payment every month. But why then, don't you rent a place (renting is not a dirty word like so many people would have you believe), and then you can move about freely all over the world as you please.
In my honest opinion, buying real estate is only for when it generates an income; I will buy investment property in a heart beat, if I'm going to live in it, I would consider renting the much better option.
Yes i thought about that too. I'm currently renting a place for myself, but the idea of buying a property is not for me, but for my brother that lives with me. So i have 2 options, to buy the property full cash or to rent another property for my brother. The latter would give me freedom of movement and i would not lose a big chunk of my savings. Under this scenario, renting a second property would be wiser than buying it?