Prices Stable or Rising in 94% of the UK....

[Deleted User]

I don't know of anyone that rents so I can't compare. But I can give you an idea of how much I've made out of property.

I inherited half of the proceeds of my parents house (£115k). They paid 11k (plus interest on the mortgage). Now I don't know exactly how much they paid in total but it was without a doubt a lot LESS than £230k plus rent for the 50 odd years that they owned their own house. They lived rent / mortgage free for the last 30 years or so.

My husband inheritted the full proceeds on his mum's house. Only about £70k, but she paid a few hundred for it. And she too lived rent and mortgage free for years.

We bought our first house together in 2009 (EDIT - I meant 1999!). We took out a flexible mortgage and paid it off in full within about 8 years. The house has more than doubled in value. We're now living rent and mortgage free with money in the bank.

I can't see how we could possibly enjoy better quality of life if we'd rented? But I do see that we might have better quality of life if in 20 years time we release equity from our home, buy an anuity with the proceeds and then rent for the rest of our lives.

I don't think it's unusual for people to be reaching retirement age with houses worth half a million or more (when they'd payed a fraction of that amount for the property). Imagine the pension they could have if they sold and rented. Do you really think that someone that rented all their lives could have saved that amount?

sjaypink

Well, as a renter with no inheritence or pensions, that was a damn depressing read scarter

michael1983l

There is pro's and cons to both renting and owning but I would say it is fair to say that owning is much better for most.

[Deleted User]

sjaypink wrote: »

Well, as a renter with no inheritence or pensions, that was a damn depressing read scarter

I guess my point is that no matter how bad it seems right now I think if you take a long term view you (not you personally) probably wouldn't look back and regret buying. Even if house prices don't increase above inflation rate you still get a valuable asset after 25 years and years of rent/mortgage free living.

Even buying at peak just before a crash is no bid deal - provided you can ride it out.

I expect you could probably afford for a house value not to keep up with inflation over your lifetime and still be better off than if you rent simply because the repayments would get easier and easier as your wages went up in line with inflation (whereas rent also goes up in line with inflation).

treliac

Deleted_User wrote: »

I don't know of anyone that rents so I can't compare. But I can give you an idea of how much I've made out of property.

I inherited half of the proceeds of my parents house (£115k). They paid 11k (plus interest on the mortgage). Now I don't know exactly how much they paid in total but it was without a doubt a lot LESS than £230k plus rent for the 50 odd years that they owned their own house. They lived rent / mortgage free for the last 30 years or so.

My husband inheritted the full proceeds on his mum's house. Only about £70k, but she paid a few hundred for it. And she too lived rent and mortgage free for years.

We bought our first house together in 2009 (EDIT - I meant 1999!). We took out a flexible mortgage and paid it off in full within about 8 years. The house has more than doubled in value. We're now living rent and mortgage free with money in the bank.

I can't see how we could possibly enjoy better quality of life if we'd rented? But I do see that we might have better quality of life if in 20 years time we release equity from our home, buy an anuity with the proceeds and then rent for the rest of our lives.

I don't think it's unusual for people to be reaching retirement age with houses worth half a million or more (when they'd payed a fraction of that amount for the property). Imagine the pension they could have if they sold and rented. Do you really think that someone that rented all their lives could have saved that amount?

You were, of course, financially lucky to inherit - which put you on your road to comfortable living. It's just a shame that in order to inherit..... :sad:

Personally, I don't want to see house prices going through the roof. It's not sustainable and it's not fair to future generations. I have children and I don't want them to be priced out of the market.

If I sell up at retirement age and rent, I'll have to keep paying rent until I die and I'll be living in someone else's property, with the insecurity that can bring.... surely avoiding that is one of the main reasons for buying in the first place?

If I leave the benefit of having a house to my children to inherit, well I may be okay in retirement. But there are plenty of elderly people in large houses that they own but who can't afford the upkeep any more. And I am quite likely to have to spend most of it to fund my care in old age. Furthermore, it's right that children have the opportunity to achieve their own independence and the self-respect that comes from achievement. They'll get help and support of course, but not spoon-feeding.

So that leaves another possibility - downsize to a more manageable property and leave some over to enjoy life with. So, if that's what is needed....

Life's a gamble, whichever path you take. However, there's only so much money sloshing around in the economy (or at least there should be). It's not right that it should gather exclusively in one sector of the population, purely through luck / being in the right place at the right time.... and having the effect of disadvantaging successive generations.

So, no, although I would obviously like to be comfortable enough to be free from financial worries in retirement, I don't feel I have the right to get there with no personal effort and at the detriment of others. And I don't want house prices to keep rising in order for me to achieve inequitable wealth - though I'm not going to pretend that I shall be giving it away- it just shouldn't be happening.

P.S. I prefer not to discuss what I'm worth.


...

Graham_Devon

Deleted_User wrote: »

I don't know of anyone that rents so I can't compare. But I can give you an idea of how much I've made out of property.

I inherited half of the proceeds of my parents house (£115k). They paid 11k (plus interest on the mortgage). Now I don't know exactly how much they paid in total but it was without a doubt a lot LESS than £230k plus rent for the 50 odd years that they owned their own house. They lived rent / mortgage free for the last 30 years or so.

My husband inheritted the full proceeds on his mum's house. Only about £70k, but she paid a few hundred for it. And she too lived rent and mortgage free for years.

This is the problem in my view.

Well, not problem per se, but you have no kids, and you inherited a rather large sum which you found yourself able to just buy with.

That, is not everyones experience. You make it all sound so easy in various threads, which I can not blame you for, as for you, quite clearly, it was! Very much like another poster here who got given money and then laughs at those who can't afford (I know you are not laughing).

If you had not inherited, I'm sure your view would be somewhat different now at your stage in life.

You may say that you are not saying it's easy..but when you say stuff like "only 70k" it says a lot! I.e., detached from reality.

Charterhouse

Most people are upsizing. Young people, and other first time buyers, are always upsizing, by definition. Higher house prices are bad for people who are upsizing. Unless you like the idea of generational wealth transfer from the young to the old, you should not like rising house prices. Given that the "usual" state of affairs is the wealth transfer of cash from the old to the young, excessive HPI very much turns things on its head.

bernard_shaw

Deleted_User wrote: »

I can't see how we could possibly enjoy better quality of life if we'd rented? But I do see that we might have better quality of life if in 20 years time we release equity from our home, buy an anuity with the proceeds and then rent for the rest of our lives.

You are mistaking "standard of living" for "quality of life". The two things are quite different.

It seems to me that it's quite often that a certain type of folk make this mistake. The same sort of people who mistake value for price and confuse wealth with affluence.


edit:
See below.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Charterhouse wrote: »

. Unless you like the idea of generational wealth transfer from the young to the old, you should not like rising house prices. Given that the "usual" state of affairs is the wealth transfer of cash from the old to the young, excessive HPI very much turns things on its head.

All of that wealth, every single last penny of it, will ultimately get transferred to the younger generation.

You may have heard of this little thing we call "death"....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You may say that you are not saying it's easy..but when you say stuff like "only 70k" it says a lot! I.e., detached from reality.

Oh cry me a river, Graham....

70% of households in the UK are owner occupied, and so the children of 70% of households will almost certainly be inheriting a house.

The vast majority of people do inherit something. It's the ultimate form of intergenerational wealth transfer.

And I have no idea why you are complaining. The young of tomorrow will look back at your generation, who could all have bought in the early to mid 2000's, with affordable property, 100% mortgages, lifetime trackers at base plus .5%, etc, and scratch their heads in wonder at anyone daft enough to have missed that boat. Let alone daft enough to have missed it twice.....