"Rent money is dead money"

abaxas

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Do you not think there will be wage inflation over the next 25 years?

Who knows, only an uber bear would assume not.

If you want a prediction, I would think there wont be too much wage inflation for the next few years, rather like we have had over the last 10-12 years. If anything < inflation.

Also it would depends on sector. Skilled trades people are cheap as chips ATM, if anything they have had wage deflation over the last 15 years. Eg a local painter and decorator is now cheaper than he was in 1992! However, that is due to sample set of years, if you did the same calc 2 years ago they would have had huge wage inflation.

Also if GB is to be believed, the factories are coming back and we are going to export out way out! Logically that would depress the average wage.

Also we need to look not only at average wage but also household income. If we get the projected extra 1,000,000 people out of work. Wages could go up, but the amount of money in the 'system' is going down.

To finish on a lighter note, I believe that we will see a loss in our perceived standard of living due to inflation < wage inflation. However there will be a flight to 'value'. IE spend less on owning tat, spend more on the things we need. Buying a branded t-shirt for £50 does not increase you standard of living :P

IveSeenTheLight

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Am I going to have to wheel out my Black Death speech again?

I did specifically state recorded history, just for you.
Do you have to be pedantic again

Numenor

Sorry but I didn't have time to read pages 2-8, so it's possible this point has been made already:

Anyone who thinks rent is dead money has been brainwashed by Margaret Thatcher. This is what she wanted. Everyone so desperate to own their home that she could control them by the fear of losing it.

Ironically many of these brainwahed masses are die-hard Labour supporters.

Rent (to a LA) buys you a roof over your head without the burden of debt that goes with it. This means you have the security of knowing that you cannot lose your home if you find yourself out of work. It also means repair bills and modernisation expenditure is someone else's responsibility. The rent is comparatively cheap, and not greatly affected by Bank of England base rate fluctuations.

Rent to a private landlord may not be as cheap or secure as a LA, but it buys you somewhere to live, usually furnished with items you yourself would otherwise have to buy (or take out credit for). Again, if you lose your job you can apply for housing benefit to help you meet your payments. You can also perhaps afford a better house than you'd get a mortgage for. I certainly used to live in a very nice semi-detached house with garage that I rented with two friends, and was very happy there. Now, living with my partner, I live in a 2-bed mid terrace and would desperately love to have at least a driveway if not a garage again. But I'll have to wait probably another 5-8 years to move up the ladder and get one (along with all the additional debt that goes with it).

neverdespairgirl

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I did specifically state recorded history, just for you.
Do you have to be pedantic again

The 14th century is recorded! It's not prehistoric, yer know.

IveSeenTheLight

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

The 14th century is recorded! It's not prehistoric, yer know.

Ok, your being pedantic, but from now on I will refer to it as house price recorded history.
Would you be happier with that grammatical structuring?

SingleSue

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Were you from Suffolk in the first place?

I was born here, in my parents front bedroom to be exact but they are from a London family and every school holiday as I got older, was spent at my nans house in Walthamstow, at one point I was almost full time living there.

Seems amazing but at the age of 14/15, I would jump on a train to Liverpool Street, get a tube/train to Black Horse Road or Wood Street and then bus or taxi it to my nans depending on how rich I felt...all on my own.

I haven't been back for years though as nan died in 1994, think the last time was for my uncles funeral in mid to late 90's.

Strangely, I always felt more at home there than here...would probably feel the opposite way around now but I still keep the good old London ways, I've not been Suffolked!

chris_spackman

I haven't got a choice but to rent. The thing is with it you are only going to stay there if the owner can afford to keep up with the re payments, if he can't then you are in the !!!! too so you put trust in him that he will do his / her part too. I would rather own as at least it will at the end of it be MY HOUSE rather than a home.

neverdespairgirl

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Ok, your being pedantic, but from now on I will refer to it as house price recorded history.
Would you be happier with that grammatical structuring?

I'm not being pedantic, really not.

I don't know what "house price recorded history" is. What do you mean by it?

neverdespairgirl

SingleSue wrote: »

Seems amazing but at the age of 14/15, I would jump on a train to Liverpool Street, get a tube/train to Black Horse Road or Wood Street and then bus or taxi it to my nans depending on how rich I felt...all on my own.

OH was travelling to Israel on his own by the age of 7 (put on the plane, collected off it) and by 13 was getting off the plane in Tel Aviv and making his own way to his grandparents' flat in Jerusalem.

phil_b_2

I'd agree renting is dead money, since you'll never see it back.

Buying a depreciating asset is only dead money if you sell shortly after. However, house prices WILL go back up again and you'll be back in the black. The money will have returned. Equally, you will have only then made money if you sell.