No, that's not a good thing. It artificially inflates home prices. One of the reasons Canada's GDP is so stagnant is because of this method of accruing wealth instead of investment in business.
My understanding is that the way mortgages are amortized you're mostly paying interest early on so it takes time to accrue equity but yes if your ultimate goal is to acquire rental properties then it could work out though it requires taking on quite some debt since you taking a home equity loan before paying off the initial mortgage. Depending on your circumstance you might not even need to get a 2nd property though, part of the reason I advocate for the right to build ADUs and renovate single family homes(SFH) into multifamily ones(MFH) is to facilitate what they call "house hacking" where you rent out some part of your primary residence. If you bought a home, built an ADU, and then rented out either unit to help cover the mortgage while living in the other that's a smarter investment than merely buying the SFH and hoping it appreciate.
I addressed this in another post but the number of people on FHA or USDA loans who was getting a HELOC and then buying another home has to be extremely small to the point of making no impact on the market whatsoever.
Do you not have a mortgage?
That's the Trump economic model, kids have too many pencils and dolls and need to sacrifice that for the good of the country.
I never said a home is not an investment vehicle, just that its not necessarily a good one purely in financial terms and setting aside the obvious subjective value of home ownership
How is it a misrepresentation? The government backs the loans, how is that not a subsidy of some kind? Of course there's also the tax deduction on the interest payments and the programs that help you acquire the funds for a down payment. I don't think there's any arguing that home ownership isn't subsidized in this country.
Its not the same costs though, owning a home has higher upfront costs and more ongoing expenses than renting. Of course there are upsides too but its not accurate to say they cost the same.
You reek of brain worms.
Say what? Betting on the US stock market is universally the best investment strategy that will work for everyone.
I think its as safe of a bet as any for white collar work. And the nice thing is you don't need an expensive 4 year degree anymore.
I've heard the opposite, used to be if you could prove yourself through coding projects and certifications you could get a good CS job but that nowadays many employers want to see a degree.
Yes it’s a low ask investment strategy. You’ll never “lose” but you won’t ever make wealth.
My team just hired a guy that went the coding bootcamp route.
I believe it, I just assume that route is a lot harder these days if even degree holders claim to struggle to find work.
Money debases at a far greater rate than the VTSAX grows. I advise that if your goal to beat debasement you need 15% a year. VTSAX is “strong” comparatively to some other indexes at 8% a year, but you need more. I’ve grown multiples that in my portfolio and everyone should be as aggressive as possible in trying to become financially free.Define wealth. Do I need to explain compounding to you.
He didn’t answer so I assume no. Arguing housing and the merits of the suburbs with someone who doesn’t even have a mortgage
That dude doesn't own shit. All of his arguments boil down to "I own nothing, so here's my great idea as to why everybody else should own nothing."
Who invests 30k and decides that's enough for the rest your life? Going aggressive is also risky. We can't all put it all in 1 or 2 spots and hope it will be the next Amazon or BTC. The smart play is the slow and steady path.
Now do NFTs.
30k a year. That’s a good amount for a normal person. If someone can do 25% of their income to investments they are in a better spot than 90% of people. I just wouldn’t recommend putting that all in a total stock index.
We'll know who's right before too long but I think ai is going to take alot of jobs in the next ten years
