A serious question for the Bears....

purch

I've had a great life these past 3 years renting my girlfriend

Renting a Girlfriend :eek:

OOpsss.....sorry my bad....miss read what you said.

I've had a great life these past 3 years renting with my girlfriend

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nice rant, but it still doesn't address the question.

Millions of people have always been unable to afford to buy. The percentage of housing occupied by owner/occupiers is at almost 70%, close to an all time high. I personally think this percentage has a;ready peaked, as to get the percentage that high we had to start marketing houses to sub prime people, and look at the mess that caused.

The question is aimed at the bears that waited for a crash because they wanted to get more for their money, ie, a house instead of a flat, or a 2 bed flat instead of a one bed, or could afford to buy but were worried about negative equity. And by all previous accounts anyway, there are a lot of them on these boards.

So again I ask, at what point does losing out on the potential gains become too much to risk?

Hamish - there arent even a lot of people on this board.

I doubt we have 30 readers let alone people who actually post. You never showed up here until you were banned from hpc, and I can see why.

You've never bothered to introduce yourself or get to know anyone - all you do is spam the board with cut and paste nonsense based on some issues you have carried over from a totally different forum.

Your imaginary housing bear who you are so angry at like some sort of latter day Shylock is just that. In your head.

And thats the end of my contribution to this - I really cant be bothered to talk to you any more, although I hope the mods eventually do something to limit the endless pointless new threads you create, consisting of cut and pastes, which should and could be kept to one thread.

boyse7en

I've had a great life these past 3 years renting my girlfriend

Apparently it is cheaper than long-term ownership. Although there are risks involved – maintenance not being done promptly, being evicted without notice if you come home late.

However, the advantage of renting is that, should a better opportunity walk past, you are in a position to take advantage of it much faster.

Dan:_4

ruggedtoast wrote: »

all you do is spam the board with cut and paste nonsense based on some issues you have carried over from a totally different forum.

Reminds me of !!!!!!?.

I miss him.

inspector_monkfish

boyse7en wrote: »

Apparently it is cheaper than long-term ownership. Although there are risks involved – maintenance not being done promptly, being evicted without notice if you come home late.

However, the advantage of renting is that, should a better opportunity walk past, you are in a position to take advantage of it much faster.

and at the first sign of damp rot, you can simply just walk away..

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'd agree with you, in another thread, but for this one I'd quite like to see if we can get any genuine responses from bears.

Have they thought it through? Is there a Plan B for IF things don't go their way? (and it's still a big IF at this point, i'll admit)

I got this far on this thread.

Just this made me reply. As the question is completely stupid.

Of course there is no plan B for those who couldn't afford to buy homes, they still can't.

Life seems so black and white to you, thats all I can pick up from your posts, you seem to just think people have 25% deposits lying around etc etc etc. I.e. you can't seem to see past yourself and see that not everyone has your circumstances.

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Of course there is no plan B for those who couldn't afford to buy homes, they still can't.

The question was for the bears who CAN afford to buy but aren't, yet.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

The question was for the bears who CAN afford to buy but aren't, yet.

Quote hamish's first post and show me where this is said then please.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I got this far on this thread.

Just this made me reply. As the question is completely stupid.

it was quite a simple question... :rolleyes:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Of course there is no plan B for those who couldn't afford to buy homes, they still can't.

Life seems so black and white to you, thats all I can pick up from your posts, you seem to just think people have 25% deposits lying around etc etc etc. I.e. you can't seem to see past yourself and see that not everyone has your circumstances.

Plan B = continue renting and continue saving, move in with parents and save etc... etc.... etc... etc...

lostinrates

Despite all the hoohah and finger pointing from both sides I think its an interesting question. My guess is few can really know what they'll do. For example, our stance might havechanged had we been expecting a child. The tax increases are going to have influence on us that we would have hoped to avoid, while interest rates look set to stay low and the money has to come from somewhere and its likely to include taxation in somw form (with one hand giveth).

The plans of a number of my peers have had to change, I don't se why we should be any different.