Does anyone else eschew credit?

But, when you eventually leave, even if it's when you die, you'll leave the next renter with a huge increase in rent to cover the enormous expenditures of new roof, and other additions and upkeep you've taken advantage of over the years. A future generation will be paying for the roof you got to enjoy for "free" They are going to be paying not only for their own rent, but for things they never got to enjoy.

Cyclo I am with you... no credit card for me (only a debit card).

Chai, you are part of a gambling ring. They are betting that you will fall behind... and when you do they will extract far more that $700 out of you. Of course (as with any gamble) they may lose... but then they may win big. The fact that a few people make it ahead shouldn't surprise you, this was even true of the Bernie Madoff scheme.

I promise you they win big more than enough to pay for their jet planes and shiny tall buildings.

Should you really make it ahead, you should sleep well at night knowing that this money they are giving to you is being bled from some single mother who is just trying to keep her kids fed and clothed.

The credit card industry is evil.

georgeob1 wrote:

Was German society any different in this respect?

Yes it was. The use of credit scores is much more narrowly restricted in Germany. For example, none of my employers ever checked my credit scores before hiring me, and none of my landlords ever checked it before renting out their apartments to me. If they had tried, it would have been considered very odd in Germany. On the other hand, my American employer and landlord both checked my American credit reports. (Not that there was much to check at the time.)

This is actually not true. Perhaps my area merely has very restrictive rent controls, but the rent has not risen more than 1.5% or so between tenants for the history of my building, regardless of the repairs done to it.
Cycloptichorn

Thomas wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is it reasonable to assume that houses appreciate enough to cover interest and maintenance costs?

Historically, yes. And provided you stay put in the property long enough.

.... and considering the rent that you're not paying to a landlord.

And considering that many, maybe most, homeowners also get a tax break from deductible mortgage interest and real estate taxes, increase their credit scores allowing them to borrow more economically when needed, and, if they buy wisely and within their means, at the end of five years or then years or twenty years they have an equity value that has increased in most or all of those years. No matter how many years one pays rent, nobody has anything to show for rent paid. Evenso, rent is certainly preferable to having no home at all, and is a viable option for those who cannot scrape together a down payment for a house or qualify for a mortgage.

Foxfyre wrote:

And considering that many, maybe most, homeowners also get a tax break from deductible mortgage interest and real estate taxes,

This is true, but it is not a reason to buy a house. I've had people tell me they bought a bigger house, so that they'd pay more interest, so that they'd get a bigger tax break.

That's not the way it works. If you pay a $1.00 in interest, and you get $.20 back on your taxes, you've still spent $.80.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is actually not true. Perhaps my area merely has very restrictive rent controls, but the rent has not risen more than 1.5% or so between tenants for the history of my building, regardless of the repairs done to it.
Cycloptichorn

Understatement of the year. That's why Bzerkeley has so little investment in new or upgraded housing.

I just don't see how the math adds up, that buying a house is always the smartest choice.

I save 500 bucks a month towards buying a house someday. I hope to up this to a thou a month after my wedding this year. If I can keep saving and accruing interest on those investments, within 15 years I'll have enough money to buy a house with no mortgage whatsoever. With zero liability towards the property the entire time, with freedom to move, with no insurance or upkeep to speak of. Hard to see how that's not the better choice than paying interest to someone else that whole time.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

But, when you eventually leave, even if it's when you die, you'll leave the next renter with a huge increase in rent to cover the enormous expenditures of new roof, and other additions and upkeep you've taken advantage of over the years. A future generation will be paying for the roof you got to enjoy for "free" They are going to be paying not only for their own rent, but for things they never got to enjoy.

This is actually not true. Perhaps my area merely has very restrictive rent controls, but the rent has not risen more than 1.5% or so between tenants for the history of my building, regardless of the repairs done to it.

You're attempt to turn the situation around is lame, you should try harder if you're looking to make a point that way.

Cycloptichorn

I save 500 bucks a month towards buying a house someday. I hope to up this to a thou a month after my wedding this year. If I can keep saving and accruing interest on those investments, within 15 years I'll have enough money to buy a house with no mortgage whatsoever. With zero liability towards the property the entire time, with freedom to move, with no insurance or upkeep to speak of. Hard to see how that's not the better choice than paying interest to someone else that whole time.

Whatever the provocation, all you did was make yourself look silly.

The very essence of cy's opinion is that credit cards take advantage of people. The point can hardly be missed since it's in almost every post.

You and cy do that same thing....claiming defensiveness and provocation where none exist.

I know my points above, if not written in grammatically correct form, or misspelled, are still well made, and your disagreement doesn't not change that.