Posted on 06/28/2010 7:07:58 AM PDT by Gordon Pym
After a very long search I have been offered a job in southern CT. I'm nowin the process of finding a place to live down there but I am arguing with members of my family about the merits of buying a large house from a distressed buyer at a discount price (more than we need but they argue "a good investment") or a smaller house for very short money perhaps even for cash to reduce housing cost as much as possible.
The argument seems to come down to the following:
a large house will sell for more than a small one 10 years down the road so the difference between purchase and sale prices will be much more so it will be a better investment.
A small house will reduce costs the most so it will be the most prudent use of money. The additional money that would be tied up in the big house could be put into another tax deferred investment and would be more accessable should it be needed in the future. Housing is a cost not an investment.
I keep hitting a wall of stories of people who bought a house forty years ago and sold for five times what they paid. My contention is that when the high property taxes are factored in any gains would be offset But that doesn't seem to have an effect and I aam out of ideas
Help.
Agree. Location, location, location.
CT will never loose it's liberals.
Conneticut?
Taxes Taxes TAXES! (And more taxes.)
Actually I have an offer in on a foreclosed house in a low milrate town about 20 minutes from work that I can purchase for cash. It will take a good bit of work to get the place finished but it's a good deal for now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.