• corsicanguppy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    What’s ridiculous is that someone who made a solid $200k investment 25 years ago and then lived in a small apartment is worse off than someone who simply bought a $200k house and lived there.

    I’d like to see the math on this, please. A family friend who works in investments does claim the exact diametric opposite, and I’ve seen things from time to time that rather support that. If you know otherwise I’d love to read what you’ve read.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m only eyeballing graphs, but from this one, a Toronto detached house in 1999 was roughly $300k, and today it’s roughly $1.7m. That matches about a 7% annualized rate of return. A document from S&P Global says the TSX index has grown at an 8% annualized rate.

      A house you buy as an investment might slightly lag behind an investment in an index fund. But, if you have to pay rent because you’re not living in your investment house-purchasing seems to win by a long shot.

      • Randomgal
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        You are ignoring maintenance, tax and other “running” costs that have to be paid to own and live in your own house.

        • pipsqueak1984
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I am a homeowner and while I intially agreed with you out of instinct, if you figure that monthly rent should be thr equivalent to property taxes, maintenance and whatever utilities are included in the rent the big push I’m favour of home ownership is the fact that you don’t pay capital gains on a primary residence. In the above example, an investment gaining $1.4M in value would have (Ontario) taxes of around $350k… So it really depends on whether the house being considered is a primary residence or not.