What are the economic benefits of owning a home in the United States?
"Is all interest on a first time home deductible on taxes? What does   that even mean? If I pay $14,000 in taxes will My taxes be $14,000   less. Will my taxable income by that much less? If you use the standard deduction in the US (assuming United States), you will have 0 benefit from a mortgage.   If you itemize deductions, then your interest paid (not principal) and your property tax paid is deductible and reduces your income for tax purposes.  If your marginal tax rate is 25% and you pay $10000 in interest and property tax, then when you file your taxes, you'll owe (or get a refund) of $2500 (marginal tax rate * (amount of interest + property tax)). I have heard the term ""The equity on your home is like a bank"". What   does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home   as collateral? If you pay an extra $500 to your mortgage, then your equity in your house goes up by $500 as well.   When you pay down the principal by $500 on a car loan (depreciating asset) you end up with less than $500 in value in the car because the car's value is going down.   When you do the same in an appreciating asset, you still have that money available to you though you either need to sell or get a loan to use that money. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying   $800 in rent, to owning a house? There are several other benefits. These are a few of the positives, but know that there are many negatives to home ownership and the cost of real estate transactions usually dictate that buying doesn't make sense until you want to stay put for 5-7 years.   A shorter duration than that usually are better served by renting.  The amount of maintenance on a house you own is almost always under estimated by new home owners." Altough this may vary a lot depending on where you live and your actual finance, here what convinced me buying a home instead of renting : Other benefits : "To add to what other have stated, I recently just decided to purchase a home over renting some more, and I'll throw in some of my thoughts about my decision to buy. I closed a couple of weeks ago. Note that I live in Texas, and that I'm not knowledgeable in real estate other than what I learned from my experiences in the area when I am located. It depends on the market and location. You have to compare what renting will get you for the money vs what buying will get you. For me, buying seemed like a better deal overall when just comparing monthly payments. This is including insurance and taxes. You will need to stay at a house that you buy for at least 5-7 years. You first couple years of payments will go almost entirely towards interest. It takes a while to build up equity. If you can pay more towards a mortgage, do it. You need to have money in the bank already to close. The minimum down payment (at least in my area) is 3.5% for an FHA loan. If you put 20% down, you don't need to pay mortgage insurance, which is essentially throwing money away. You will also have add in closing costs. I ended up purchasing a new construction. My monthly payment went up from $1200 to $1600 (after taxes, insurance, etc.), but the house is bigger, newer, more energy efficient, much closer to my work, in a more expensive area, and in a market that is expected to go up in value. I had all of my closing costs (except for the deposit) taken care of by the lender and builder, so all of my closing costs I paid out of pocket went to the deposit (equity, or the ""bank""). If I decide to move and need to sell, then I will get a lot (losing some to selling costs and interest) of the money I have put in to the house back out of it when I do sell, and I have the option to put that money towards another house. To sum it all up, I'm not paying a difference in monthly costs because I bought a house. I had my closing costs taking care of and just had to pay the deposit, which goes to equity. I will have to do maintenance myself, but I don't mind fixing what I can fix, and I have a builder's warranties on most things in the house.  To really get a good idea of whether you should rent or buy, you need to talk to a Realtor and compare actual costs. It will be more expensive in the short term, but should save you money in the long term." "@Alex B already answered the first question. I want to respond to the second and third: I have heard the term ""The equity on your home is like a bank"". What does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home as collateral? Yes, you can borrow against the equity in your home. What you should keep in mind is that you can only borrow against the amount that you've paid on your house. For example, if you've paid $100,000 against your house, you can then borrow $100,000 (assuming the value hasn't changed). The argument that this is a good deal misses the obvious alternative: If you didn't spend that $100,000 on a house, then you'd still have it and wouldn't need to take out a loan at all. Of course, equity still has value, and you should consider it when doing the cost/benefit analysis, but make sure to compare your equity to savings you could have from renting. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying $800 in rent, to owning a house? Economically: As you'll notice from my parenthetical remarks, this is extremely situational. It might be good to come up with a spreadsheet for your situation, taking all of the costs into account, and see if you end up better or worse. Also, there's nothing wrong with buying a house for non-economic reasons if that's what you want. Just make sure you're aware of the real cost before you do it." It is almost a sure thing that the housing market will crash again hugely.For this reason I prefer to own several houses that way when it does no one can ask for their money back and leave me homeless. Current economics suggest a fall of between 40-60% from 2011 prices meaning that if you have bought a house in the last 12 years you can wave bye bye to any and all equity, and this will happen very soon. I recommend saving your money and buying a house outright (like I did 3 times) from someone who has spent 12 years or so paying a mortgage.
"Get fucked with that idiocy mate. You can cut the data seven ways to Sunday.   &gt;""Americans absolutely confirm they believe America is the land of opportunity and that people should have equal opportunity if they have the skills,"" said Diana Elliott, research officer for the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Economic Mobility Project, in an interview. ""The data fly in the face of what Americans have believed and what they say they believe in our polling work.""   &gt;Pew found that economic mobility is largely an accident of birth. Currier points to the fact that 66 percent of people born in the lowest two income levels remain there as adults, and exactly 66 percent of people born at the highest two income levels stay there as adults, a phenomenon called ""stickiness at the ends."" http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pursuingamericandreampdf.pdf   &gt;In particular, previous analyses of economic mobility in the United States and other industrialized nations reveal that the United States has less, not more, mobility than its northern neighbor. That is, one's family economic background is more likely to influence one's economic outcomes in the United States than in Canada. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/chasing-the-same-dream-climbing-different-ladders  &gt;One way to think of the estimated elasticity of children’s income with respect to their parents’ is to ask how much of a given income advantage observed in the parental generation is preserved in the children’s generation. Miles Corak exem- plifies this for the difference observed in the United States for families with children under the age of 18.15 The top fifth of such families have about 12 times as much income as the bottom fifth. If the intergenerational persistence of income was equal to one, that income advantage would be transferred in whole to the next generation. That is, the children of the richest fifth would have 12 times as much income as the children of the poorest fifth. If the intergenerational persis- tence of income were equal to zero, none of that advantage would be present among the children of these groups. Corak reported that U.S. estimates of the elasticity vary in the range of 0.4–0.6, corresponding to an inherited income advantage of between 2.70 and 4.44 for the richest fifth compared to the poorest fifth. Elasticity at these levels means that the children whose parents were among the richest fifth (i.e., parents whose income was 12 times that of the poorest fifth) grow up to earn about 3 to 4 times as much as the children whose parents were among the poorest fifth. Thus, their income advantage was roughly half that of their parents. http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc262g.pdf     All you logic 100 students can go Fuck a duck with your idiocy" It's so short sighted. It is a yuuuggge, gift-wrapped present for China. Now, China will step into the leadership role that the US just ceded. With that role comes huge economic opportunities as well as massive political points at home with their own people (who are the real drivers behind China's desire to reduce emissions).  You can deny climate change exists, but the market has spoken folks. Green energy will be transformative to the economy. Thus, Trump's push to hold onto last century's technology, energy and jobs is a bad move and one that will ultimately cost all of us. Meanwhile, China will push further and further ahead in that space and benefit from the economic gains that come with being the defacto leader in the climate change fight. "The general answer to this is ""yes"".  When you're dealing with single-digit millionaires, the answer is that their insurance habits and needs are basically the same as everyone else.  When you get into the double digit and triple digit millionaires, or people worth billions, they have additional options, but those basically boil down to using ""self-insurance"" rather than paying a company for an insurance policy.  The following is based on both what I've read and a fair deal of personal experience working for or with various stripes of millionaire, and even one billionaire. Addressing the types of insurance you mention: This is generally used to provide survivors with a replacement for income you can no longer provide when dead, in addition to paying for costs associated with dying (funeral, hospital/hospice bills, etc).  Even millionaires and billionaires have this, yes, but the higher your net worth, the less value it has.  If you're worth 9 or 10 figures, you probably already have trust funds set up for your family members, so an extra payout from an insurance policy is probably going to represent a small fraction of the wealth you're leaving your survivors, and as has been noted, insurance makes a profit, so the expectation by the insurance company is that they'll make more money on the policy than they'll have to pay out on death.  That being said, the members of the 9+ figure club I've worked for all had multi-million dollar life insurance policies on them, which were paid for or heavily subsidized by the companies they owned or worked for.  I doubt they would have held those policies if they had to pay the full cost, but when it's free or cheap, why not? Absolutely.  As health insurance in America is an untaxed employment benefit, owing to regulations from World War II, all the wealthy folks I've had contact with got outrageously good plans as part of the companies they work for or owned.  Having said that, even their trust fund beneficiaries held health insurance, because this type of insurance (in America, at least) is actually not really insurance, it's more of a pre-payment plan for medical expenses, and as such, it provides broader access to health care than you'd get from simply having enough money to pay for whatever treatments you need.  If you walk into a hospital as a millionaire and state that you'll definitely be able to pay for your open-heart surgery with cash, you'll get a very different response than if you walk in with your insurance card and your ""diamond-level"" coverage.  So, in this case, it's not as much as about the monetary benefits (although this is a type of ""insurance"" that's generally free or heavily discounted to the individual, so that's a factor) as it is about easier access to health care. Although this is required by law, it's one of the common forms of insurance that the very wealthy can, and often do handle differently than the rest of us.  Most (if not all) US states have a provision to allow motorists to self-insure themselves, which amount to putting up a bond to cover claims against them.  Basically, you deposit the minimum amount the state determines is required for auto insurance with the responsible state organization, get a certificate of self-insurance and you're good to go.  All the high wealth individuals I know when this route, for two reasons - first of all, they didn't have to deal with insurance companies (or pay sky-high rates on account of all the speeding tickets they picked up) and secondly, they made their deposit with government bonds they had in their portfolios anyway, and they could still collect the interest on their self-insurance deposits.  Of course, this meant that if they wrecked or dinged up their Maserati or Bentley or whatever, they'd be out of pocket to repair or replace it... but I guess if you can afford one $200,000 car, you can afford to buy a second one if you wreck it, or get by riding one of your other luxury automobiles instead. Since someone else mentioned kidnapping insurance, I'll point out here that what Robert DeNiro did in Casino when he put a couple million dollars into a safety deposit box for his wife to use if he was kidnapped or needed to pay off a government official is essentially the same thing as ""self-insurance"".  Putting money away somewhere for unexpected events in lieu of buying an insurance policy against them. In real life, the very wealthy will often do this with US treasuries, government bonds and other interest-bearing, safe investments. They make a little money, diversify their portfolios and at the same time, self-insure against a potential big loss. This is another insurance area where even the very wealthy are remarkably similar to the rest of us, in that they all generally have it, yes, although the reason is a little different.  For normal folks, the home they own is generally the largest part of their net worth, or at least a very substantial fraction, for those older folks with retirement savings that exceed the value of their homes.  So for us, we have home owners insurance to prevent a catastrophic event from wiping out the lion's share of our net worth. If you're an ultra-wealthy individual who can afford an 8 figure home, that's not really the case (at least with the ones I've dealt with, who made their fortunes in business and are good managing their wealth and diversifying their assets - could be different for sports stars or the entertainment industry), and these people generally own multiple homes anyway, so it's not as big a deal if they lose one. However, no one actually buys a multi-million dollar home by writing a multi-million dollar check.  They get a mortgage, just like the rest of us.  And to get a mortgage, insurance on the property is a requirement.  So yes, even the ultra wealthy generally have insurance on their home(s).  There is an element of not wanting to shell out another 20 million if the place burns down, or someone breaks in and steals your valuables, but the bigger part of the reason is that it's required to get a mortgage in the first place, which is generally done for financial reasons - interest on your mortgage is a tax deduction, and you don't want to sink millions of dollars all at once into buying a property that's not going to appreciate in value, when you can get a mortgage and invest those millions of dollars to make more money instead." As other answers have pointed out, professional real estate investors do own residential investment properties. However, small residential units typically are not owned by professional real estate investors as your experience confirms. This has a fairly natural cause. The size of the investment opportunity is insufficient to warrant the proper research/due diligence to which a large investment firm would have to commit if it wanted to properly assess the potential of a property. For a small real estate fund managing, say, $50 MM, it would take 100 properties at a $500K valuation in order to fully invest the funds. This number grows quickly as we decrease the average valuation to reflect even smaller individual units. Analogously, it is unlikely that you will find large institutional investors buying stocks with market caps of $20 MM. They simply cannot invest a large enough portion of total AUM to make the diligence make economic sense.  As such, institutional real estate money tends to find its way into large multi-family units that provide a more convenient purchase size for a fund. "The advantage of using a mortgage is that you pay for a house at TODAY's price, using TOMORROW's money. Your question suggests that you rightly observed that it was not a good idea around 2006 (the last peak in housing). That was when prices were at their maximum, and had nowhere to go but down. Some experts think that house prices STILL have further to go on the downside. Meanwhile, wages have been going nowhere during that time. This phenomenon seems to happen about every 40 years or so, the 1930s, the 1970s, and around 2010. At MOST other times, say the 1980s, houses are likely to go up for the ""foreseeable"" future. At those times, you want to buy the house at ""today's"" price, then pay for it in future dollars when you are earning more money. The irony is that what most people observe as teenagers is usually the wrong thing to do when they are, say, forty. In 2035, it will probably make sense to have a large mortgage in a bull housing market, which is the opposite of what you observed around 2010. So a better rule is to do at age 40 what made sense about the time you were born (in your case, perhaps the 1990s). Whereas the people born in the early 1970s that got ""caught"" recently, observed the bull market of the 1980s and 1990s in THEIR teens and twenties, rather than the bear market of the 1970s that took place about the time they were born." "Americans are snapping, like crazy. And not only Americans, I know a lot of people from out of country are snapping as well, similarly to your Australian friend. The market is crazy hot. I'm not familiar with Cleveland, but I am familiar with Phoenix - the prices are up at least 20-30% from what they were a couple of years ago, and the trend is not changing. However, these are not something ""everyone"" can buy. It is very hard to get these properties financed. I found it impossible (as mentioned, I bought in Phoenix). That means you have to pay cash. Not everyone has tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash available for a real estate investment. For many Americans, 30-60K needed to buy a property in these markets is an amount they cannot afford to invest, even if they have it at hand. Also, keep in mind that investing in rental property requires being able to support it - pay taxes and expenses even if it is not rented, pay to property managers, utility bills, gardeners and plumbers, insurance and property taxes - all these can amount to quite a lot. So its not just the initial investment. Many times ""advertised"" rents are not the actual rents paid. If he indeed has it rented at $900 - then its good. But if he was told ""hey, buy it and you'll be able to rent it out at $900"" - wouldn't count on that. I know many foreigners who fell in these traps. Do your market research and see what the costs are at these neighborhoods. Keep in mind, that these are distressed neighborhoods, with a lot of foreclosed houses and a lot of unemployment. It is likely that there are houses empty as people are moving out being out of job. It may be tough to find a renter, and the renters you find may not be able to pay the rent. But all that said - yes, those who can - are snapping." "The ultimate purpose of Case-Schiller is to build contracts that you can use to stop worrying about this, for a price. You or your lender might buy cash settled put options based on the index, and hope that if your home falls in value, the your options become ""in the money"" to make up the shortfall. The major problem that I can see with this is finding people to take the other side of that contract. Renters would be the primary candidates, but Americans are on average so overweight in real estate that there really isn't anyone underexposed to real estate who would benefit from diversification, and the tax advantage will give people far cheaper avenues address this. Viewed in this light, your question has a sort of obvious answer: Case-Schiller is historical data, and you need to know about the future historical data. Case-Schiller can't do it alone, but you can use futures markets to predict it. Problem you'll have is that the market itself will optimize this temporal trade: if there's a market drop anticipated, the market will charge you more for market drop insurance." Of course, 100k a year is middle to upper middle in almost every location except the global hubs of America (la, San Fran, new york, etc etc). I know where i live a family making 100k is just 227$ away from upper class (according to Washington posts calculator). Hell growing up my mother made 38k and she was able to afford a 150k house, yearly vacation trips abroad, and a new car paid off in 1 year. By all means of the article that is the aspirations Joe Biden quoted. The only difference is we live in the midwest. I think no one living in California, New York city, miami, etc. should get delusional and believe that our most demanded locations will have room for everyone, especially at a reasonable rate. People are willing to spend 5k for a studio in New York because it is a city of opportunity, San Francisco is not a place to let life come to you. What i love about the Midwest is that living is incredibly cheap, and if you have established yourself soon enough there is a fortune to be made, especially in real estate. Not to mention we have Chicago, Detroit, Cedar Point which almost every family is close enough and earns enough to visit at least once a year. We may not have enough to afford Lamborghini's, multi million dollar houses, or to visit paris on a whim but I feel most in the midwest have enough to love comfortably and save for retirement atleast (minus maybe the bible belt)