[HumblyTossed]

> America doesn't need more urban sprawl and the stigma against renting is ridiculous.

Not that there isn't a stigma against renting, but, does one really want to be renting during retirement when most people's income is fixed? And yes, there are ongoing costs to ownership, but you can possibly plan for those better. You can't really plan for your land lord to raise rent by 50% because the media tells him the market is hot and he can do that.

[whimsicalism]

Yes, there are downsides of the flexibility that renting provides.

So if you feel a need to buy a home, you should be able to do it. But the government should not be propping up unsustainable markets at considerable risk to the rest of us to let you do so - if you can afford a home and get a bank to lend you the money and assume the risk, you should be able to. But I am not sacrificing my ability to afford quality housing to give you government-guaranteed mortgages, it's a massive moral hazard.

If you need the fixed-income security, pay for it.

[supertrope]

It depends. While mortgages lock in a monthly payment you must first save up a down payment. The same cash flow directed into the stock market would also build "equity." If one does not move within seven years buying housing is better.

[whimsicalism]

> buying housing is better.

Not sure if that is true with current rates - and also is due to government policy propping up cheap money to homebuyers.

As I've said, no bank in their right mind would give out the mortgages they are right now if they didn't know they could turn around and sell it straight to Fannie & Freddie

[supertrope]

Indeed. Without Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government sponsored enterprises) there would not be a 30 year mortgage. Mortgages would probably adjust the rate every five years.