The Great Debate
28 March 2008 by gildedbutterfly
If you haven’t already, join in the great debate about a home being/not being an investment. I am really enjoying hearing everyone’s different opinions, though I still maintain that a home makes sense financially, but it is not an investment. As Wanda said in her comment, “I HAVE to live somewhere. Thus a primary residence is consumption to me.” (Well put!)
On a related note: I want to thank everyone who’s jumped into the fray so far for keeping the debate civil. I’ve seen comment debates on blogs get personal and downright rude, and I LOVE that we’re all debating this and yet respecting each other. All hail polite debates! 
In the coming days, I’m going to post a little more about why I think that Tom and Meg make excellent points, but why their numbers are masking what I see as the true reason why a primary home is not an investment. However, I want to hear some more thoughts and ideas before I do that, so get to commenting, people! 
I just read all the comments and everyone has great points! I haven’t hashed out the numbers on this one, but I tend to agree that a home is an investment of some sort. But I think of it more abstractly, like it’s an investment in yourself similarly to a good work wardrobe. You may not see a great fiscal return on the purchase, but if it makes you happy and can make your lifestyle better, then that’s a good “investment”.
Ms. M&P and Meg bring up similar points in terms of the definition. I think before we continue with the “Great Debate” (it really is great!), we should establish the definition of “investment” (which is a debate itself) :).
My definition of “investment” is: the purchase of a financial product or other item of value with an expectation of favorable future returns (via http://www.investorwords.com).
This is why I am in favor of a home being classified as an investment: I am expecting a favorable future return.
GB - I look forward to your counterpoint to Meg’s and my posts!