Martin's Mortgage free purchase

Orchid

The_Guardian wrote:

Enough to buy a half million pound home in Kensington for cash.

(Link to the Guardian article is in here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=125778)



Martin should be congratulated. He has set the ultimate example in money saving.



So the (million dollar ) question is...


Should we ALL be saving (longer) to buy our first or next house?

The alternative? To be a slave to the bank for up to 25 years.


Would you be willing to delay home ownership if it meant you could buy cash in 5 / 10 / 15 years time?

Or is it better to buy now cos it would be near impossible to save enough to buy in 5 / 10 / 15 years time due to the increase in prices?



Watcha think?

alanobrien

Orchid wrote:

(Link to the Guardian article is in here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=125778)



Martin should be congratulated. He has set the ultimate example in money saving.



So the (million dollar ) question is...


Should we ALL be saving (longer) to buy our first or next house?
The alternative? To be a slave to the bank for up to 25 years.

Would you be willing to delay home ownership if it meant you could buy cash in 5 / 10 / 15 years time?
Or is it better to buy now cos it would be near impossible to save enough to buy in 5 / 10 / 15 years time due to the increase in prices?



Watcha think?

Due to the ridiculous cost of housing today the average person is already living at home longer and saving harder to even get a toe in the market. I vaguelly recall raading somewhere people now live with their parents beyond 30+

For Mr or Mrs average on an average salary saving to buy a house cash is just not practical, for those that can do it, good luck to them but they will be rare beasts indeed.

All most of us can do is get the best mortgage deal we can and avoid all other debt entirely the best we can. At least that's my plan.

Ian_W

Erm.....

I don't think Martin or the article suggests we should, or indeed could, save longer and buy a house outright with cash, in fact that's quite a perverse take on it. After all most of us are never going to be successful journalists, broadcasters and authors of best selling books.

Those who are successful in other lucrative walks of life will probably do that anyway, for most of us it's a non-starter and being "a slave to the bank for up to 25 years" is the only viable option for owning a home. But to use slightly less emotive language, we can take advantage of the lowest interest rates available [excluding 0% finance] to purchase a major financial asset that over time is likely to significantly appreciate in value with the whole of that appreciation accruing to us, not the lender!

Alan mentions people living longer with their parents but for many that's not an option, and personally if it was a choice of living in rented or buying, I would take the latter every time. For some the choice isn't available, because buying isn't affordable, others make the decision that other things take priority in their life at that particular time.

As someone who's no longer a slave to the bank I don't believe I could have paid rent AND saved enough to have bought a house like I now own outright. I'd have ended up being a slave to a landlord for more than 25 yrs or, perish the thought, living at home with my parents until I was drawing my pension!!

I've see house prices drop more than once, stagnate on several occasions [as well as boom just like 2001-4] so I'm not of the view that they only rise but if you're in it for the long term, buying a home rather than investing in property, the trend is always likely to be upwards and frquently at a higher rate than your savings could keep pace with. So, if you can afford to buy and it fits in with your plans, the earlier you do IMHO the better, the sooner you end your slavery to the banks,