Hi all,
I've wanted to buy a house for years, but with today's prices (SF Bay Area), that desire has diminished to nothing. I've believe that buying at $450+/sq foot would be stupid.
I just found out that my absolute dream house is back on the market. (I saw it 4-5 years ago when it was on the market (at $95k less than today's asking) and have mooned over it ever since).
I rent a small cottage (no shared walls!) for $1300/mo. In the mustachian view, I'm certain that staying in the rental and letting my 'Stache grow would be much more advantageous than tripling my housing/living expenses. However, my 'Stache creates a big tax burden, and, as a single renter with no kids, I haven't a thing to give me a break, aside from maxing my 401k, which goes away next year when I intend to hit the FIRE button.
Is there enough advantage to owning property to diminish taxes/have a permanent place to live to offset the current cheap housing I'm in? I've never owned a house, and *some* of my friends really encourage me to own property to help offset my tax bill, as well as guaranteeing that my housing expense will stay constant for the next 30 years.
Other things I read, though, make me think I'm in the catbird seat as a renter with less than $1500/mo in house/utils expenses, no maintenance headaches, and the freedom to do as I please on the weekends (as opposed to living at Home Depot).
The house in question is listed for $775. It will go for $850-900k. This would be 1/3 of my 'Stache. Ouch. It might impact my FIRE date. It would certainly impact some of my wilder post-FIRE ideas (such as staying several months in other locations, RVing about the US). But, it's the most awesome house I've ever seen, and I'd be so happy waking up there every day. It's THE ONE HOUSE. (my precious!)
Anyway, maybe not enough data here for proper opinions, but I thought I'd throw it out there. I wouldn't even consider it for any other house. But this one... oh, this one...
:-/
-pigeon wanna fly to new home?