There are pluses and minuses for both part. However, owning a house gives one a sense of stability, a place where he is sure his dependants can live even incase of an eventaulity! Moreover, having an asset is always benefitial, not only for its appreciation in terms of monetary value, but it can be very useful incase of dire emergency(ies). Incase of pepole with switchable/ transferable jobs, owning a house in a city/town where one intends to stay after retirement gives a great peace of mind. The rent for a acco in another city can be cross-compensated by the rent he may get from his permanent property. The author has not taken into account the brokerage charges, which become subtantial (10%) of annual rent. Considering other misc. charges i.e. shifting expenses (and I dont say only those on the day of shift, but other expenses), time and mind involved in constant search for a new house from one house to another are very important factors. The entire money that you spend goes down without any returns... FINALLY, IF THESE CALCULATIONS WERE TRUE, NOBODY WOULD HAVE CONSTRUCTED / BOUGHT A PROPERTY, and THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO HOUSES TO RENT!!!
RE:Rented House v/s Owned
by Adharshila Consultants on May 01, 2007 10:34 AM Permalink
Further, I would like to add to the above, is that the appreciated value of the house (which is yours today for Rs. 25,00,000/-) after 20 years, even considering a dismal 6% appreciation per year shall be a whooping Rs.80,17,840/-. Should this NOT be subtracted from the total Expenditure, and see the result- which is cheaper??
