Everything's changed - what would you do?

fc123

What do you think Lydiaj? What does your instinct say....

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

But if you rent, you can get housing benefit if unemployed, Hamish?

I don't think she can, with money in the bank, can she?

carolt

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And if you buy, you can get mortgage benefit....

I presume there is a limit to what housing benefit will pay? So if the rental place was above that they would have to move. Whereas mortgage benefit covers up to 200K.....

Mortgage benefit only lasts a short time though, whereas housing benefit is infinite in terms of both longevity and amount. Hence stories about people getting multi-million pound luxury pads in London courtesy of the taxpayer, on housing benefit.

I do agree it's daft, and a waste of taxpayers' money. But it's how the system currently works.

vivatifosi

I'd buy. The big decision for me would be whether or not I could cope with a lodger (to pay the extra 20% to get the house that I'd really like) or whether I'd rather live by myself and take the lower priced option (I like a buffer).

Who knows what house prices are going to do in the long term. Whatever happens you'll get better vfm than you would have done two years ago if you'd have been in the same position then.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

carolt wrote: »

Mortgage benefit only lasts a short time though, whereas housing benefit is infinite in terms of both longevity and amount.
.

Mortgage benefit lasts 2 years, which gives you plenty of time to find another job or sell the house.

Whereas with savings in the bank, you are not eligible for housing benefit at all, and start depleting capital from day one.

Seems a pretty clear choice.... when those with a house are eligible for benefits whereas those with savings are not.

Thus my earlier comment about the buyer being better off over the renter in the event of unemployment.

wageslave

I dont think the OP has to worry about repossession, she seems to have her head screwed on, and if the worst comes to the worst, a supportive family.

It's the day to day coping that's the problem, the scrimping and the scraping and the just getting by.

It seems a fairly small risk to take (and when you have children relying on you, small risks are all you can take).

It's the things we dont do that we regret the most.

carolt

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Mortgage benefit lasts 2 years, which gives you plenty of time to find another job or sell the house.

Whereas with savings in the bank, you are not eligible for housing benefit at all, and start depleting capital from day one.

Seems a pretty clear choice.... when those with a house are eligible for benefits whereas those with savings are not.

Thus my earlier comment about the buyer being better off over the renter in the event of unemployment.

But no-one was talking about the OP renting - she's looking at 2 options of buying. She wouldn't face being evicted and homeless even if she became unemployed - she has a large capital cushion to fall back on. So I assumed you were talking generally about renting v buying in your post, as it clearly makes no sense in her case.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

carolt wrote: »

So I assumed you were talking generally about renting v buying in your post, as it clearly makes no sense in her case.

I am.

As any renter in a position to be a buyer must have a deposit, and therefore savings.

Which will make them ineligible for benefits...... One reason amongst many why owners are more secure than renters.

LydiaJ

Wow! What a lot of helpful responses everyone.

I've decided that I'm going to buy. As Hamish says, with the money in the bank I wouldn't qualify for housing benefit. And I don't think repossession is at all likely. My jobs, although not 100% secure, are more secure than average, I think. In any case, I'm lucky enough to have a "bank of mum & dad" that would be able and willing to bail me out if I lost my job and looked likely to lose the house (at least they would given how small my mortgage is likely to be, and the other circumstances of why I'm in this situation). Also, for personal reasons now is seriously not a good time for my kids and me to have to slum it anywhere not very nice (although dopester had no way of knowing that).

I've had a few more details through today, and the lump sum is going to be bigger than I thought. I think it will come to about 90% of (house price + stamp duty + survey + solicitors + removals etc) of my dream house. The remaining 10% would be a mortgage of about 1.7 times my new lower income. Disposable income might be a little lower, but petrol costs should be lower because less driving to work. I would aim to get a mortgage spread over a fairly long time but with lots of flexibility to make overpayments, to minimise both total interest and risk of getting into difficulties.

If I don't manage to get the dream house, I'll keep looking a little longer. Houses that I love don't come up very often round here, especially in this slow down in market volume. I don't want to throw endless capital down the drain, but I don't want to buy a house I'll regret later, either.

Lydia

wageslave

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I am.

As any renter in a position to be a buyer must have a deposit, and therefore savings.

Which will make them ineligible for benefits...... One reason amongst many why owners are more secure than renters.

Hamish, why does everything with you turn into some kind of party political broadcast on behalf of the property owning party?