Dispelling the Myth of the Mortgage Interest Deduction

> The "time in question" for "the actual point" was 1968.

And then, phonics boy, I moved on in the next paragraph to talking about the time of Carnegie and then the time in between.

Damn, idiot, you QUOTED it, you should have READ it first.

But, I guess, hooked on phonics, hooked on phonics.

And now we can add Alan to your list of folks who have proven you wrong, so all you can do is insult. Is his poster on your wall, too?

Hook on phonics, baby!

And now you can pick one up at your local Duane Reade!

"Yes, 5th avenue was a nice spot when Carnegie built his place,"

Yes, how on earth could I expect anyone to think I was talking about the era Carnegie built when I start the paragraph with "WHEN CARNEGIE"...

Oh my lord, he's a moron.

"That was a pretty bad try at spinning now trying to say that you were talking about the time the mansion was built. "

Only LICC could be that stupid, I guess.

I guess the same brain that led him to "invest" in LIC, so why are we surprised...

> Eddie and Alan are like TweedleDee and TweedleDum here.
-LICC

I'm still laughing...

btw, LIC, you have to change up your insults... you tried to use the same one about me and Steve last week.

Didn't you learn any others in 3rd grade this week?

EddieWilson starts by saying the area was not prime in 1968, concedes that it was nice in 1903, then says that, however, Park Avenue unlike 5th Avenue had problems because of the elevated train (even though the train was sunk in the 1870s and had been above-ground but never elevated) and the area got much nicer after the train was "torn down." Now he is interpreting his comment to say that he was talking about 1903 the whole time, even though he says that the train being "torn down" led to the "creating" of the "Park Avenue we know today" except for the "northern" parts, which took longer to "recover".

Keep sinking deeper and deeper EddieWilson.

Wow, you really are obsessed with me! You're a sad, sad little boy...

You can keep repeating yourself all you want, LICC, but you are still a moron who can't read, and bought in Queens (don't know which is worse).

> Now he is interpreting his comment to say that he was talking about 1903 the whole time

And that's your 34th lie in just this thread. Nice job!

"he says that the train being "torn down" led to the "creating" of the "Park Avenue we know today" except for the "northern" parts, which took longer to "recover"."

And you can still keep saying it over and over... but I'm still right...

Wow, you *really are* obsessed with me...

Jesus, Eddie, you're making petrfitz look sheepish with your trolling here. Don't get your need to constantly insult people on this board, but since you seem to care about this A LOT, let's go over this:

"Yes, 5th avenue was a nice spot when Carnegie built his place, but neighborhoods decline, and 5th isn't Park. Park Ave had particular problems for a time because of the elevated railway and the resulting noise and pollution. Much of it got MUCH nicer when the train was torn down, creating the Park Ave. we know today. But other areas took longer to build up (or recover), particuarly the more northern parts."

As has been noted here, there was NO elevated train, and the train that was there was no longer above ground and running on electric by the first decade of the last century. And you say yourself that Park Ave got "MUCH nicer" after the train was "torn down." Even though you say other areas (as you probably meant lower Park Ave at first) took longer to recover, I'd say 60+ years is long enough, no? And I'll post it here again (from Carnegie Hill Neighbors): "Whereas at the turn of the century the great majority of society lived in private residences, by 1935 most of society lived in luxury apartments. Although the first construction was on Fifth Avenue, large elevator buildings soon appeared and were fashionable on Park Avenue, as well. The popular styles of the time were French and Italian Renaissance." It's kind of clear that you mistakenly brought up the "elevated train" to back up your "marginal neighborhood" claim with evidence of pollution and noise. The train you were thinking of was on 3rd Ave and discontinued in the 50s anyway. Honest mistake, but you got more than a little flip when it was pointed out.

"Not interested, bjw. You clearly will think what you want to think in the face of opposing facts. I'm not interested in that discussion."

Ok - not exactly something a discerning, respectable adult would say, so I'm a little stunned at the complete lack of diplomacy, and I'm sorry you feel this way, but you might honestly want to look in the mirror before making such claims. You're as obstinate a poster as I've seen on this board.

"BJW - 92nd and park was "at the very least an upper-middle-class neighborhood ever since (if not before) Carnegie built his mansion."

The presence of the train and the descriptions from alan, steve, and I clearly contradict that. THAT was what the thread response was."

Read up on the history from the Carnegie Hill Neighbors site again - here's an excerpt that very clearly contradicts what you keep claiming:
"The Carnegie mansion initiated a change in building trends in Carnegie Hill. Rowhouse construction virtually stopped and, instead, elegant townhouses were built for the wealthy, who began to pour into the area. These residences, which in many cases rivaled mansions in other parts of the city, were designed in a number of revival styles popular at the time, such as neo-Renaissance and, the most popular, neo-Federal."
If that's not good enough for you, here's another quotation from a NYT article about the neighborhood (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/realestate/08livi.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2):
"Part of what the original Dutch settlers called New Harlem, Carnegie Hill was farmland until the first residential parcels were cut up and sold off in the mid-1800’s. The arrival of the railroad around the same time spurred the construction of brownstone row houses, many of them grand residences of the wealthy owners of the breweries and piano factories that dotted the Upper East Side.
When Andrew Carnegie built the neighborhood’s first lavish Fifth Avenue mansion in 1902, he started a trend among millionaires like the Vanderbilts, the Posts, the Kahns and the Burdens, whose elegant homes now serve as private schools, museums or consulates."

Can't really argue with the above. And you have yet to post any evidence of consequence to back your claims. If by 1935, most of Carnegie Hill was living in luxury apartments, do you think that within a generation, they all fled and the area became as seedy as you think it was? While that's possible, I've seen no evidence of it, and common sense would lead you to think otherwise anyway, especially since the area is "already back" to being quite wealthy. You're basically implying there was some kind of quick and drastic switcheroo. Highly unlikely.

"(crickets, crickets)
my my, that was a fairly quit [sic] shut up from the out of towners..."

Really? I have to answer all your posts within 15 minutes for them to count? Get real - I spend too much time on this site as it is, and I'm certainly not going to log in every 30 seconds to respond to you.

"Wow, you *really are* obsessed with me..."

Yeah - that's the kind of schoolyard ranting that trolls tend to employ. I guess it's fruitless to appeal to you, but can't wait til we get a return to relative civility on this board. I don't totally agree with LICC's assessment of his neighborhood and don't approve of his insulting you, but your incessant belittling is just tired, ok? Sheesh.

Great post bjw, very well said.

LICC: "even though the train was sunk in the 1870s and had been above-ground but never elevated"

No. The trains were sunk in 1906/1907, at the same time as they were electrified. Before that there were steam locomotive engines. You can't bury steam locomotive engines underground because of the exhaust.

Edison first electrified Pearl Street in lower Manhattan in 1882. That was the first major electrification project in the world. Ergo it is impossible to have buried the trains when you say.

5th Avenue was not 4th Avenue - aka Park Avenue - then, just as it is not today. That neighborhood, like all, had its shares of ups and downs. 1968 was on the downside.

Just to prove (yet again) the idiocy of LICC's claim about an endless nominal 9% increase in value in Manhattan real estate over 40 years based on a single property that was at the time in a marginal neighborhood and now is not, we have this:

NYC tops list of America’s most expensive cities

""Before 1970," he says, "workers in some sense were paid a premium to live in New York." This, says Glaeser, was due to its reputation for crime and dirtiness. "Now, people pay a premium to live there.""

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26127239/

Yup. Remember in the 1970's they passed a law FORCING the city's workers to live in the city? Because no one wanted to live here it was so godawful. That is the fallacy is LICC's argument.

9%. Yup. Per year, forever. Start at the nadir end at the acme, and that's what you're going to get.

Thanks for a couple of posts with no substantive points steve. You know that steve feels insecure and wrong when he starts scrambling in all directions to find anything misleading.
7.9 million people lived in NYC in 1970, which actually was an increase from 10 years earlier. The major flight happened in the 70s, and by 1980 the population was just over 7 million. It doesn't quite seem that "no one wanted to live here" steve. 7.9 million people lived here. The current population is just over 8 million.
Is that the best you can do? Your "proof" that Manhattan hasn't had 8-9% returns on real estate in the last 40 years is a quote from an article from a guy who says NYC was dirty in 1970? I have given multiple examples of pricing from 35-40 years ago and you have provided . . . nothing. Then you try to exaggerate what I have said (8-9% annualized growth for the last 35-40 years) into 9% forever. This is another dumb tactic of yours - you make things up to try to make your argument look better.
steve, it's ok for you to be mistaken, again, and wrong, again. Get over it. Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself and just move past it buddy.

LICC: "Stop digging a deeper hole for yourself and just move past it buddy."

LICC: "even though the train was sunk in the 1870s"

Fact: The trains were sunk in 1906/1907.

LICC: "7.9 million people lived in NYC in 1970, which actually was an increase from 10 years earlier. The major flight happened in the 70s, and by 1980 the population was just over 7 million."

Fact: These are the population figures for New York County, from New York State, Dept. of Economic Development, State Data Center:

1920: 2,284,103
1930: 1,867,312
1940: 1,889,924
1950: 1,960,101
1960: 1,698,281
1970: 1,539,233
1980: 1,428,285
1990: 1,487,536

www.empire.state.ny.us/nysdc/StateCountyPopests/CountyPopHistory.PDF

From the US Census:

2000: 1,537,195
2006 (est): 1,611,581

So as you can see, the population in Manhattan had declined steadily from 1900 to 1980, and we still haven't recovered to the 1960 level.

"This is another dumb tactic of yours - you make things up to try to make your argument look better. "

Right back atcha!

Yet again, LICC knows not of what he speaks.

steve, you made a big deal about a city law forcing city workers to live in NYC. Now you are saying that you were only talking about New York County? Make up your mind steve, what are you talking about? You like to change the subject a lot when you are shown to be wrong.
So by your numbers, more people lived in NY County in 1970 than in 2000.

I am going to ask a slightly off topic question, mainly because this is one of the sillier arguments that I have witnessed on this board (a low threshold, I know).

Steve - when doing the monthly rent calculation (i.e. 40X monthly). Is that the generally accepted number concerning affordability. I have a friend moving to Manhattan (recent law school grad) and he wants to know what the upper limit of affordability is. I was unsure if the 40x was the upper limit, the hard limit, or some sort of "you shouldn't spend more than this amount" number.

A more general question to the "40x never works" crowd. Why is it that landlord's require that amount, and not 44X or 45.3X?

Lastly, I think it is pretty obvious that outerburo population increases could be directly attributable to manhattan population decreases. Also, I love the notion that because some place is nice today, that means it always was. Now, I am not a Native New Yorker, but I grew up in the suburbs of the city (Westchester County) in the 80's and 90's. I distinctly remember coming to the city as a child and seeing where my parents used to live. At the time, it looked like a Sh*t hole, and that was principally because it was. (This was east of gramercy park in the upper teens). My dad would tell stories of their car being broken into, and being propositioned by hookers on the way home from work.

But he would also tell stories of how the old people in the building would tell him of how nice it was in the 50's. So, I think it is pretty clear that a neighborhood can go from nice, to crappy to nice again in 3 or 4 decades.

LICC - your arguments are getting lame.

"So by your numbers, more people lived in NY County in 1970 than in 2000."

Yup.

"Why is it that landlord's require that amount, and not 44X or 45.3X?"

40x = 30% of your monthly gross income in housing expenses. That's what market rental buildings require. If condo subletters want less - let them have the risk.

"I think it is pretty clear that a neighborhood can go from nice, to crappy to nice again in 3 or 4 decades. "

Yup.

> Jesus, Eddie, you're making petrfitz look sheepish with your trolling here.

And you're doing a good job of beating out LICC for the "logic" award. You keep coming back to evidence that outdates the period in question by 30 to 100 years, and then you complain about dates when others do the same.

> As has been noted here, there was NO elevated train,

Really? Walk to 97th and Park and tell me there is no elevated train. Thats 5 blocks from where you are talking about, no?

I must admit, I can't remember the acual path of the train, as I wasn't alive... but there were elevated sections, and there were trench sections. And you are still missing the point entirely, that the presence of a dirty above ground train kept the street pretty lousy. And this was WELL AFTER the period you brought up that supposedly made the area nice.

> and the train that was there was no longer above ground and running on electric by the first decade
> of the last century

Which is after the period you claimed is what made the area nice. You can't claim the point is too old when you are bringing up OLDER points. I only gave that info after you brought up an EARLIER time. You are an absolute hypocrite to complain that I was talking about an older period.

> The train you were thinking of was on 3rd Ave and discontinued in the 50s anyway.

No, that would be the 3rd avenue el. You are mistaken again. I was talking about the Park Ave train. Which you knew nothing about, and you still seem to know nothing about.

> "BJW - 92nd and park was "at the very least an upper-middle-class neighborhood ever since (if not before) Carnegie built his mansion."
> The presence of the train and the descriptions from alan, steve, and I clearly contradict that. THAT was what the thread response was."

Then you responded... AGAIN, with informations outdated by DECADES:

---
Read up on the history from the Carnegie Hill Neighbors site again - here's an excerpt that very clearly contradicts what you keep claiming:
"The Carnegie mansion initiated a change in building trends in Carnegie Hill. Rowhouse construction virtually stopped and, instead, elegant townhouses were built for the wealthy, who began to pour into the area. These residences, which in many cases rivaled mansions in other parts of the city, were designed in a number of revival styles popular at the time, such as neo-Renaissance and, the most popular, neo-Federal."
If that's not good enough for you, here's another quotation from a NYT article about the neighborhood (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/realestate/08livi.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2):
"Part of what the original Dutch settlers called New Harlem, Carnegie Hill was farmland until the first residential parcels were cut up and sold off in the mid-1800’s. The arrival of the railroad around the same time spurred the construction of brownstone row houses, many of them grand residences of the wealthy owners of the breweries and piano factories that dotted the Upper East Side.
When Andrew Carnegie built the neighborhood’s first lavish Fifth Avenue mansion in 1902, he started a trend among millionaires like the Vanderbilts, the Posts, the Kahns and the Burdens, whose elegant homes now serve as private schools, museums or consulates."
---

3 different people have reminded you that neighborhoods often DECLINE. Yet you keep ignoring this time and time again. And that’s what happened. Again, you are using data from a DIFFERENT PERIOD to describe what was happening. That is illogical, and JUST PLAIN WRONG. And then you complain when others respond about those periods.

> Can't really argue with the above.

Too bad it has zero to do with the point you are making. 1902 is a good 66 years before the time in question.

> If by 1935, most of Carnegie Hill was living in luxury apartments, do you think that within a generation, they
> all fled and the area became as seedy as you think it was?

No, that could NEVER happen. No way, no how.
Except it did and does. All the time. Clearly, you don't know the history of harlem or tons of other neighborhoods that went from good to decline.

Seriously, do you really know this little?

> You're basically implying there was some kind of quick and drastic switcheroo. Highly unlikely.

In New York City? No, never, ever.

Dude, clearly you know NOTHING about this city.

And lets cut back to the bigger pooint here.... that the area at 92&park being rich folks and a prime area. Alanhart said it fairly well, and this guys is ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE TIME AND PLACE.

"As a young child around 1968 and later, I went to after-school activities at the 92nd St. Y. The area immediately around there was not (of course) East Harlem, but it would fairly be called Spanish Harlem to the extent that neighborhoods are defined by ethnic/socioeconomic qualities (and yes, for any particular generation they go mostly hand-in-hand). The wealthier kids in the afterschool programs lived a bit more downtown; right around there was similar to the W. 80s of the time. Marginal, even in 1968."

BJW's only response to this was "it was SOOO different a block over". Uh, ok....

Not to mention, alanhart did a pretty good job of debunking your "logic":

*Yes, 5th avenue was a nice spot when Carnegie built his place --> true: overlooking Central Park is a nice spot
*but neighborhoods decline --> undeniable
*and 5th isn't Park. --> that's right: 5th was always the preferred location for mansions, such as the one that's now the Helmsley Palace (I think it's still called that). Park was for other things, like clubs.
*Park Ave had particular problems for a time because of the elevated railway and the resulting noise and pollution. --> true. When they sank the railway in the 1870s, they had to give it a cloying name like "Park Avenue" instead of 4th Avenue because it had such a bad rep
*Much of it got MUCH nicer when the train was torn down, creating the Park Ave. we know today. --> true: farther south than Carnegie Hill, tearing down the grade-level tracks around the 1870s was a boon
*But other areas took longer to build up (or recover), particuarly the more northern parts." --> true: For two decades the more northern parts near the submerged tracks remained shanties, until Carnegie built his mansion at the end of the Gilded Age.

So, you can keep repeating yourself all you want, but your only evidence is based on blogs you had to look up talking about periods THIRTY TO SEVENTY YEARS before the period in question. And the period in question being in what was probably the low point of NYC history.

But you clearly know nothing about this.

The arrogance of the outright stupidity of LICC never ceases to amaze me

LICC: "7.9 million people lived in NYC in 1970, which actually was an increase from 10 years earlier. The major flight happened in the 70s, and by 1980 the population was just over 7 million."

US CENSUES DATA ON MANHATTAN RESIDENTS (from Steve):
> 1950: 1,960,101
> 1960: 1,698,281
> 1970: 1,539,233
> 1980: 1,428,285

MORE LICC:
> This is another dumb tactic of yours - you make things up to try to make your argument look better. "

> Yet again, LICC knows not of what he speaks.

Preaching to the choir. I can't wait to get more NYC history lessons from the guy from Boston and the guy from Detroit.

> Now you are saying that you were only talking about New York County

Uh, LICC has been making claims abotut Manhattan RE specifically, then makes claims about white flight to make a point about a specific Manhattan neighborhood, and now suddenly its BAD that the data is on Manhattan specifically?

Wow, Steve, you proved him wrong so badly he's trying to change the story...

And, I'm sure BJW will be surprised to hear this, because he wasn't aware that cities and neighborhoods decline...

> LICComment
> about 4 hours ago
> ignore this person
> report abuse Great post bjw, very well said.

You know that when LICC jumps on your bandwagon, you don't know what you're talking about...

;-)

Maybe now we can get some Canadian folks to tell us about the history of hip hop in NYC... then this board will be complete.

Thanks Steve. So, as a general rule, at most, you should spend 30% of your monthly gross income in housing expenses. So relating that to the 12 * Monthly rent * 12 = purchase cost analysis, those who are arguing 17x-24x are arguing that real estate should cost you more (not necessarily should, but does) than the standard 30%?

> 9%. Yup. Per year, forever. Start at the nadir end at the acme, and that's what you're going to get.

Of course, we've only been talking about Manhattan.

LIC will increase at 90% per year.

30% = 40x monthly rent = 12x annual rent purchasing price. It's an equation.

There are different ratios - imputed rent, owner's equivalent rent - that will give you a different rent-to-buy ratio, but that's because they're measuring the variables more explicitly, taking into account future price movements, which the 12x ratio does not.

There is also JuiceMan's "300x Rule Monthly Rent," which conveniently leaves out interest payments and transaction costs of buying. LMAO.

If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians. Warren Buffett

Valuing a home based on a 12x rent ratio just doesn't make sense. The ratio would value an apartment getting $3,000/month rent at $432,000. To buy a $432,000 home with 20% cash and an 80% mortgage, your monthly after-tax cost would be in the $2500 range. It makes no sense for the ownership cost to be below the rental cost. There should be a premium over rental cost to take into account the benefit of owning, including the stability of your monthly cost over time. The actual target value based on $3,000 rent/month should be $700,000 .

"your monthly after-tax cost"

Are you still on with that? You can't get a mortgage that takes "your monthly after-tax cost" into account, so there is no "tax benefit."

"There should be a premium over rental cost to take into account the benefit of owning"

There is no "benefit of owning." There is actually a risk premium.

"including the stability of your monthly cost over time"

And your inability to sell it in a down market, and the amount of additional risk.

"The actual target value based on $3,000 rent/month should be $700,000."

LMAO.

To pay $3,000 in rent you need to make $120,000 a year at 40x monthly rent. To buy a $700,000 apartment with an 80/20 mortgage 6.5% interest rate will give you $3,539.58 in monthly mortgage payments alone. Figure minimum $500 in tax and $500 in maintenance (and I'm being generous) you get monthly PITI of $4,359.58, which means to qualify for such a loan you would need to make $174,383.20.

So yet again, LICC - THERE IS NO TAX BENEFIT because what you can rent on a salary of $120,000 a year you need $174,383.20 to buy, but they guy who rents it at $120,000 a year can't afford to buy it, so he doesn't get the tax benefit.

45% more. LMAO. OVERPRICED!

LICC - Not to get into a whole "thing" with you here (cause seriously, I don't have a dog in the 12X fight), But, Shouldn't that "premium" always be present? I would assume (and feel free to correct me), but hasn't owning always included the "stability of monthly rent".

I assume that in 1962, that apartment on Park ave also had some sort of premium attached to owning it. (cause logic says that rent in 1962 also went up year to year, so buying in 1962 also conferred a "stability premium").

More importantly, shouldn't that premium have always existed since the origination of the concept of "rent vs buy". So shouldn't that already be taken into account in the historical average of the rent vs buy calculation?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seams like people come up with a value for the "intangible" benefits of owning that seam to fix Steve's equation so that something costs what they want it to cost. for Example, you used Steve's equation and got 432 (who knows if that is right) and then arbitrarily (to me, but I admit i might not fully understand) added 268,000. Where did that number come from?

> "The actual target value based on $3,000 rent/month should be $700,000."

Even if that were correct, this market is in for a MAJOR shock. I pointed out the glaring ratio differential in DUMBO (at least 50% higher than that ratio), and someone just did the same for FiDi on that thread.

Second, its not correct.

Third, even if it was correct, it doesn't factor in a decline. A 20% price decline would turn a 20x ratio to 16x, and so on...

"people come up with a value for the "intangible" benefits of owning"

I've never said such a thing. I say they are offsetting. Owning and renting give you the same thing - a place to live - albeit under different conditions.

Steve, you misunderstood me. To me, it appeared like LICC was taking the 12x formula and then arbitrarily adding 268K to it. I was asking if 268K was the value LICC was giving to the "Intangible benefit of ownership"

Memnonhi, an 80/20 mortgage on a $700,000 apartment will put the monthly after-tax costs at around $3500. If you want an absolute current break-even between monthly rent costs and monthly ownership costs, the value would probably be in the low $600,000s. Most people would be willing to pay a bit more to own, other things being equal, so equating $3,000/month to rent to $3500/month to own is reasonable. steve is assuming that everyone takes the maximum loan they can based on income, which I dispute. I also think he is naive to posit that $175k/year is some outrageous income level for Manhattan. Just because there are higher numbers of people who could afford to rent at $3,000/month than can qualify to buy at $700k is irrelevant - there are plenty of qualified buyers who can make a market. Beside, I wouldn't just assume things about the demographics of apartment buyers. Are married couples more likely to buy than to rent? Would combining a couple's salary making buyers otherwise singularly not qualified not able to get a loan? Do lots of people have more than 20% cash? To say there is no tax benefit is just stubborn silliness. $700k seems much more reasonable to me than $432k that comes from the 12x theory. Also, the rent ratio to use can be affected by many factors. When loan rates were much higher in the 70s and 80s (and early 90s), the ratio would need to be lower. It can be affected by tax rates too. You can't just look at a historical number in a vacuum.
Now, this has nothing to do with timing the market. If you think rents and prices will plummet short-term, you wouldn't buy anyway. I'm discussing the price of an apartment given the rents in demand today.

Meant to say "now able to get a loan"

"Owning and renting give you the same thing" - only a renter would say that. Owning gives a person much greater stability, more freedom over their surroundings, a greater lock on monthly expenses (your monthly mortgage payment stays the same so you don't have to worry about rents going up), an equity interest in the property, etc. steve may not personally agree, but most people believe this and would be willing to pay more for it, which is what matters when comparing the costs.

Also memnonhi, the 12x ratio would take the annual rent and multiply it by 12. 3000 x 12 (months in the year) x 12 = 432,000.

> so equating $3,000/month to rent to $3500/month to own

Quite a stretch.

I think having someone else responsible for fixing broken things in the apartment makes renting actually "worth" a little more, not less. Plus, the option to change apartments much easier is worth more to me as well.

Either way, adding $500 to "value" because you get to say you own is a HUGE stretch imho...

> Owning gives a person much greater stability
I don't know what is meant by stability outside of what is mentioned.

> more freedom over their surroundings
Huh?

If you have a lousy neighbor and you rent, you move easily. If you own, selling is a much harder proposition.

> a greater lock on monthly expenses (your monthly mortgage payment
> stays the same so you don't have to worry about rents going up)

but you do have to worry about maintenance, assessments, repairs, etc.

> , an equity interest in the property, etc.
That would be double counting...

Also, renters don't have to worry about a market decline... which is pretty huge these days. Trading up is much easier. Overall, flexibility can be HUGE. An option is worth something.

Ok Eddie, I have to laugh a little here. You've trolled me long enough with this silliness, and you've obviously got a lot of time on your hands to do so. Good luck man.

Hey, you can say "troll" all you want, but you were pretty darn wrong. Yelling "troll" won't change that. And you were pretty darn hypocritical the whole time.

I answered your claims point by point, and all you can claim is "troll". Alanhart also confirmed all of them. And Steve also noted your mistake. And now you just yell "troll" over and over.

Guess who the real troll is...

Ok Eddie, but yelling I'm wrong all you want won't change anything either. The fact that you jump on everything I say is peculiar though - I'll leave it at that. Seriously dude, good luck.

> Ok Eddie, but yelling I'm wrong all you want won't change anything either.

You are right, you are wrong whether I (or alanhart or steve) say it or not. But, if you keep posting nonsense, expect the responses.

What kind of myth could this possibly be? I deducted my interest in my tax return for the past 4 years, it was no myth.