House ownership - Selling yourself into a lifetime of servitude

LittleMissAspie

Pete111 wrote: »

Look that's all well and good but you are just not getting it Mmmmkay?

If you have a mortgage on a house then it AUTOMATICALLY and TOTALLY impinges on your ability to jet off on a whim to go scuba diving with monkeys in the red sea whilst simultaneously teaching Japanese to disabled albino orphans from Peru.

GOT THAT!!!???!!

Hang on, the bank never mentioned that! They never mentioned scuba diving or Japanese even once, I can't believe they can do this to me! My landlord wouldn't have stopped me from going to Peru This is mis-selling right? What can I do, it's too late to rent the house down the road, someone already took it!

Yakubu22

LittleMissAspie wrote: »

Pets are priceless if you ask me, who cares if they cost you thousands, they are worth it.

I love pets too...

Pete111

LittleMissAspie wrote: »

Hang on, the bank never mentioned that! They never mentioned scuba diving or Japanese even once, I can't believe they can do this to me! My landlord wouldn't have stopped me from going to Peru This is mis-selling right? What can I do, it's too late to rent the house down the road, someone already took it!

Absolutely, where there's blame there's a claim....and where there's an MSE internet forum there's usually a slightly unhinged troll with a fixation on perfectly manageble debt....

IveSeenTheLight

debtistheft wrote: »

Yes, often just before they retire from work and drop dead after a lifetime of drudgery in jobs they 'settled' for in order to pay down the millstone mortgage. Many more are entering their retirement with mortgage debt and the rest of us are paying for their homes with our taxes. The majority of people receiving mortgage assistance are pensioners. How lovely for their sense of dignity to know they live in their homes because of the generosity of others.

Your view would appear to represent the extreme minority

debtistheft wrote: »

If only they had not poured all their money into a single asset that does not allow them to withdraw that money without getting into debt and into a dubious equity release agreement with deals that diddle them out of the very homes they worked so hard to pay off.

A home owner can always sell / equity release and be in a better position than a simple renter is in.
this has been demonstrated time and again, yet you appear to mimic the monkey holding his ears ;o)

debtistheft wrote: »

No, I would rather spend my time and energy investing in a wide range of tax efficient investments and have a comfortable retirement in a home that is maintained by the landlord than pour my money into one asset and then wonder where the money is going to come from to replace those rotten windows, get rid of that damp or replace that knackered boiler.

The LL doesn't need to wonder where the money is going to come from to maintain the property.
As a tenant, your supplying the LL with that maintenance money and a lot more

debtistheft wrote: »

Still, some people put a great store by having their own knackered boiler and damp house. Idiots.

Indeed, while others seem content to be paying a LL in excess over the lifetime of what owners pay.
Who's the idiots?

debtistheft

LittleMissAspie wrote: »

How much do you earn? How can you afford to rent a non-dive AND have money left over for investing? I don't think many people can afford that.

My takehome pay is £1250 per month. May's mortgage interest will be £217.74. A house identical to mine in my street has just rented out for £650 per month, as did a different one six months ago.

If I had to support myself and my boyfriend on my salary alone (eg if he got made redundant) then I would not be able to rent us the same house we bought. But I can easily afford the mortgage interest and bills by myself until he found another job.

How did you afford to buy a house on that income?

IveSeenTheLight

SandC wrote: »

I don't know when it was that so many LLs started making such rules about decor etc. but I know my next door neighbour for about 8 years was long term renting and was allowed to decorate exactly how she wanted and had a good relationship with the LL which worked both ways - she didn't ring him up for trivial stuff and would do things herself, he was happy too. Since she left there were people in for 18 months, out, then someone for 6 months, then out - and eventually when he had a long period of nobody living there he sold up. It seems it's often tenants who are the ones wanting to move on more these days - but is that because they are not allowed to make their houses a home? Difficult one.

I had a property where a tenants asked to redecorate.
It wasn't that the property was needing redecorating, just that they wanted it to their tastes.
I agreed, with the only caveat that it was returned to the orginal state when they left the property.

In the end they stayed only another year as they relocated to another part of the country and they did return to the original colours.

It's possible if you have an understanding LL and tenant.

SandC wrote: »

I do have one friend though who has a long term rental agreement on a beautiful old farmhouse and he even does restoration work on it and can do the decor how he wants, have pets etc. Seems there needs to be an element of trust on both sides from the word go but if one or both parties have been stung in the past it becomes an issue - rather like all relationships eh?

The point of this post I have kind of lost so I'll shut up there... but attitudes have changed on both sides, from what I can see and it wouldn't harm to revert back to a bit of leeway from LLs and tenants alike.

The point you make and was replicated in my earlier point above was trust between the LL and the tenant. Also an agreement that decisions made will not incur additional unneccessary costs later.

debtistheft

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The LL doesn't need to wonder where the money is going to come from to maintain the property.
As a tenant, your supplying the LL with that maintenance money and a lot more

You say this as though it blows away my argument when actually it reinforces it. A pensioner who pays his rent using the return from some of his investments gets a roof over his head, the security of a lot of money in the bank and the security of knowing that any problems with the property will be addressed by the landlord.

The owner occupier has the same amount of money invested in his house, the return from that investment puts a roof over his head, no security because he cannot easily get at that money if he is desperate and any problems with the house have to be paid for by the owner occupier.

Furthermore, if we have a boom in the economy that increases the value of housing and shares, the tenant can use some of his gains to treat himself. The ower occupier does not see his gains because, once again, he cannot release those gains without going into debt.

The person who knows he is going to be a tenant for life will sit down with his investment plans and strategies and ensure that he will have enough money to keep him in his old age. He has to, it's vital.

The owner occupier, as evidenced by the complacent attitudes on this site, sits back paying down his mortgage with little if nothing invested elsewhere. They somehow expect that being mortgage free will somehow mean that their outgoings are so reduced that they will need next to no money to live.

Who then will be the better off in retirement, the person who has planned for it with numerous investments and savings plans BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE HAS TO or the person who ploughs all his money into a house in the mistaken belief that being mortgage free equates to being expenses free.

Its laughable when you see the complacent 'I can live rent free' statements because I know that behind that statement is a fool who has spent the greater part of their working life piling money into a single asset and that money cannot normally be released. By the time they realise their folly, it is simply too late in their working lives to grow an alternate investment.

They sit in their mortgage free houses, watching them slowly deteriorate as they eek out their state stipend.

de1amo

get a lodger they pay the mortgage quite constantly which negates the problem of investing your own money in the roof over your head(s)-

debtistheft

pinkteapot wrote: »

Debt is not theft. Interest is the cost of having money that you want now instead of later (the time value of money as economists would say). If you want something, you can save up and have that thing later on, or you can pay interest in order to have it now. People are paying a cost for a service. How exactly is this theft?

It would have taken me 12.5 years to save up the amount that I borrowed on my mortgage, assuming that I saved my current repayment amount each month. I chose to buy the house now and take the mortgage, with the associated interest cost. That was my choice, I understood the cost and I'm happy. As I've already said, I've got no problem with anyone who rents a house and is happy. Why can you simply not accept that some people are happy owning and happy to choose to spend their hard-earned money on it? People are different and want different things.

Who exactly is stealing from me? Where is the theft?

Dop you have other investments? Do you know how to invest in corporate bonds? Do you know which shares to invest in for growth and which shares to invest in for dividend returns. Do you know what a gilt is, do you know what a VCT is?

Don't beat yourself up if you don't. Not too many people do, they just plough money into a house and perhaps into some crappy stakeholder pension and think that they have done everything they can to ensure a comfortable retirement.

Remember me in 20/30/40 years time when you are retired and afraid to put that extra bar on the electric fire, when your walls are black with damp because your guttering has broken and you can't afford to get it fixed or when your 10 year old ga boiler keeps packing up. Remember that I told you about this life and you ignored me because all you need is your own home to be happy.

Pete111

debtistheft wrote: »

You say this as though it blows away my argument when actually it reinforces it. A pensioner who pays his rent using the return from some of his investments gets a roof over his head, the security of a lot of money in the bank and the security of knowing that any problems with the property will be addressed by the landlord.

The owner occupier has the same amount of money invested in his house, the return from that investment puts a roof over his head, no security because he cannot easily get at that money if he is desperate and any problems with the house have to be paid for by the owner occupier.

Furthermore, if we have a boom in the economy that increases the value of housing and shares, the tenant can use some of his gains to treat himself. The ower occupier does not see his gains because, once again, he cannot release those gains without going into debt.

The person who knows he is going to be a tenant for life will sit down with his investment plans and strategies and ensure that he will have enough money to keep him in his old age. He has to, it's vital.

The owner occupier, as evidenced by the complacent attitudes on this site, sits back paying down his mortgage with little if nothing invested elsewhere. They somehow expect that being mortgage free will somehow mean that their outgoings are so reduced that they will need next to no money to live.

Who then will be the better off in retirement, the person who has planned for it with numerous investments and savings plans BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE HAS TO or the person who ploughs all his money into a house in the mistaken belief that being mortgage free equates to being expenses free.

Its laughable when you see the complacent 'I can live rent free' statements because I know that behind that statement is a fool who has spent the greater part of their working life piling money into a single asset and that money cannot normally be released. By the time they realise their folly, it is simply too late in their working lives to grow an alternate investment.

They sit in their mortgage free houses, watching them slowly deteriorate as they eek out their state stipend.

Hmmmm

Sounds a bit like you (as a uberbear) are advocating MEWing for Homeowners. Is this truly the case?

Also, it appears that you are unaware of the concept of downsizing...or that other people have brains larger than a grape.