House ownership - Selling yourself into a lifetime of servitude

Kohoutek

debtistheft wrote: »

The landlord should have a gardener to maintain the grounds. Who the hell does he think his tenant is, free help? What next, will the tenant be expected to rewire the house or fit a new boiler?

It's outrageous. The landlord in this case is an idiot. Just like most home owners.

It sounds like the tenant probably entered into a tenancy agreement that said he was responsible for maintaining the garden. It's not anyone else's fault if you can't be bothered to read a contract you're signing...the tenant is the idiot in this case.

Londonsu

debtistheft wrote: »

OK, I'll set the dial on my TARDIS to the 90's or early 2000's (i.e. Pre massive boom). It will save fuel not having to go all of the way back to the 80's. It also saves me from hearing katchagoogoo and Billy Joel records on the Radio. I might even pop up to that smog-ridden northern slum Madchester and visit Fac 51.

You really do have a problem in realising that SOME people like myself and 1000s have very good reason to reject the theory that they have got a lifetime of servitude

And please read my post AGAIN

I had made it very clear that I consider my self LUCKY to have been able to do what I did I know a lot of people have not been able to do the same, however there are enough of us around to blast a very large hole in your theory

pinkteapot

debtistheft wrote: »

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.

I work in the asset management industry with experience in both fixed income and equities. So you can stop patronising me now.

debtistheft wrote: »

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.

I'm pretty comfortable with my retirement planning actually, thanks.

If someone who is retired is paying rent, they could use the money they spend on rent to pay for repairs to a house they own outright. In my area, a one-bed flat costs around £500 per month to rent. That's £6,000 per year. A new boiler is £2-3k and I just had some gutter repairs done at the hefty price of £54.

Not to mention the fact that most people finish paying off their mortgage before they retire and then have some interim years of working with no mortgage where they save up some retirement funds.

debtistheft

pinkteapot wrote: »

If someone who is retired is paying rent, they could use the money they spend on rent to pay for repairs to a house they own outright.

The whole point is that while the tenant has invested money for his future, the owner occupier hasn't, due to his or her complacency in thinking that once they are mortgage free, they are untouchable and can start 'living their lives' (i.e. doing all the stuff they missed out on in their youth because they were eating gruel and eeking out a living in order to pay off their mortgages a couple of years early. Idiots.

ukcarper

debtistheft wrote: »

OK, I'll set the dial on my TARDIS to the 90's or early 2000's (i.e. Pre massive boom). It will save fuel not having to go all of the way back to the 80's. It also saves me from hearing katchagoogoo and Billy Joel records on the Radio. I might even pop up to that smog-ridden northern slum Madchester and visit Fac 51.

Just to get house prices into perspective.

Last time on the Nationwide wage/house price graph house prices were at the long-term average of 4x was 2002. As this is a Nationwide graph the average house according to them was around about £110k the mean salary then was £20.6k so that is obviously not the figure they use. For £110 to be 4x wage has to be £27.5k which was mean full time male so that is obviously the figure they use. Male mean full time in 2010 was £35.8 average house price is £167.2k which is about 4.7x.

So although prices are high they have been as high in the past 4.5 in 73 in 89 they were 5x so when you are in your Tardis don’t stop then.

debtistheft

Londonsu wrote: »

I had made it very clear that I consider my self LUCKY to have been able to do what I did I know a lot of people have not been able to do the same, however there are enough of us around to blast a very large hole in your theory

How can you blast a hole in my theory by giving example of peopel who bought pre-boom when houses didn't cost a king's ransom?

I have repeatedly pointed out that unless today's prospective first time buyers can travel back to pre-2000 then they can't make use of the same benefits you had. My theory cannot work backwards in time, just like we can't go backwards in time to get the same free education, cheap shares from nationalised companies, final salary pensions for state industries, MIRAS payments.

No, we are left with a mountain of state debt to pay for your feathered nests and a mountain of personal debt to pay for things you had for free. Have a look at how well you would do if you bought today, saddled with £20k of debt because you had the audacity to go want a decent education but were not lucky enough to be in that other Idiot's Forbes rich list. Could you even buy your £250K house starting from a -£20k start point? Idiot.

Lotus-eater

The problem with renting is that you can't settle, can't plant a garden that you expect to see in a few years and can't relax about being able to stay in the same place.
That's in the UK, in europe where I have rented, it's a different story, tentants aren't looked down upon in the same way they seem to be here and they have a completely different view on how long people will stay in a property. Long term rents are often the norm, where as here, we have a year at best most of the time.

I suppose it's different things for different people, I like stability and the chance to have a garden I can change and not have to lose it next year, I want a stable home for my kids, I don't want to have to move at some others whim.

My mortgage is basically paid off and I'm 40, I worked hard to pay it off and now I am enjoying it and taking it a bit easy. Which I can do, because my outgoings are low. And I get to work on the garden.

robmatic

debtistheft wrote: »

The whole point is that while the tenant has invested money for his future, the owner occupier hasn't, due to his or her complacency in thinking that once they are mortgage free, they are untouchable and can start 'living their lives' (i.e. doing all the stuff they missed out on in their youth because they were eating gruel and eeking out a living in order to pay off their mortgages a couple of years early. Idiots.

Errm, you don't actually have a point. Now please stop playing the child, it's getting tedious.

ukcarper

debtistheft wrote: »

The whole point is that while the tenant has invested money for his future, the owner occupier hasn't, due to his or her complacency in thinking that once they are mortgage free, they are untouchable and can start 'living their lives' (i.e. doing all the stuff they missed out on in their youth because they were eating gruel and eeking out a living in order to pay off their mortgages a couple of years early. Idiots.

Funny that because lots of people who bought houses have invested in pensions and having paid less in mortgage payments than they would have done if they rented they have had more spare money to invest.

IveSeenTheLight

debtistheft wrote: »

So what you are saying here is that you have to be a billionaire to easily afford to buy a house without running the risk associated with borrowing a vast amount of money. I totally agree with you. However, as most of us on here and in the wider UK society are NOT on the Forbes rich list then what you are therefore saying is that it makes financial sense to rent rather than buy. I knew you would see sense eventually. Non Idiot.

Are you related to geneer?

All of these financially successful people must be idiots by your definition.
None of them thought that they'd be better off renting and using LL's as mugs to sort out everything in their home.

Personally, I am 37 and have three properties, all of which will be mortgage free by the time I'm 44.
I could quite happily retire on the rental profits from said properties, without considering my other investments.

But then I'm an idiot and should be renting with my family and paying my LL's mortgages.
If I had done that though, I wouldn't be able to afford to invest in my or my famalies future.