Wealthier? Or deeper in debt?

Angela_D_3

The only person benefitting is Gordon Brown, end of story. We are very lucky because we are renting until the crash happens and can wait 15 years if that how long it takes, what goes up always comes down. Seen todays oil prices ?

Gorgeous_George

Why do people see renting as inferior to buying?

It is likely that the avreage rent payer will spend less on houses and the miriad of expenses that owning a house brings. Therefore, they have more of their income to spend enjoying life.

Buying a house to sell when the market rises means living in an investment and is well dodgy. Only to be done if you understand the risks involved.

The biggest problem is that there are relatively few council houses left. I grew up on a council estate and my neighbours were lifelong friends of the family. Young people today don't have much chance of getting a council house because the plague of young mums are top priority. So, they either rent privately which can be less attractive than renting a council house, or they take on a huge debt and buy a pile of bricks. This is usually only big enough for a couple of years and then they move to something slightly larger thus incurirng large expenses to move.



GG

ravenfield

whambamboo wrote:

I can also recommend buying Microsoft shares in 1980. I also have a nice crystal ball you can buy...

Best buy a dozen tiny flats in Peckham for £500,000 each. You'll make a fortune!!!!

If you have loads of money, you can predicts the future. For example like George Soros.

BobProperty

Gorgeous_George wrote:

When I die, they can tax me all they want.

They don't bother in this country. When you are dead you don't pay taxes (your estate does but that's another story)
Hence the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy gag about "taking a year off dead for tax purposes"

Carter_2

RHemmings wrote:

I remember an example someone posted on here where they moved from one property to another. They made a lot on their first house, and then bought a more expensive one, and seemed quite pleased that they owned a house worth a quarter of a million pounds.

Their original home was bought for £50,000 six years ago. They then sold for £150,000. That's a massive gain in the value of that house. They then bought a house for £250,000, on which they have a £90,000 mortgage. So, they had a deposit of £160,000 on the house, of which £100,000 came from the increase in price of the first house. £60,000 came from their original deposit on the house, and other monies.

I dont understand your post. Surely if they had the extra £60,000 you mention - from the original deposit and other monies 6 years ago they would not have looked to get a mortgage for the house priced at £50,000 to start with?

It seems to me they have then benefitted from buying the cheaper house as in addition to the equity it provided they were able to save and provide an extra £60,000 that they did not have 6 years earlier? As you have used this £60,000 as being present six years previous I am not sure your calculations are correct (ie. stating they could have taken out a loan of only £23,000 on the more expensive property by using this money)

Sapphire

Juni wrote:

City bonuses are one of the major causes of the rampant HPI. I know of people who get such huge bonuses that they just instruct estate agents to buy whole streets and rent the houses out as they just don't know what to do with the money.

And perhaps things like this, which I found quite alarming (it is applicable to Ireland, but still somewhat close to home):

http://www.fly-2let.co.uk/news220.htm