Patience is a virtue

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

There have been a number of calculations done where the poster has bent over backwards to try and bias towards renters. It takes an unlikely set of circumstances for renting to work out cheaper than buying.

Yet the best you'll offer is that it's almost certain that buying is cheaper than renting only if someone buys one house and stays there until they die?

Why don't you want people to buy houses?

You don't need calculations that rely on past performance.

You don't need to twist the life out of a paragraph to make your point either.

All you need to do is understand everyones circumstances are different, and therefore dumbing things down to the point that was done earlier is a fruitless exercise. It get's the answer that is wanted, sure, but is devoid of most of lifes challenges.

You also don't need to try and pretend I am trying to stop people buying houses. It just makes your post look petty and point scoring.

Theres an insistance on here to compare 25 years of a mortgage with 25 years of renting, and coming to the conclusion mortgage is always better than renting.

People don't generally rent for 25 years though if they have the means to buy. They rent because it suits them at that time, for whatever reason. They may buy 5 or 10 years later....so makes the comparison silly.

For those who never have the means to buy, the comparison holds even less weight.

It's all about circumstances, and these calculations are pointless....apart from giving an answer some want to see.So I guess they are useful in that respect.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You also don't need to try and pretend I am trying to stop people buying houses. It just makes your post look petty and point scoring.

How about the point made where you don't agree that a fixed rate mortgage is inflation proof while rent is affected by inflation?

You twisted and squirmed out of that nicely.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

How about the point made where you don't agree that a fixed rate mortgage is inflation proof while rent is affected by inflation?

You twisted and squirmed out of that nicely.

I've never disagreed with that, infact I haven't even commented on it, let alone twisted it.

Anyway, a fix is only inflation proof for the duration of the fix, which in general, isn't the length of the mortgage.

Stephen_Leak

Patience turns a mulberry leaf into a silk dress. Chinese proverb.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've never disagreed with that, infact I haven't even commented on it.

Well here's the post from this thread that proves that you're lying and did comment on it. You obviously didn't agree and jumped in pretty sharpest to dismiss the point.

chucky wrote: »

Ok, have a think about it this way as well.

A mortgage loan is a fixed amount that isn't affected by inflation, a fixed rate mortgage is also not affected by inflation plus you're making capital repayments. Rental payments are affected by inflation and as you can see have increased recently.

Should borrowers beware or renters beware?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You can't dumb it down to just that simple question though.

There are so many other factors to consider.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

Well here's the post from this thread that proves that you're lying and did comment on it. You obviously didn't agree and jumped in pretty sharpest to dismiss the point.

That's not disagreeing with the fix itself being inflation proof.

I was making the point that house buying vs renting can't be dumbed down to that level.

Sorry if you took it that I was making a point about the fix itself, rather than the point I actually made.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I was making the point that house buying vs renting can't be dumbed down to that level.

Yes ok then.

Graham_Devon

This is starting to remind me of a diesel vs petrol debate...

Bloke 1: Which is going to be more economical, a petrol or diesel car for doing 10k a year.

Chucky: Diesel will do more mpg

Bloke 1: Yes, but it also costs more to buy the car in the first place, and modern diesels have a higher cost of replacement parts.

Chucky: but diesel will do more mpg

Bloke 1: Yes, but it will take me several years just to break even on the fuel costs

Chucky: so you disagree diesel does more MPG?

Bloke1: No, but I am trying to look at ALL the aspects of running the car, including buying and maintaining it for the mileage I do.

Chucky: Nice twisting. You disagree that diesels do more mpg

Bloke1: No, but...I give up.

Chucky: if you say so, ghosting out of the discussion now I see.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is starting to remind me of a diesel vs petrol debate...

Bloke 1: Which is going to be more economical, a petrol or diesel car for doing 10k a year.

Chucky: Diesel will do more mpg

Bloke 1: Yes, but it also costs more to buy the car in the first place, and modern diesels have a higher cost of replacement parts.

Chucky: but diesel will do more mpg

Bloke 1: Yes, but it will take me several years just to break even on the fuel costs

Chucky: so you disagree diesel does more MPG?

Bloke1: No, but I am trying to look at ALL the aspects of running the car, including buying and maintaining it for the mileage I do.

Chucky: Nice twisting. You disagree that diesels do more mpg

Bloke1: No, but...I give up.

Chucky: if you say so, ghosting out of the discussion now I see.

Sorry, I've never had a discussion with you about diesel or cars.

Good fantasy trolling though.

DpchMd

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well done. You have just managed to ignore everything else I stated where negative equity could be a problem. I stated that if you buy one house and live in it for the rest of your life, it won't be a problem.

Must be bliss living in an insulated bubble.

I'd rather be happy in my bubble, than be a depressed lunatic who's spent the last 7 years of his life spreading doom on an internet forum.

Cheer up Graham, it'll be alright.