How dare you, Amy. How dare you.

Amy:

I would agree with your opinion in some respects, however, "many" renters, not all, don't treat the properties that they rent all that well. Some people are just not suited to be homeowners. I am sure that you are not one of them but many renters are real skanks who trash every place they live in. Fortunately, when I owned rental property I did my homework and avoided a lot of heartache. I had really good tenants...Where I live now, I would only buy and rent out mobile homes as renters here trash the houses, i.e. use it as a meth lab (here in meth houses have to be stripped to the studs and redone prior to renting them again) with a mobile I can just rip it out and put in a "new" one..

I am in favor scrapping this behemoth of a tax code and in favor of a national flat tax and getting rid of most if not all deductions and going with a 5-10% business tax.

First of all it would make everyone pay their "fair" share, the poor, the middle class and the rich would pay the same percentage if and when you purchase goods and services, if you buy stuff used (from a private party), well, you don't pay tax on it.

It would end the loop holes of the rich who dont really "pay" income tax anyway, as most of their income is from other sources. It would also finally tax ANY illegal who is in this country because they will be buying stuff here....

Jobs would come back to the US as well as corporations who have left because of this ridiculous tax code.

If you want to understand the allure of home "ownership" - in quotes because it has been demonstrated that government can take your property through condemnation any time they want - consider the alternative: a nation of propertyless people.

The citation is invalid, because it assumes that the non-owner population cannot ever own a home, AND gets no benefit from those who do AND gets no benefit from renting.

As for "the rich", of whom I detect a bit of snark in the whole point of this, let me point out a huge, huge thing: home equity is one of the least volatile anchors of credit there is. If you've been in a shack for ten years or so and don't spend like, well, Obama wants to, you can get loans to buy income properties and make other investments which outstrip the debt service charges.

There is something to think about here that I think will help understand individual home ownership.

Make a model of the extremes and work inward from there. Start with "no one is allowed to own land", vs. "your home cannot be entered by anyone, including government forces, without your consent". Who would benefit most from each arrangement, or from the features on middle ground?

While you're modeling, do not mistake possession in debt for ownership, and recognize that pure ownership of land is not possible under modern law. There is always a tax to be paid and eminent domain to be thwarted.

Shhhh! I *think* I"m getting $8k from Obama next tax time! I hate the man, and the policy, but since my taxes will no doubt go up to pay for it, I'm damn sure taking the $$.

The real solution here is either flat tax, or national sales tax. I prefer the sales tax, as people who consume less will pay less, and it encourages reuse of items rather than tossing them. Exempt basic foods and medical purchases, and charge on everything else.

"Why renters do not and cannot offer the same contribution to the public good is never specified,"

Driving through most any renter-heavy neighborhood will show you why quite quickly. Yes, there are great renters, but they are the minority. And you, Amy, are atypical in most every way, not just in being a responsible tenant.

I don't quarrel with the flat tax/fair tax proposal, because the deduction was never worth that much here anyway. Upstate NY has low home prices, and high property taxes.

The savings, to me, were in being able to keep the principle and interest payment constant. After a decade or two, my taxes now approach my mortgage payment, which is less than people pay in rent for a good apartment.

It's not California, but the total tax bills are almost as bad, and we don't have your weather or your traffic. Life is full of compromises.

The politicians try to appease everyone, to ensure votes so they remain in office.

The truth is they should implement The Fair Tax, so that everyone across the nation is under the same tax rule.

This would also stop politicians from pandering to special interest groups.

Double-edged sword, Amy.

Most people could not afford to buy a house without that deduction. However, the existence of that deduction has driven up home prices.

Getting rid of that deduction will end up with a lot of abandoned properties, and the subsequent crash in values will ruin a shitload of people.

A better solution, of course, is the abolition of income taxes across the board. But that will never happen.

> As for "the rich", of whom I detect
> a bit of snark in the whole
> point of this

What Raddy said. There are a lot of stabilizing forces that come to a community when people have an investment in it. Even if you're right that the tax blessings are disproportionate, and I'm not sure you are, it's just not likely that this benefit will be rescinded in my lifetime, for precisely the same reason that renters are thought of as flighty and unreliable. Go ahead: Get upset about it.

(PS Raddy- Do you have other properties?)

Some good points and bad points in this article.
There is not always a net tax savings in home ownership. I know in my case it is not. The tax benefit is based upon interest on money borrowed. However local and state tax the value of the property. So for me I pay more local + state tax than I recieve refund from Federal. So for me it is a net financial loss. Unlike say a automobile which is not taxed or refunded.
A second problem with the artilce is it dismisses that home ownership is a societal good thing, out of hand, because no one has explained or proved why. This does not disprove that it is a benefit. There are many beneficial things in life that I cannot explain, that does not mean they are not bennificial.

This is a funny one: I agree with the article's conclusion, but the arguments are specious. The article seems to claim that, if anyone loses, an arrangement is not optimal. That is nonsense! The point is that the total "loss" must be less that the total "win" - seen across society as a whole.

Whether or not that is the case? The article does not even attempt to answer this. In fact, homeownership is largely tied to the middle-class, and people tend to want to buy a house as they settle down into marriage and child-bearing.

However, as with any government subsidy, the tax deduction distorts the market. People buy houses, already counting the deduction into their financial planning. The end result is higher housing prices.

If you were to eliminate the deduction, you would have to do so very gradually, knowing that doing so would drive housing prices down. This - as with so many other undesirable government policies - will be almost impossible to sell politically...

> This is assumed to be the case, that renters
> are bad members of a community

Um, that's a little hypersensitive. It's like the gay marriage thing; you want the validation more than you want the actual sanction.

I don't see why renting would give someone an inherent interest in trashing the place. Most of us want nice places to live, and we also want our security deposits back. There's plenty of incentive to keep the place nice.

Granted, I live in a freaky area of the country (Manhattan), where a huge percentage of people rent, but the renters-are-inherently-deadbeats argument that a couple of you are pushing seems ridiculous to me. I'm a renter, tons of my friends are renters, all of my neighbors are renters. I don't know any apartment-trashing deadbeats. I know nice middle class people who take care of their homes.

Actually, I think I take better care of my place than some of my home-owner friends. Of course, all I have to do is call the landlord and tell him the pipes are leaking to get them fixed, so I have no incentive to ignore problems. My homeowner friends, on the other hand, have to find a plumber and pay him, giving them an incentive to let repairs go.

Maybe that's what happens when you have renters across a broad spectrum of class and socio-economic status, like Manhattan. Maybe renters are more likely to be deadbeats in areas where only the poorest of the poor rent, and rent total crap where no one else would want to live. And I question whether, if you hand those people the ability to buy their homes instead of renting them, they'd take better care of them or be better citizens as a result.

> Maybe that's what happens when you have
> renters across a broad spectrum of class and
> socio-economic status, like Manhattan.

Understatement. Manhattan is like no other real estate market in the world. The argument isn't that renters are deadbeats... It's that home ownership encourages residents to do all kinds of long-term thinking about a community that renting doesn't. Zoning, policing, school boards, water service etc. Everybody gets nice and everybody gets rich.

(Grandfathered Santa Monica rent-controllers excepted. I know beach-dwellers who are going to die in their apartments.)

"I don't see why renting would give someone an inherent interest in trashing the place. Most of us want nice places to live, and we also want our security deposits back. There's plenty of incentive to keep the place nice."

No one said they have an inherent interest in trashing the place-that's pretty extreme. Some do trash the places. Some keep them super-nice. I lived in a lower-income housing area for 4 years. Invariably, the rented houses were not kept up, the owned ones typically were, until they got foreclosed on. I now live in a very nice upper-middle class neighborhood, and I can drive the area and tell you which few homes are rentals. Renters-typically-aren't going to put lots of work into the yard, or care about the apartment complex going in down the street, or keeping the schools up, etc etc, as was already pointed out. Few renters stay in one house long-term. There is high turn-over, and high turnover is bad in general.

Manhattan can't be compared to suburbs. Totally different world. Of course there will be lots of renters when you can't buy for less than 3/4 mil.

"It's that home ownership encourages residents to do all kinds of long-term thinking about a community that renting doesn't. Zoning, policing, school boards, water service etc."

True, in Manhattan many people expect to be renting long-term, so those long-term incentives are certainly there, just as much as they'd be for owners. True, that might not be so much the case in other areas of the country.

BUT even if you don't plan to *rent* in an area forever, you may well plan to *live* in an area forever. Actually, if you're not a college student or a transient worker, that's probably the case. You may not be long-term in that apartment, but you're still likely to be long-term in the community, so why wouldn't you care about zoning, schools, etc.? Unless, of course, you're a deadbeat to begin with, in which case owning isn't going to change things.

And even if you do plan to leave the community eventually, even if you're just there temporarily -- if you have kids, you care about the schools. If you don't want to get mugged, you care about the police. If you like showers, you care about water service.

The people who don't care about their community tend to be either (a) really young idiots (I'd say college students, but it's not fair to taint all college students with that brush), or (b) people who frankly don't give much of a shit about their lives and their children's lives in the first place.

It's not whether someone is renting or not that makes the difference in their attitudes towards their homes and communities. I think the tax code has it backwards. Being a deadbeat makes it more likely you'll never own a place. But renting doesn't make you more likely to act like a deadbeat unless you already are a deadbeat.

A couple of friends of mine had their parents give them cars after high school or college. Some of them took good care of them, some of them trashed them. The mere fact that they owned a new car didn't make the difference -- it was whether they were a stupid fuck-up. Some people lease cars -- some keep them in pristine, beautiful condition, others trash them. Again, it's not the lease that makes the difference. It's what kind of person you are.

Maybe we need to work on incentives to make people act like responsible human beings instead of making it easier for them to buy houses (especially houses they really can't afford, but that's another story).

This all reminds me of Amy's article the other day about the filthy airline seats. I fly international coach all the time, and it takes me all of five minutes to clear all the garbage from my seat. I even wipe down the tray. That's not because I own the damn thing. It's because I'm not an asswipe.

I would argue that killing the tax deduction would change home ownership. It would make it tougher maybe:

From the Telegram:

"On Oct. 22, 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Reagan called the 829-page, 33-pound bill 'the most sweeping overhaul of the tax code in our nation's history.'

"The new code gradually phased out all deductions for interest paid on car loans, charge-account purchases, vacations and anything else that fell under what the law termed 'consumer loans.'

The reason I say maybe, is look at where the US credit card debt has gone, even without the deduction. You would think it would get smaller without the incentive.

Yes, a flat national sales tax, and no other taxes, except perhaps a hefty gasoline tax. That would, of course, eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, and a host of other nanny-state deductions and tax expenditures. It would eliminate the tax code, just about.
It fulfills my fondest desire (besides dominant group sex on the White House lawn with subdom Amy Alkon)--Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). Our tax code is not simple, therefore subject to rife corruption, chicanery and misinterpretation. Additionally, why do we tax productive behavor (work and business)?

"Most people could not afford to buy a house without that deduction."

In Canada, there is no mortgage interest deduction, income taxes are higher, and there is a national sales tax as well as a provincial sales tax in 9 of 10 provinces.

A quick Google brought up a Wikipedia page saying that home ownership in the U.S. is 69.8% and a Statistics Canada page says that home ownership in Canada is 68.4%.

I think that others are correct who have said that removing the mortgage deduction would bring down the price of houses, but not change home ownership levels much.

"This is assumed to be the case, that renters are bad members of a community or neighborhood, but are they really? "

The issue is transience. Renters who expect to spend a lifetime in a place are going to act pretty much the same way as people who are buying on a 30-year note, which in the final analysis is pretty much the same thing unless they intend to keep the place in the family. The may not take the same pride in "ownership", but they will have the same interest in maintaining the property and the tone of the neighborhood.

The issue is that in America, renting is usually seen either as a temporary step or something that "losers" who can't get home loans have to do. Neither has to be true.

I live in a "transitional" neighborhood. Home ownership is seen here as a god thing that improves the neighborhood, but I cannot say for certain how many people I assume are home owners are in fact just very responsible long-term renters. I can say that that all [known] renters get lumped in with Section 8 people, and that's a bogus stereotype.

"Manhattan can't be compared to suburbs. Totally different world. Of course there will be lots of renters when you can't buy for less than 3/4 mil."

But for that very reason, Manhattan helps prove Amy's point (and mine) that it's not the mere fact of renting vs. owning that makes the difference. Manhattan is one of the few places where people of all classes/economic groups/etc. rent, so it's the ideal place to look at whether it's the pure fact of renting or something else that makes the difference in how people take care of their homes and communities. In many burbs, only people who are really poor, students, or total transients rent. Yeah, I'll agree that as a class, such people take worse care of places, but it's *not* simply because they're renting. (And by the way, it's not just about moving frequently -- lots of renters in Manhattan move every couple of years, sometimes within the same neighborhood or even the same building!)

Being either a transient or a deadbeat certainly makes it more likely you won't own a place. But renting -- just plain renting -- doesn't make you more likely to act like a asswipe unless you already are an asswipe.

"There are a lot of stabilizing forces that come to a community when people have an investment in it." - Crid

I agree w/ Crid. I think the idea behind giving people an incentive to own is the same behind the government's hand in marriage. People who marry, even if they divorce after 15 years, were relatively stable for a while. This benefits society when children are a product of the marriage. Since we all can agree that two, committed, loving parents is ideal to raise healthy children that will be productive this benefits society. So I understand how it makes sense to encourage marriage by giving benefits to it.

Likewise, people who own over rent will almost always give a greater damn about the property.

I HATE HATE HATE yardwork. I'm perfectly comfy in my gender roles - hand me a recipe to make for dinner but for fuckssakes don't make me go outside and spread mulch or edge the flower beds or fuck around with a weed whacker. Needless to say, I'm about to come into a position where I'm a homeowner. I've actually been over my fiance's house (soon to be half mine, fair or not I guess that's how marriage laws work) planting flowers, sweeping the porch and I helped clear the leaves last fall. Yet, I did jack shit at the apartment I lived at. Just didn't care that much.

I liked my renter's-laziness just FINE! But suddenly here is this house that is about to be 50% my responsibility, whether I want it or not (the mortgage comes with the man...) and I find myself obsessing over weeds in the garden and the fact the front porch light is out (someone might trip at night!) when the porch light at my apartment was out for 4 weeks before the bulb was changed. It does something to you. If the roof caves in it's on you. If you let your dog piss all over the place you'll have either live with the stench or pay to replace the floors. Your just in it more deeply. And it makes you act differently. And it's beneficial to have more people who give a shit.

"But for that very reason, Manhattan helps prove Amy's point (and mine) that it's not the mere fact of renting vs. owning "

Wrong. In manhattan, you get people renting that would be owning in any other area. Therefor, they will act like owners. They rent a place they intend to stay, just like people buy a place they intend to stay.

Poor people can buy and keep the place up. In my lower-income neighborhood, no one had real money, yet owners took better care than renters. Renters just have no incentive to improve things, as they are improving someone else's property, and are likely to then be charged rent on the improved value. This neighborhood, people have money, yet the trend is the same.

Past wanting to live somewhere short-term or needing quick mobility, I can't see why people rent. I pay $1250 a month on my fixed-rate mortgage. The lady 4 doors down pays $1195 in rent for a much smaller place. Her rent will go up periodically. Assuming I can continue protesting to keep my property taxes in line, my payment will stay mostly the same until it drops drastically in 21 more years when I go to taxes and insurance only.

Gretchen, couldn't another factor be that you're in another place in your life right now? Let's say you had to sell your house tomorrow and rent one for the rest of your life. Would you let the dog piss all over the house?

I admit I didn't take as good care of my college apartment as nicely as I take care of my current place (although I never, ever trashed a place). I'm still renting because I like not worrying about plumbing and electrical problems. But I have more money now, and care more about about living in a nice place, so I put up towel racks, and touch up the paint, and shine up the floor, even though I'll probably move again at some point in the next couple of years. That's not about being a good tenant and citizen. That's about liking to live somewhere pretty, whether owning or renting. That's about being proud to have my boyfriend and my friends come to my place.

"Wrong. In manhattan, you get people renting that would be owning in any other area. Therefor, they will act like owners. They rent a place they intend to stay, just like people buy a place they intend to stay."

Have you ever been to Manhattan? I'm betting no, because you're dead wrong.

Lots and lots of people in Manhattan move every couple of years. And lots of us -- me included -- could afford to buy here and don't. (That's why there are rental apartments costing tens of thousands a month.) We like renting precisely because we have the freedom to move around, and becasue can call the landlord if the plumbing breaks or the electricity goes on the fritz.

(By the way, I grew up in a suburb in the rust belt, and my family all still live there, so don't go tell me I never lived outside of Manhattan.)

> Maybe we need to work on incentives to
> make people act like responsible
> human beings

Maybe true, but I fear you've come to the wrong nation in the wrong century. Besides, I think the scariest verge for government is the impulse to provide/impose intimate leadership in people's lives.

There's an old snark that goes like this: "Everybody's paying a mortgage; the difference is that if you rent, that mortgage isn't yours." As Raddy implied above, until the day that we outlaw property, owning stuff is always going to have special meaning and special powers.

> Therefor, they will act like owners.

No. They'll act like long-term renters. Ain't the same thing.

>>Manhattan is one of the few places where people of all classes/economic groups/etc. rent...

Gail,
I think that's a strange statement to make about Manhattan.

Manhattan still has the lock on famously eye-watering rentals way beyond most ordinary mortals - you really need to go to the other boroughs of NYC to find renters of "all classes/economic groups..."

> think that's a strange statement
> to make about Manhattan.

Yeah... I didn't know how to put it in a sentence, but Manhattan isn't in any sense a demonstrative gradient of American wealth. Sure, there are some poor people there, but.....

" . . . until the day that we outlaw property, owning stuff is always going to have special meaning and special powers"

-- There's some truth in that, but then why do we need to provide tax incentives to do it? Seriously.

"I think the scariest verge for government is the impulse to provide/impose intimate leadership in people's lives"

-- I agree, but there are ways to encourage behavior without going off the deep end. To give a very small example, a store around the corner from me wants to encourage people to bring their own grocery bags, but they don't mandate it. They don't even charge you if you want a bag. Instead, they give you a small discount for every bag you bring and that they don't have to give you.

I just think that the tax advantages for both marriage and home ownership are rewarding the wrong behavior. There are plenty of irresponsible, slovenly, married, home-owning deadbeats, and plenty of civic-minded, responsible, single renters.

" . . .you really need to go to the other boroughs of NYC to find renters of "a"ll classes/economic groups".

Come visit sometime. Yeah, there are rich people in Manhattan. There are also plenty of non-rich people living here. There are waiters, students, secretaries, teachers, and struggling actors and musicians living here. Deadbeats too. And yes, lots of them are living in Manhattan. And yes, I know that first hand. I have friends doing all of those things, living right here in this borough.

"Gretchen, couldn't another factor be that you're in another place in your life right now? Let's say you had to sell your house tomorrow and rent one for the rest of your life. Would you let the dog piss all over the house?"

No not really - because I don't *like* any of the stuff I'm doing. But I can't see allowing a yard and home to run amok when I'm on the line for it big time. If I wasn't getting married to a man who already owned a house I wouldn't be anywhere near interested in buying one anytime soon. I'm 24 - and hate outdoor chores as much today as I did a few years ago, and yet I have this mysterious drive to ensure the house looks nice. Even though the process makes me really annoyed and I complain about it. I'm a little lazy. Also, I'd rather blow $8,000 on a 3 month trip around Europe - not a new boiler. The idea repulses me and yet here I am, b/c I'm marrying a homeowner.

Some might argue I'm lucky to marry a guy who already owns a house, to me it's a financial liability at this exact point in my life. I'm grateful that I have a nice home to move into but it's just not all plusses for me. So I'd better do what I can to maintain it now and recoup the costs in a few years when we upgrade.

If I were single I'd still be living in an apartment and no, I wouldn't let my animal piss everywhere and I'd keep it clean. But I wouldn't go through the trouble of really maintaining the interior or exterior to the extent I find myself doing right now w/ D's house. I just don't enjoy it or like it. I think my ideal spot would be in a condo. But alas, I am moving into a 150 year old house with asbestos shingles, no closets, low ceilings (re: FUCKING HOT during the summer) and a staircase so steep it's basically a fancy ladder. But. It's soon half mine and I'm doing what it takes to keep it super nice. I can't explain it. Something just clicked.

> but then why do we need to provide tax
> incentives to do it? Seriously.

It's like the gay marriage thing: try and put a stop to it. Go ahead; try.

See this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=figJ1nrjUSk

or this:

http://reason.tv/video/show/621.html

...As regards inane development in challenging geographical areas, aka "social factors". Yes, this is a problem; good luck changing it!

> There are plenty of irresponsible,
> slovenly, married, home-owning deadbeats,
> and plenty of civic-minded,
> responsible, single renters.

I'm a great believer in general truths. The fact that there are exceptions doesn't mean something isn't generally so. You're lowballing, saying things like "deadbeats" while I keep saying things like 'somewhat less responsible'. Well-married home-owning people are, on the whole, nicer and richer.

Renters just aren't that put-upon, and neither are gays.

> There are waiters, students, secretaries,
> teachers, and struggling actors and
> musicians living here.

Not so many factory workers, mechanics, trucking firms...

The social dynamics of Manhattan, while deep, are just not typical.

"Have you ever been to Manhattan? I'm betting no, because you're dead wrong."

I have, actually, several times. And yes, poor people live there. In closets, basically. Or what is considered a closet in TX. Only so much one can do to a closet, owner or renter. I stick by my point that manhattan does not translate to other parts of the US.

"But alas, I am moving into a 150 year old house with asbestos shingles, no closets, low ceilings (re: FUCKING HOT during the summer) and a staircase so steep it's basically a fancy ladder. But. It's soon half mine and I'm doing what it takes to keep it super nice. I can't explain it. Something just clicked"

Ha! I moved into an ancient fixer-upper with my-then boyfriend when I was right about your age! It was a house that belonged to his family (but they weren't living there, thank heavens). And there I was -- painting, planting rose-bushes, refinishing the floors, stripping and restoring the carved wood banisters etc. etc. It took months. I attribute my zeal in dealing with that house to love. Maybe that's what clicked with you, too?

In any case, I hope you have fun with it. I'll bet you will, notwithstanding the aggravation. Even after I moved out (a year after we finished fixing up the house), I didn't regret all the work I put into it. It was fun, in a weird kind of way, and very satisfying.

There are waiters, students, secretaries,
teachers, and struggling actors and
musicians living here.

The waiters are usually the struggling students, actors and musicians. And the latter are often not really poor; they're kids from middle-class or even wealthy families trying to make a go of a creative life alone in the big city. For most of them it's temporary; they either make it, or they get a degree and go back home to a real job.

As others have said: Most people do not have a strong incentive to put money or time into property owned by another. And I'll add: Many landlords will not invest more than the bare minimum in rental units, so that's another reason why rental neighborhoods look the way they do, and why encouraging home ownership is a good thing.

"The waiters are usually the struggling students, actors and musicians. And the latter are often not really poor; they're kids from middle-class or even wealthy families trying to make a go of a creative life alone in the big city. For most of them it's temporary; they either make it, or they get a degree and go back home to a real job"

Kishke, are you getting this from watching TV? Man, do I hate that. Because I've lived here for fifteen years, and you are just plain wrong.

I belong to biking and running clubs, so know lots of doing all kinds of things -- the only thing we have in common is our sport and living in Manhattan. As a result, I know lifetime bartenders and waiters, living on the upper east and west side. (Yes! it's not just Bernie Madoff that can live on the upper east!) They're in their 30's and 40's, some with kids. They're not planning to "make it big" and leave. And the students are by no means all rich and middle class -- I know students that came here without anything in their pockets but their loans. I know secretaries and teachers that plan to stay in their careers and in Manhattan for the rest of their working lives. I know an actress who has made a decent but not spectacular living for the last twelve years, living in a studio apartment and loving it. I know free-lance writers, and musicians who make a living but are never going to live in a penthouse. They like living here and they'll stay, even if it means living in a place the size of Momof4's bedroom closet.

Most of my friends range from age 30 to 50, so we're not talking young kids getting their ya-yas out in the big city. We're talking people who love the city and cheerfully live in small places because they'd rather be here than anywhere else.

These people aren't rich, and they don't own and maybe never plan to, and they aren't even staying in the same apartment year after year. But they DO care about their homes and community.

The point is: You don't need to own a McMansion in Texas to be a good citizen and take care of your community. And owning a McMansion in Texas won't make you a good citizen. Even assuming it would, though, people who want McMansions in Texas will buy them anyway. So why give them tax breaks?

I agree Manhattan's not like the rest of the country (that's why I'm here, actually). But it does prove that it's not the pure fact of renting that creates bad citizens.

>>As a result, I know lifetime bartenders and waiters, living on the upper east and west side. (Yes! it's not just Bernie Madoff that can live on the upper east!) They're in their 30's and 40's, some with kids.

Seriously, Gail.
I'm wiser than when I woke up this morning!

Just because I don't know any normal-income parents with kids who can afford to live in Manhattan doesn't mean I should generalize!

"I've actually been over my fiance's house (soon to be half mine, fair or not I guess that's how marriage laws work)"

I'm not so sure about that Gretchen. Better look into your state's laws before you assume you'll be an owner. It's property acquired by one party prior to the marriage. In my state you'd have to be able to show you worked your tail off to "maintain" it before any right accrues to you, except for 1/2 appreciation. IF there is any, LOL.

Quit lowballing your argument! Wutarya, some kinda attorney?!!??

> You don't need to own a McMansion
> in Texas to be a good citizen and
> take care of your community.

Nobody here said you did!

> it's not the pure fact of
> renting that creates bad
> citizens.

Nobody says it was!

General truth; general truth... Home ownership helps people take their neighborhood seriously. That's not the same thing as saying that anyone who rents is a thieving, drug-addled rapist.

Besides, in Manhattan, living is so expensive that we might expect a more competent and responsible kind of resident anyway.

McMansions have closets the size of my current house, FWIW. I said my new nicer neighborhood, not my rich neighborhood.

I'd wager manhattan is one of the few places a person could support a family longterm bartending. And yes, I've bartended. Ditto with the acting and waiting tables. So again, not generally applicable across the board.

Gail, I'm sure there are numerous people in Manhattan like you've described. But tell me, is it not true that many, many of the renters in Manhattan are as I have described?

Separate point: Aren't many apartments in Manhattan rent-controlled? Anyone living in a rent-controlled place is, for all intents and purposes, its owner, at least for his lifetime, and sometimes beyond. Some of these people are quite wealthy too. Now there's an example of charity plucked from the pockets of owners and handed out to renters.

"I'm not so sure about that Gretchen."

I meant that in less of a legal way and more of a "we're in this together" way. I'll be contributing to bills and helping him maintain the property. I can't imagine our relationship would last very long if I expected him to foot all the bills and do all the housework.

If the house falls down around us we're both homeless and probably out a few bucks to boot.

Legally, though: he wants to refinance and I'm going on the mortgage. I wonder how that will affect things. There is more info about divorce/property issues than marriage/property issues. Depressing.

If you take where I live for example, even a very short move will often change districts. 0.5 miles west - different school district, 1 mile south - different school district - another mile south of there - yet another school district. It is not uncommon for people to move 10-20 miles...moving often times changing which city/town and school district you are in.

The numbers I have seen indicate it is how long one plans on living in one place that is the good indicator - and renting is a good indicator (in most areas) of how long one intends to live there.

As a rentor I have never gotton my damage deposit back except at Uni. dorm. The last place charged me for sun damage to the window sill! To the outside of the blinds (got sun even with the blinds close). I am glad to be a owner now.

"he wants to refinance and I'm going on the mortgage."

Do it soon, and you get the $8k from Obama next april, since you're a first-time homebuyer (doesn't matter that he's not)!

"Do it soon, and you get the $8k from Obama next april..."

Umm, you mean, from us.

It's so easy to forget where money comes from when it is waved at you.

OK, yes, meant it was his idea. They will no doubt be paying their share, they might as well take it.

Legally, though: he wants to refinance and I'm going on the mortgage.

Depending on where you live and what his intent is, you might skip the refi and just get yourself added to the deed.

Yahoo Answers: How can I add my spouse to the deed on my house?

The issue with this is in a divorce, you could end up with the house and him have the mortgage. But if he is on the down side of the mortgage and/or has a good interest rate, etc. You/he may not want to refi. But if the interest rate sucks or something along those lines -- the refi can make more sense.