Rich Dad says a home is a liability………

Rich Dad says a home is a liability………

Arn CenedellaPro Member
Rental Property Investor · Greenville, SC · Member since 2008 · 786 posts · 1k+ votes

Many investors quote Rich Dad to support their contention that a HOME is not an investment.

Often this is done as an argument to invest capital in their commerical real estate deal instead of buying a home. Let me also say, I love buying rental real estate. I own everything from single family real estate to 200 unit plus apartment complexes. I am PRO rental real estate ownership. 

This argument is simplistic at best and in my opinion often false because it ignores the cost of shelter.

If one doesn’t own a home they have to pay rent somewhere else, right?

Before looking at numbers. let’s frame the question by posing the following two questions:

1. If paying a mortgage payment is a liability, then what’s paying a rent payment? An asset?

2. As an investor, we are told it’s a great thing to have our tenants pay the mortgage. I agree.

But if an investor doesn’t buy a house, he is a tenant and laying that investor’s mortgage down.

There’s a logical inconsistency here. If it is good for YOU to have a tenant pay down YOUR mortgage, why is it good for YOU to pay down someone else’s mortgage? That makes no sense, does it?

Let’s look at some numbers:

Let’s compare rent v ownership numbers.

First, let’s recognize paying $3,000 in ownership costs AFTER TAX is equivalent plus minus to $2,000 a month rent. Often the after tax cost of ownership is equivalent to rent. And if you get a 30 year fixed rate mortgage, it is almost certain the cost of rent will go up much faster than the cost of ownership.

What about the down payment required to buy a house?

Let’s assume 10% down - one can actually buy a residence for 3% down.

Let’s say one buys a $300,000 house with 10% down.

That’s $30,000 investment.

Let’s say value of house goes up 5% per year.

After 5 years, the $300,000 house will be worth $375,000.
Equity increases from $30K to $105K in 5 years.

That’s a 50% annual increase in value.

Is that not a good return?

Run the numbers anyway you want.

At 3% annual value increase, rate of return is 30% annual return.

Buy a house first, get great long term debt and then start building your rental empire.

Don’t believe every real estate mantra you here, they often are not correct.

18Reply
251 views

Most Popular Reply

Bjorn AhlbladPro Member
Investor · Shelton, WA · Member since 2017 · 6k+ posts · 6k+ votes
3y

Never really got that notion either, my wife and I held rentals in San Mateo for 30 years and made a ton when we sold them. We also had a primary in Los Gatos for over 30 years and made a lot more money when we sold that. To me Real Estate that makes money is an asset whether you live in it or not. 

See this reply in the discussion

81 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Ricardo R.Pro Member
    Property Manager · Michigan Ctr, MI · Member since 2016 · 661 posts · 581 votes
    3y

    @Arn Cenedella there is a bit of merit of what you break down... but I think you're forgetting to factor that you have to live somewhere meaning that where you live is not an investment in the sense that it typically does not produce cash-flow while you live in it. Lesser of two evils... maybe, maybe not. 

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Arn Cenedella:

    Many investors quote Rich Dad to support their contention that a HOME is not an investment.

    Often this is done as an argument to invest capital in their commerical real estate deal instead of buying a home. Let me also say, I love buying rental real estate. I own everything from single family real estate to 200 unit plus apartment complexes. I am PRO rental real estate ownership. 

    This argument is simplistic at best and in my opinion often false because it ignores the cost of shelter.

    If one doesn’t own a home they have to pay rent somewhere else, right?

    Before looking at numbers. let’s frame the question by posing the following two questions:

    1. If paying a mortgage payment is a liability, then what’s paying a rent payment? An asset?

    2. As an investor, we are told it’s a great thing to have our tenants pay the mortgage. I agree.

    But if an investor doesn’t buy a house, he is a tenant and laying that investor’s mortgage down.

    There’s a logical inconsistency here. If it is good for YOU to have a tenant pay down YOUR mortgage, why is it good for YOU to pay down someone else’s mortgage? That makes no sense, does it?

    Let’s look at some numbers:

    Let’s compare rent v ownership numbers.

    First, let’s recognize paying $3,000 in ownership costs AFTER TAX is equivalent plus minus to $2,000 a month rent. Often the after tax cost of ownership is equivalent to rent. And if you get a 30 year fixed rate mortgage, it is almost certain the cost of rent will go up much faster than the cost of ownership.

    What about the down payment required to buy a house?

    Let’s assume 10% down - one can actually buy a residence for 3% down.

    Let’s say one buys a $300,000 house with 10% down.

    That’s $30,000 investment.

    Let’s say value of house goes up 5% per year.

    After 5 years, the $300,000 house will be worth $375,000.
    Equity increases from $30K to $105K in 5 years.

    That’s a 50% annual increase in value.

    Is that not a good return?

    Run the numbers anyway you want.

    At 3% annual value increase, rate of return is 30% annual return.

    Buy a house first, get great long term debt and then start building your rental empire.

    Don’t believe every real estate mantra you here, they often are not correct.

    I think a large part of this is regional.  For us as an example our primary homes were in Silicon Valley  Palo Alto  Napa Valley then Lake Oswego Or. And second home in Vegas which after 5 years has gone up about 350k. All prime markets . So for every one of those homes they went up 500k or more in the 5 to 7 years we lived in each. Upon sale the first 500k was tax free . And  I am sure there are other markets in other prime areas of the US that did about the same.

    However if your in Detroit over those same 30 years of ownership even in the prime areas you may not have had much real appreciation since there was some pretty heavy depreciation in that market throughout the same time lines.

    I am with you first and foremost to me is get a base to operate in. Choose wisely the tax free for a couple of 500k or  250k  for single in the right markets over a course of a lifetime can be life changing far more than owning a few rentals with drip income.  Speaking about the average investor not someone who is career in Real Estate ..


  • Arn CenedellaPro Member
    OP
    Rental Property Investor · Greenville, SC · Member since 2008 · 786 posts · 1k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
    Quote from @Arn Cenedella:

    Many investors quote Rich Dad to support their contention that a HOME is not an investment.

    Often this is done as an argument to invest capital in their commerical real estate deal instead of buying a home. Let me also say, I love buying rental real estate. I own everything from single family real estate to 200 unit plus apartment complexes. I am PRO rental real estate ownership. 

    This argument is simplistic at best and in my opinion often false because it ignores the cost of shelter.

    If one doesn’t own a home they have to pay rent somewhere else, right?

    Before looking at numbers. let’s frame the question by posing the following two questions:

    1. If paying a mortgage payment is a liability, then what’s paying a rent payment? An asset?

    2. As an investor, we are told it’s a great thing to have our tenants pay the mortgage. I agree.

    But if an investor doesn’t buy a house, he is a tenant and laying that investor’s mortgage down.

    There’s a logical inconsistency here. If it is good for YOU to have a tenant pay down YOUR mortgage, why is it good for YOU to pay down someone else’s mortgage? That makes no sense, does it?

    Let’s look at some numbers:

    Let’s compare rent v ownership numbers.

    First, let’s recognize paying $3,000 in ownership costs AFTER TAX is equivalent plus minus to $2,000 a month rent. Often the after tax cost of ownership is equivalent to rent. And if you get a 30 year fixed rate mortgage, it is almost certain the cost of rent will go up much faster than the cost of ownership.

    What about the down payment required to buy a house?

    Let’s assume 10% down - one can actually buy a residence for 3% down.

    Let’s say one buys a $300,000 house with 10% down.

    That’s $30,000 investment.

    Let’s say value of house goes up 5% per year.

    After 5 years, the $300,000 house will be worth $375,000.
    Equity increases from $30K to $105K in 5 years.

    That’s a 50% annual increase in value.

    Is that not a good return?

    Run the numbers anyway you want.

    At 3% annual value increase, rate of return is 30% annual return.

    Buy a house first, get great long term debt and then start building your rental empire.

    Don’t believe every real estate mantra you here, they often are not correct.


    I think a large part of this is regional.  For us as an example our primary homes were in Silicon Valley  Palo Alto  Napa Valley then Lake Oswego Or. And second home in Vegas which after 5 years has gone up about 350k. All prime markets . so for every one of those homes they went up 500k or more in the 5 to 7 years i lived in each. Upon sale the 500k was tax free . and  I am sure there are other markets in other prime areas of the US that did about the same.

    However if your in Detroit over those same 30 years of ownership even in the prime areas you may not have had much real appreciation since there was some pretty heavy depreciation in that market throughout the same time lines.

    I am with you first and foremost to me is get a base to operate in. Choose wisely the tax free for a couple of 500k or single of 250k in the right markets over a course of a lifetime can be life changing far more than owning a few rentals with drip income.


    It’s a small world. 
    I lived in San Carlos CA and my real estate office was in Menlo Park CA so I know the SF Bay Area well. 

    And yes the specific analysis is location dependent. You are 💯 there. 

    My main point was don’t accept the Rich Dad assertion as TRUTH. Do your own analysis and determine the best course for you. 
  • Arn CenedellaPro Member
    OP
    Rental Property Investor · Greenville, SC · Member since 2008 · 786 posts · 1k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Ricardo R.:

    @Arn Cenedella there is a bit of merit of what you break down... but I think you're forgetting to factor that you have to live somewhere meaning that where you live is not an investment in the sense that it typically does not produce cash-flow while you live in it. Lesser of two evils... maybe, maybe not. 

    Yea but…….

    Does paying rent produce cash flow?

    is renting a positive cash flow activity or a negative cash flow activity?

    whether paying rent or a mortgage money flows out of one’s account so that is not the decisive factor in my opinion. 
  • Ricardo R.Pro Member
    Property Manager · Michigan Ctr, MI · Member since 2016 · 661 posts · 581 votes
    3y

    @Arn Cenedella No!.... paying rent DOES NOT produce cash-flow just like paying a mortgage DOES NOT produce cash-flow for the payer. 

  • Member since 2019 · 223 posts · 261 votes
    3y

    From a strictly accounting definition:

    House = Asset

    Mortgage= liability

    Interest= Expense 

    So yes a house is an asset.

  • Michael SmytheBusiness Member
    Real Estate Agent · Metro Detroit · Member since 2023 · 4k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    3y

    Don't think Rich Dad was trying to tell anyone what to do about a primary residence, but more trying to make sure an investor understands that if you rent or own, it's a liability that will impact your investing.

    Logical Property Management4.9446 Reviews
  • Bjorn AhlbladPro Member
    Investor · Shelton, WA · Member since 2017 · 6k+ posts · 6k+ votes
    3y

    Never really got that notion either, my wife and I held rentals in San Mateo for 30 years and made a ton when we sold them. We also had a primary in Los Gatos for over 30 years and made a lot more money when we sold that. To me Real Estate that makes money is an asset whether you live in it or not. 

  • Rental Property Investor · Member since 2018 · 826 posts · 810 votes
    3y

    @Arn Cenedella RK was a pioneer and set the philosophy for house hacking and living in your parents' ADU until 50.

    Kidding aside, primary ownership also has additional tax benefits of itemized deductions on $750k loan interest and property taxes. With high interest rates these days more people can benefit from itemized deductions instead of standard.

  • Arn CenedellaPro Member
    OP
    Rental Property Investor · Greenville, SC · Member since 2008 · 786 posts · 1k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Allan C.:

    @Arn Cenedella RK was a pioneer and set the philosophy for house hacking and living in your parents' ADU until 50.

    Kidding aside, primary ownership also has additional tax benefits of itemized deductions on $750k loan interest and property taxes. With high interest rates these days more people can benefit from itemized deductions instead of standard.

    Yes. 
    lower rates on owner occupied loans. 
    lower down payments on owner occupied loans. 

    if one is younger and just starting their career, how do they come up with $100,000 cash to buy a $300,000 rental?

    much easier to come up with $15,000 to $30,000 a buy a $300,000 house to live in. 

    owning some real estate is way better than owning no real estate. 
  • Ricardo R.Pro Member
    Property Manager · Michigan Ctr, MI · Member since 2016 · 661 posts · 581 votes
    3y

    Opportunity cost... heck you can buy a rock, wait long enough and probably make money on it too! One poster on this thread even mentioned they held a primary residence for 30 years and then made a lot of money... I would certainly hope so! .... but cash-flow it is not. What opportunities were lost over the course of 30 years... what home expenses bogged the homeowner down both time wise and financially... a primary residence does not produce cash-flow and opportunity cost needs to be considered... again, go buy a rock and you will likely also make money on it WHEN you sell it but what could have you bought instead that would likely make you more $? --- I'm not saying that owning a home is bad... it is just not considered an asset for this reason... will it go up in value... I hope so... does that typically affect your everyday life? no.... but cash flow for the positive does and so do expenses that you have to pay out of pocket for the negative. 

  • Morris County, NJ · Member since 2020 · 5k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    3y

    @Arn Cenedella

    While I never read "Rich Dad.." nor take much stock in what I hear about him...

    Personally, I agree with the statement that YOUR home is not an investment.  It has nothing to do with all the "numbers."  Honestly, your post is too analytical so I "glazed" over.

    As I was taught, your home is not an investment because you don't want to risk the roof over your head.  The goal is to have it free and clear, this way 'no matter what happens,' you'll still have some place to go.

    People/investors who leverage, and leverage some more, their home are just taking on more risk. More risk than this conservative concept suggests you should do.  Lets say there is some sort of market crash, like COVID where renters stopped paying.  All your rentals could get foreclosed, but you would still have your home assuming it wasn't "over leveraged" and you could pay the tax, etc. etc etc.

    The appreciation, the not having to pay rent, etc.  is all "gravy..."

  • Real Estate Investor · Desoto, TX · Member since 2013 · 560 posts · 528 votes
    3y

    @Ricardo R. I am curious. Rich Dad preaches buying physical gold and silver. Neither produces cashflow but are considered assets. You spend money to purchase both. I understand that with a primary home you are constantly making payments, but with the gold and silver you still have to make payments to live somewhere as well. I agree with what someone said above that its regional. I personally view a primary home more like a savings account for some and a investment for some. For some people it is a liability but there are other issues that go along with that imo. There are some old people I am sure who bought a house many moons ago in prime LA and are now multi-millionaires because of that single choice. I understand upkeep of a house requires money that renters avoid. Whether tenants believe it or not, they are paying for upkeep, price of the house, cashflow, etc. and they get no tax benefit. Nevertheless, I believe in some regions and circumstances for individuals it might make more sense to not purchase a home and simply rent. My issue with Rich Dad is they make a broad statement applicable to all as if it is fact. I would imagine Rich Dad has owned multiple primary and secondary homes and expects them to grow in value just like his gold and silver. 

  • Handyman · Pittsburgh, PA · Member since 2018 · 5k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    3y

    It's clear that only @Michael Smythe here is actually talking about what's discussed in Rich Dad, Poor Dad. It's more than slightly funny that @David M. admits he's never read the book but he has a much clearer grasp of what Kiyosaki wants to say than most in this thread.

    Kiyosaki is trying in the book to make it clear to people who have never invested that while the dictionary definition of an asset is something that is worth money that you own, and by that definition a house is an asset, a more useful understanding of the term "asset" is as "something that makes you money."

    Your primary residence, by this very different and admittedly idiosyncratic definition, is not always an asset. People often choose to buy and live in homes that will keep them broke for decades. They buy homes that are too expensive, that have ridiculous HOA fees, that are in neighborhoods that demand certain extra expenditures above and beyond the basic costs of homeownshership.

    For instance, there are some neighborhoods in Pittsburgh where the average homeowner wouldn't be caught dead carrying an Aldi bag. Where everyone is expected to park a late-model car in their driveway. Places with big lawns and landscaping features that demand professional maintenance. I remember as a child living in a neighborhood where the kids didn't hesitate to ask why we only had one automobile and not two, like everyone else.

    What Kiyosaki is really trying to do is make people question the stock framing of the American dream, a nice house in a nice neighborhood that eats up a ton of your money, much more than some other primary residence would.

    Reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad was one of the actions that convinced me to move out of my $190K townhouse condo in the North Hills of Pittsburgh, across the McKnight corridor from Ross Park Mall, the area's most upscale shopping area. The development had playgrounds, running trails, a clubhouse, tennis courts, and a pool. We never used any of that, of course. It also came with an HOA fee that is currently about $450/month.

    I bought a duplex on the edge of a heroin ghetto for $45K cash, personally renovated the upstairs thoroughly and the downstairs minimally, moved a tenant in upstairs and moved in myself downstairs. The upstairs currently rents for $980/month, the neighborhood has improved to the type of place where flipped single-family two-bedroom go for $170K, no one gives a damn where I shop and what kind of car I park outside, and so, my house is most definitely an asset by Kiyosaki's definition, that is: it makes me money.

    I still own and rent out the condo for $1400/month, so at least it's not losing me money anymore. Nevertheless, my wife still writes obscenities in Russian on the comment line of every check we send the condo management company for the monthly HOA payment.

    That's what Kiyosaki is trying to explain. He makes a pig's ear of it, but as he is fond of saying, the jacket of his book says "best-selling author." It doesn't say "best-writing author."

  • Member since 2019 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Arn Cenedella:

    Many investors quote Rich Dad to support their contention that a HOME is not an investment.

    Many of "popular opinion" is shaped by so called "celebrity" or even a "President or Leader" that I personally found it's incomplete, missing context or just a complete scam. Or even to misdirect public into a peculiar political context.

    It's almost like you have to trust everything that you have to watch in Tiktok.
    It's the world that we live in today.
    There're just too many example.......for me Rich Dad sux big time.

  • Ricardo R.Pro Member
    Property Manager · Michigan Ctr, MI · Member since 2016 · 661 posts · 581 votes
    3y

    @Daren H. thank you so much for the insight. Yeah, I see your point and I would agree to a certain extent, in that Gold and Silver are not 'cashflowing assets' --- but like you said Daren... you don't live in Gold and Silver heck, you don't live in Stocks -- ALL are assets but just not cash-flowing assets -- Your PRIMARY residence is not an asset BECAUSE you do live in it. The reasoning here is that you will ALWAYS have a 'shelter' living expense... so it is not considered an asset WHILE you live it.... now... it can be an asset, when you SELL it but not while you live in it.... while you live in it, it is considered a liability because it takes money... real and physical money away from you every paycheck and does not make you money every paycheck, as in no $ hits your bank account every month from it - now gold, silver and stocks also don't put $ in your account every paycheck as you hold them BUT YOU DONT LIVE IN THEM, they are highly liquid in comparison and there is no 'Stock' or 'Gold' NECESSITY like there IS a shelter necessity. Another way I can attempt to highlight the whole is your home an asset thing is for instance RIGHT NOW.... If you have a primary residence which you 'considered an asset' you would further be emboldened to think so as your home value increases... then you go to capitalize on this 'asset' and you soon realize that although you will like make more $ on it then when you bought it, that $ will quickly go right back out the door because you now need to buy shelter again at usually the same or more cost --- I'm not a RD fan but I do agree with the concept that your primary home is not an asset, it CAN be but it is not. 

  • Dan H.Pro Member
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Ricardo R.:

    @Arn Cenedella there is a bit of merit of what you break down... but I think you're forgetting to factor that you have to live somewhere meaning that where you live is not an investment in the sense that it typically does not produce cash-flow while you live in it. Lesser of two evils... maybe, maybe not. 


     Your thought that an investment must produce cash flow does not match the definition.  Robert K regularly provides his own definition of words.  Investments provide an expectation of return.  Growth stocks often do not pay dividends.  Return is expected to come from stock price increase. Are they not an investment?  By definition they are an investment.

    Purchasing an OO home can be investing (expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result)

    I have no problem with Robert K calling a home a liability. Where I have issue is where he treats liability and asset as mutually exclusive. Assets by definition is something of value. I believe virtually everyone would consider a OO home an asset by definition (it is also a liability (state of being responsible for something, especially by law)).

    I have a peeve when someone applies their own definition to words.  It is also surprising how many people assume that such definitions are real and not someone’s own definition that does not match the common dictionary definitions.

  • Ricardo R.Pro Member
    Property Manager · Michigan Ctr, MI · Member since 2016 · 661 posts · 581 votes
    3y

    ❤@Dan H. it's simple.... Assets = $ into your pocket and Liabilities = $ out of your pocket within a reasonable time period - that is RD's view. You wrote: "Assets by definition is something of value." - Sure okay - Does your car have value? Does it have value to you? Does it have value as far as $..... Yes, yes and yes -- is it considered an 'asset' --- lol.... NO! Now if you want to approach it from an accountant's perspective, a lawyer's perspective, an insurance carrier's perspective or a lender's perspective... that is your prerogative (all of which will have different stances whether a car is an asset by the way) - HOWEVER, if you are approaching it from an investor's stance NO, it most certainly is not an asset... but hey it does have value per your definition. 

  • Morris County, NJ · Member since 2020 · 5k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    3y

    all, wasn't sure whether to post again, but here I go..

    I'm not entirely sure I'm following.  Just in my opinion, this asset/liability thing is a business / accounting framework.

    the point is NOT to consider your home as part of a business.  Its "value" is different from that of a business asset.  Much of it is intangible, such as memories, etc.  

    As @Jim K. pointed out (at least in my interpretation), one should live within their means.  In terms of calculating the effective "cost of living" as an investment....  one can can do that to gain some perspective, but that's not the point.  For one, looking at it as a investment would have a profit motive in my view.  It doesn't make much sense to me to profit off your home / family.

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Ricardo R.:

    @Arn Cenedella No!.... paying rent DOES NOT produce cash-flow just like paying a mortgage DOES NOT produce cash-flow for the payer. 


    keep in mind though there is a huge % of US homes that are paid for.. And that is usually the goal of homeowners get that primary home paid for then you live mortgage and rent free.. Especially markets in the mid west Oh MI  KS  MO IN MS AL TN etc where 150k buys you a very livable house and 250k a really nice live-able home.. Not the greatest of course but also not in really poor neighborhoods with high crime and really poor schools.  I was just in  KC area this last week checking on my JV partners and we walked home after home that all in would be 150 to 225k and same house on the coasts of course triple to 10 X the price there is no shortage of affordable housing in America like what is talked about.. Affordable housing is out there just takes folks willing to relocate . U see some of that though with equity roll up folks from the coasts moving to these areas.
  • Investor · Scottsdale Austin Tuktoyaktuk · Member since 2021 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Arn Cenedella:

    Many investors quote Rich Dad to support their contention that a HOME is not an investment.

    The landlords in Oakland CA who have not received rent in 42 months because of a very bad government dictate may disagree with you.

    What a lot of investors gloss over in owning real estate:

    For most people, they make mortgage payments. If they stop making those payments, they lose their home. It's a lot of stress for some people to own a home. I know, because I buy houses from them to relieve that stress.

    There is maintenance that has to be done, a new roof, painting, plumbing, electrical, appliances, replace a water heater, replace the AC, build a fence and so on.

    When you have a paid off house and you don't pay your property taxes, the government confiscates your property and sells it. How is that even reasonable?

    If there is a serious earthquake, hurricane, city wide fire, tornado, hail storm, flood, chemical spill into the water supply, crime increase, riots, drug house down the street - I know that these never happen, (except that these are rather regular occurrences) but let's say such an occurrence occurs in your neighborhood, what do you do if you own?

    It costs a lot of money to sell your house and move. A $500,000 sale costs around 8% to 10% and then it costs money to buy the next place (loan origination fees, closing costs, storage, etc)

    And on it goes.

    Those that rent pack up and move.

    For those that own, it’s a much bigger problem.

    I don't believe it's an investment decision to own your home, it's a little risky, but it's a life style choice.

  • Scott TrenchPro Member
    Rental Property Investor · Denver, CO · Member since 2014 · 2k+ posts · 6k+ votes
    3y

    Housing is an expense that takes money out of your pocket. The “more” (bigger, better located, nicer amenities) of it that you consume, in any form, the less wealth you build.

    I agree with Rich Dad - if your house is your biggest or only asset, you are in trouble. It’s not really an investment, the way many homebuyers transact.

    I’m not on the “don’t buy a house” train. In many cases it is far less expensive to live as a homeowner than a renter.


    I just think that too many Americans either don’t actually turn their house into an asset that moves them speedily to financial freedom (house hacking or live in flipping) and make the mistake of putting way more into housing payments than other financial investments. 

    As the average American does it, buying a house creates a liability that sucks cash out of their lives, and perhaps even traps them in a location job and lifestyle. 

  • Brian M. AdamsPro Member
    Member since 2018 · 18 posts · 6 votes
    3y

    While I fully understand your view, and that using your terms it makes sense, I feel I must point out that your entire point is based on a misunderstanding of what is in Rich Dad. 

    He doesn't say that your home isn't an investment, but that it isn't an asset because it doesn't generate income. That is a significant difference.

    Yes, with appreciation it CAN be an investment, but at the same time it can also lose value. In the interim, all of the cashflow associated with the property is going out, not in. That is what makes it a liability instead of an asset, even though it is one from an accounting viewpoint.

  • Investor · Baton Rouge, LA · Member since 2019 · 184 posts · 167 votes
    3y
    Quote from @Jim K.:

    What Kiyosaki is really trying to do is make people question the stock framing of the American dream, a nice house in a nice neighborhood that eats up a ton of your money, much more than some other primary residence would.

    This is what I got out of it.  A $900K primary residence is a worse investment than a $250K primary.  Most likely, expenses would cost more (utilities, insurance, taxes, etc.) and more importantly, they would typically not apply any more deductions than our always increasing friend, the standard deduction.  I know there could be a lot more to those numbers, but I agree with others that it's an over-analysis that is not trying to tell you renting is better.
  • Arn CenedellaPro Member
    OP
    Rental Property Investor · Greenville, SC · Member since 2008 · 786 posts · 1k+ votes
    3y
    Quote from @Troy P.:
    Quote from @Jim K.:

    What Kiyosaki is really trying to do is make people question the stock framing of the American dream, a nice house in a nice neighborhood that eats up a ton of your money, much more than some other primary residence would.

    This is what I got out of it.  A $900K primary residence is a worse investment than a $250K primary.  Most likely, expenses would cost more (utilities, insurance, taxes, etc.) and more importantly, they would typically not apply any more deductions than our always increasing friend, the standard deduction.  I know there could be a lot more to those numbers, but I agree with others that it's an over-analysis that is not trying to tell you renting is better.
    Here’s Rich Dad laying out his position. 

    He states owning a home is a liability.
    It’s there is black and white. 
    it’s not a complete statement as paying rent is also a liability. 
    One has to pay (money out) for shelter whether renting or owning. 

    To say owning a home is a liability without in the same breath saying renting is a liability is NOT a true and accurate position. It is not complete. 

    https://www.richdad.com/is-house-an-asset
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.