House ownership - Selling yourself into a lifetime of servitude

PasturesNew

ukcarper wrote: »

Your still only working for £67 a week so it’s not surprising some people don’t bother talk about high tax rates you are only getting just over 25% of what you earn . But then if you don’t start working you have no chance of improving things. As for WTC I think it can be a bit complicated as to what is regarded as income.

It's not just those starting out ... once you get older, you seem to be dumped, with perkier ladies being picked for jobs

So, having done your 30+ years and, possibly, being laid off a lot of times in the past so always having to "start again", it's easy to become disillusioned

Cleaver

PasturesNew wrote: »

So, for the same money, would you rather get up every morning, miss all the good weather, be kn4ckered all the time ... or .... not work and go on free courses to learn new stuff and spend your days dabbling with hobbies while being able to enjoy the sun when it appears?

There's a lot of loaded language in those options Pastures, but if you give me the choice between having a job and not having a job I will always pick having a job.

beecher2

PasturesNew wrote: »

So, for the same money, would you rather get up every morning, miss all the good weather, be kn4ckered all the time ... or .... not work and go on free courses to learn new stuff and spend your days dabbling with hobbies while being able to enjoy the sun when it appears?
.

I'd take the job, without question. There's just no debate between living on benefits, and working. Life isn't all about money - to me self respect, being independent and setting yourself goals are far more important.

PasturesNew

beecher2 wrote: »

I'd take the job, without question. There's just no debate between living on benefits, and working. Life isn't all about money - to me self respect, being independent and setting yourself goals are far more important.

If you're, say, over 50 and unlikely to progress for any reason/s, surely a great goal to be independent is to not have to get up and dance for the man.... as for setting goals, doesn't "making the best loaf ever, then uploading the best photo ever to facebook" count as a valid goal?

If the money's about the same - and you don't have commuting/dressing costs ... it's a no brainer.

beecher2

PasturesNew wrote: »

If you're, say, over 50 and unlikely to progress for any reason/s, surely a great goal to be independent is to not have to get up and dance for the man.... as for setting goals, doesn't "making the best loaf ever, then uploading the best photo ever to facebook" count as a valid goal?

If the money's about the same - and you don't have commuting/dressing costs ... it's a no brainer.

Only if I was in a position to be self sufficient. If I had to rely on benefits, then it is indeed a no brainer - I'd choose work every time.

SandC

I bought my house in 1995. I have every intention of still living here when the mortgage is paid off in 2020 or sooner if I can. My mortgage payments are less than half what the current rent would be on my property if I was renting it. When I bought, the mortgage payments were the same as renting a one bed flat (this is a two bed terrace). It was a no brainer back then - despite several people telling me I'd be stuck with negative equity and it was a bad move. The value didnt rise for 5 years but so what? My salary did and rents moved up and have continued doing so.

I feel very fortunate to have been able to buy a property on my own but guess what? I'm better off than most of the people I know of the same age. Why? Cos I didnt borrow money from my equity for improvements or cars, I didn't upgrade the minute the lenders tried to shove money at me. I wasnt tempted by the offers made by lenders to give me a good rate only if I borrowed more. I have a home, there is no way I would be better off having rented my place to live.

As for ill health - well I'm insured for that - I'd be a fool not to.

debtistheft

SandC wrote: »

I bought my house in 1995. I have every intention of still living here when the mortgage is paid off in 2020 or sooner if I can. My mortgage payments are less than half what the current rent would be on my property if I was renting it.

It never fails to amaze me when I see this startement. People just seem to forget about the tes, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds of dead money they have invested in their homes.

Question: "Would it be cheaper to rent your home if you had a 100% interest only mortgage?"

Answer: "Well, no it would be the same I guess if you include the mantenance costs and buildings insurance".

Question: "If you own 50% of the house, would the mortgage be less than half of what you would pay in rent?"

Answer: "why yes! Thats my point, I am paying less than half in rent".

Question: "If you put that 50% house equity into shares that paid an income and you paid that income towards your rent, would it not reduce your rent by half?"

Answer: "Why yes, I hadn't thought about that!"

Question: "If the housing market crashes, will that 50% equity be worth less?"

Answer "Why yes, it would, but then the stock markets can crash too!"

Question "Did you realise that if you invest money you can diversify into different shares, some of which will actually rise in a recession"

Answer: "No I didn't, I thought the only way to invest was to put the bulk of my entire fortune into a single asset, such as a house".

Question: "Is it easy for you to access the money in your equity?"

Answer "Why no, I would have to remortgage to 'borrow' back my own money! Or I would have to sell up at great expense and inconvenience!

CAN1976

It's not dead money! The return you get on the house value is not having to pay rent every month!

debtistheft

CAN1976 wrote: »

It's not dead money! The return you get on the house value is not having to pay rent every month!

Do you think that return is adequate for the amount of money you have to invest?

ukcarper

debtistheft wrote: »

Question: "Would it be cheaper to rent your home if you had a 100% interest only mortgage?"

Answer: "Well, no it would be the same I guess if you include the mantenance costs and buildings insurance".

Well the answer is it would be cheaper because landlord is adding his profit. So if you add insurance and maintenance it’s the same. So where is the renter going to get this money to invest.