Who is the safest in a recession - Home Owner or Renter?

lynzpower

The other important issue is the renter, can simply end the contract- even better if he has an early break clause, and move where work can be found ( be it here in the UK or elsewhere) The homeowner twin would have to stay put until he can sell up/ rent out

The renter can downsize to a one bed flat, with the kids in bunks i the louge for example, whereas the the owner has to stay put.

fiodyl

PasturesNew wrote: »

No, he'd start getting benefits once he dropped down to a certain level. No idea what it is for a couple (never been a couple), but the figure of £16k rings a bell for a single person.

JSA isn't means tested.

16k is the cut off limit for help with rent payment, but it is on a sliding scale from £6k with the amount of any entitlement being reduced by £1 for every £250 of savings. The limits are the same whether a single person claims or a couple.


Even once saving are less than £6k the help available may not cover the total rent, the total amount they could claim would depend on the composition of the family and the BRMA they live in.

e.g a single man aged 25 in London could get up to £110 pcm in LHA, but a couple with two children under 10 in Newcastle would only get £440.

JSA is means tested. Only the element based the claimant having paid enough conts isn't means tested. Any dependants claimed for, any payment for the claimant after 6months and any claim for ISMI will all be means tested.

Dithering_Dad

!!!!!!? wrote: »

A more pertinent question would be "Who is safest: Debtor or Saver"?

If you took on a huge mortgage to buy an overpriced house and are in negative equity to the tune of thousands (or tens of thousands) then I think it's a no-brainer to say that you are orders of magnitude worse off than someone who chose to rent and save money for a house when prices became sane again..

Well dur! Perhaps you could also look at the "who is the safest, the tea lady in our office or the soldier on front line duty in Iraq?". Can you please just put your personal animosity to me away for a while and either contribute to this thread sensibly, create your thread to answer the question you posed above, or just ignore us altogether?

!!!!!!? wrote: »

If you measure safety by how much cash you can wring out of the social security system (should be interesting to see how that holds up) then I guess you could make a point for having 'benefited' from poor money management. Personally I'd feel better living off the interest from my savings than a state handout should things go pear-shaped.

Then you're a fool. I personally have absolutely no qualms in claiming back some of my hard-earned tax money that I've put into the system over the many years I've been working. That is, after all, what it is there for :rolleyes: and it should factor into every sensible person's 'worse case scenario' planning. I'd also point out that there is no shame in claiming benefits when you've lost your job in a recession. Though it's obvious that you feel differently.

After reading your many posts about the workshy receiving hand-outs while you have to work, I doubt very much that you would feel better living off your savings than a state handout if you were made redundant.

If you really would feel better living off your savings, while others lived off benefits, would you feel increasingly happy as time went by and your savings dwindled down to nothing?

Neither of the twins in my example could be accused of having poor financial mismanagement, yet both could end up in financial trouble if they lose their jobs for a protracted period. Although, they obviously don't have the £1M savings that will allow you to 'live off your interest' :rolleyes:.

Dithering_Dad

lynzpower wrote: »

The other important issue is the renter, can simply end the contract- even better if he has an early break clause, and move where work can be found ( be it here in the UK or elsewhere) The homeowner twin would have to stay put until he can sell up/ rent out

The renter can downsize to a one bed flat, with the kids in bunks i the louge for example, whereas the the owner has to stay put.

I currently work in London (where the work, well, my current contract is) and I have a home in Manchester. I know a few mates from Manchester who worked on Wembley stadium and Terminal 5 who also have their homes in Manchester. I also worked in Saudi and rented out my home in Manchester while we were away.

Not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that there are options for home owners too, though I agree that renting is way more flexible. I rent while working away on temporary contracts and so obviously benefit from this flexibility; when the work contract end, so does my rental contract. I guess this becomes more difficult with kids because you have a support network of family & friends and due to schooling concerns. It would be especially hard to move if the kids were going through their GCSE's.

lostinrates

I'd say the renter is disadvantaged ANYWAY by the fact he's been effectively saving/investing less than his twin because just as the one has 'invested' in increasing his equity the renter hould have been saving/investing elsewhere for the example to start equal.

I don't know the answer though.;)

Dithering_Dad

lostinrates wrote: »

I'd say the renter is disadvantaged ANYWAY by the fact he's been effectively saving/investing less than his twin because just as the one has 'invested' in increasing his equity the renter hould have been saving/investing elsewhere for the example to start equal.

I don't know the answer though.;)

Point taken lir, and I don't know why I put that in the example because it doesn't make any difference to the outcome. Let's say that they both have £30k, one with £30k in savings and one with £30k in equity.

lostinrates

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Point taken lir, and I don't know why I put that in the example because it doesn't make any difference to the outcome. Let's say that they both have £30k, one with £30k in savings and one with £30k in equity.

Thank you DD and ...

..hurrah, I made sense for once:T :rotfl:

mewbie_2

Dumb question. Obviously the 'poor' twin will move in with the 'rich' one. Blood thicker than water, and all that. If you want to be rich and safe, move away from the rest of the family.

justsayyes

A single person in central London can get in excess of £1200 a month Housing Benefit.

justsayyes

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Well dur! Perhaps you could also look at the "who is the safest, the tea lady in our office or the soldier on front line duty in Iraq?". Can you please just put your personal animosity to me away for a while and either contribute to this thread sensibly, create your thread to answer the question you posed above, or just ignore us altogether?



Then you're a fool. I personally have absolutely no qualms in claiming back some of my hard-earned tax money that I've put into the system over the many years I've been working. That is, after all, what it is there for :rolleyes: and it should factor into every sensible person's 'worse case scenario' planning. I'd also point out that there is no shame in claiming benefits when you've lost your job in a recession. Though it's obvious that you feel differently.

After reading your many posts about the workshy receiving hand-outs while you have to work, I doubt very much that you would feel better living off your savings than a state handout if you were made redundant.

If you really would feel better living off your savings, while others lived off benefits, would you feel increasingly happy as time went by and your savings dwindled down to nothing?

Neither of the twins in my example could be accused of having poor financial mismanagement, yet both could end up in financial trouble if they lose their jobs for a protracted period. Although, they obviously don't have the £1M savings that will allow you to 'live off your interest' :rolleyes:.

Isn't the whole point of Job Seekers Allowance etc a safety net for people who lose their jobs or are unable to secure employment? If someone is actively seeking work but cannot find any, why on earth should they feel ashamed of using benefits?