So today I was helping with some house painting and there was this little smear on the ceiling which looked like it was used to cover something up. The paint was the same the color as the ceiling which made it blend to a certain extent, but you still notice it. Since it was pretty high up and all, the homeowners contemplated about hiring a person to paint the ceiling and the estimate was about $600.

My first reaction was that the smear is not too big a of a deal I thought and for $600 it didn’t seem worth it. After talking about this the homeowners mentioned that they were originally okay with it but felt that guests would notice it and therefore it would look bad. This then lead into a conversation on how it should be what they think and not others. Eventually, they decided that it was better to save the $600.

I suppose it’s always nice to try make your property top notch if it means improving your in some way lifestyle. But spending loads of money mainly to try and win over acceptance/approval from someone else’s taste and perception in cases like this are just a money sink I’d say.

So this week I am going to help with some people in moving and one thing that they have appeared to do is buy new equipment for their new home. Originally with the sale of their old home they agreed to sell all of the old appliances along with the place as well. The last person I talked to mentioned that he prefers it if people take things like the large appliances whenever they sell a home as the hassle and cost of having to transport them to the new place makes it feel as if it is better to simply buy new stuff.

On top of that, just the notion that they are moving into a new place made it semi justifiable to buy new stuff for it as well. So when they said things like they were thinking of buying a new television simply because they were moving that made me think of how much money they were wasting mainly to just have new stuff.

I think for myself, if the item requires some kind of massive deconstruction in order to transport or say the item is about $100 to buy a more modern day version then I would be inclined to do the same. For example, I couldn’t justify buying a new computer just because I am going to a new place as it is an item that is easy to disconnect and setup. Example, if I had a bulky desk and I was able to acquire a new one for cheap I would be inclined to let someone take the old one off my hands instead of dealing with having to transport it.

I was watching a show where this couple was debating about wanting to buy a house that was either very close to work where it required virtually no commuting to work or to have a property that was so close to various stores and sights where you wouldn’t have to travel far for those. They then started to debate on which one would be the more cost effective choice.

I would think not having to commute far to work would be the biggest money saver as you can technically do things like your grocery shopping in one trip or so per week. Whereas for work you need to do it probably all week long. Imagine the amount of money you could save not having to say drive the car each day as well as the extra time you save where you can focus on something else. Usually people think of this when it comes to their child’s school as they want to be close to one. Makes you wonder why more people don’t think about it too much when it comes to their professional life too.

I was having an interesting conversation today about the notion of a person buying a house that you would need to get a mortgage on like most people. However, in this scenario paying off the mortgage would heavily rely on not so much your regular job but the income you would earn by renting a portion of it out like the basement.

Example, let’s say your mortgage payment was $3000/month. Basically, you were heavily relying on the fact that you would rent the basement for about $900/month and to another two people who you know well to live in the spare upstairs rooms for about say $600/month each. So in total, you would have to pay about $900/month. Sounds all good, but then what if say one of your tenant leaves which makes you stuck for at least a months worth of pay for the mortgage? Of course, in this situation let’s assume that you have nowhere near the $3000/month after other expenses and so you are heavily dependent on the rental income.

So in that scenario, would you think it is a better option to go with this route or say play it safer in life and just say rent a place for $900/month? To me honestly, the risk in many ways is almost the same I think personally. Cause even with say renting a place that is within your means who’s to say that something won’t happen to say your job or business?

It seems like it is more about having a lot more responsibility with the house option as you need to keep track of so many things. In general, I think owning is a lot better in the long run.

Today in the mail there was this small pamphlet from a real estate agent advertising that a house near the end of the block is currently up for sale. The price seems pretty good too at an asking price of about $610,000. The interesting thing was that apparently they tried to ell it for about $800,000 before.

One interesting factor about this house though is that a person died in it through natural causes, the original owner, and because of that a lot of people refuse to buy it with the fear that it would create bad luck to them. As a result, I wouldn’t be surprised if the offers will be significantly less than the asking price in order to sell it.

I know for some people even if you say broke the whole house down and literally just created a new one they would still not want to live on that property if they know there was a death there. Would you let superstitious things like that stop you from making a purchase that would make perfect financial sense?