Anybody know if murox. . .
- Thread starter MichiganHerd
- Start date
Was it? He never said nor implied that. You’re implying it to try to boost your failed argument. All johns said was “You would if you wanted equity.” That’s it.
You lost this one. Everyone knows it. Move on to the next one.
It’s common sense! If Stephens didn’t imply that, then his comment wouldn’t have made sense, since somebody could pay on a 10
year mortgage and build faster equity. At this point, it’s just embarrassing for you.
All things else equal (meaning same rate, term, down), a person paying a higher mortgage will earn more equity than a person paying a lower mortgage. Even a lifelong West Virginia educated guy should be able to understand that.
The central theme of this entire argument revolves around the financial d*ck measuring contest between you and murox. You can afford things he can’t, right? You’re rich, according to you. You’re a fraud, according to him.
For things to truly be equal, you must have equal skin in the game.
Yes, any moron knows that two 30 year mortgages on a $1 million loan and a $500,000 loan respectively will result in the owner of the larger home having more equity in 30 years. But that’s not the argument here and never has been. If your d*ck measuring is going to be on fair footing, then you both must (theoretically) have the exact same money on the line. So the same monthly output of cash is the only way to measure that. Murox builds more equity in virtually any scenario. That’s math. That’s reality. And that’s why you can’t win this argument despite your inability to let it go.
Last edited:
Taste/style is subjective but for murox or rifle - are these properties things you rent (?positive cash flow?) or are they for personal use?
Are they “ investments” (I personally think there are pitfalls in viewing your main home as an investment…lots of debate on that in personal financial planning ) where you are gettting rent income or are you just counting on appreciation to drive return?
I don’t have much experience with single family rentals/house flipping but I dabble in class B multi family properties though mostly in private equity syndications (Origin Investments, Olympus, etc).
Are they “ investments” (I personally think there are pitfalls in viewing your main home as an investment…lots of debate on that in personal financial planning ) where you are gettting rent income or are you just counting on appreciation to drive return?
I don’t have much experience with single family rentals/house flipping but I dabble in class B multi family properties though mostly in private equity syndications (Origin Investments, Olympus, etc).
True. You have said that you’re neither rich nor famous on here. I guess the better way of putting it would be that this is an argument between you two over his financial status.
If you are personally wealthy, guess so. Also, depends on location.
Not really, The value of your home can give you options later in life. Sell a 1m+ home with equity (there is that word again) You have the option to move almost anywhere you want.
Personally, I feel it would be not too bright to retire and still live in the So. Cal area with all the taxes etc. With built-up equity, you can choose wherever you want to go. Out of state, desert, mountains, your pick.
You have more options than you, obviously; do with a 200k residence.
Last edited:
No, that wasn't the discussion. Stephens commented that the person paying on the higher mortgage earns more equity. That's accurate. You claimed he (and I) were wrong. That's inaccurate.
You've not tried changing the original argument into something far different. It's why you constantly lose these discussions - you can't focus on what is being discussed.
Similar threads
