We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Patience is a virtue
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »You don't need calculations that rely on past performance.
Not everyone has your predictive powers so past performance with built in safety margins wouldn't seem that daft a place to start for us mere mortals.Graham_Devon wrote: »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.
Doing some calculations working out the relative costs of renting vs buying isn't dumbing down - it's the basis for working out which has the lower cost of accomodation. There seems little point on an internet forum trying to cater for everyone's individual circumstances.Graham_Devon wrote: »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.
I've never seen anyone insist that buying & renting be compared over only 25 years. I've done calculations over much shorter and longer periods as well.Graham_Devon wrote: »For those who never have the means to buy, the comparison holds even less weight.
The calculations are really most useful for those with a choice between renting and buying. That's obvious.Graham_Devon wrote: »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.
No point working stuff out I suppose. Analysis can sometimes get in the way of a belief system.0 -
Does that depend on house prices outstripping inflation indefinitely? Is there no limit to how expensive houses can get in real terms?My point is that buying is likely to me more profitable"It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Does that depend on house prices outstripping inflation indefinitely? Is there no limit to how expensive houses can get in real terms?
No, house prices don't need to out-strip inflation to be more profitable than renting."Beware of little expenses. A small leak will sink a great ship." - Benjamin Franklin0 -
Devon's arguments go along the lines of Marshmallows can't fly, Graham_Devon can't fly, Graham_Devon must be a Marshmallow or People buy houses' People get repossessed, Don't buy a house people get repossessed.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.
They work every time, it's genius logic. It really is.0 -
I get it. It's because landlords have to figure in maintenance costs, which are always zero in house-buyers' calculations.No, house prices don't need to out-strip inflation to be more profitable than renting."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
I get it. It's because landlords have to figure in maintenance costs, which are always zero in house-buyers' calculations.
Although to be fair I've seen some patently ridiculous "estimates" from some posters here of how much maintenance costs actually are for owner-occupiers.
The problem is here is a lack of moderate examples - its either really good or really bad to be buyer or renter, nothing in between.0 -
Although to be fair I've seen some patently ridiculous "estimates" from some posters here of how much maintenance costs actually are for owner-occupiers.
The problem is here is a lack of moderate examples - its either really good or really bad to be buyer or renter, nothing in between.
Its obligatory to purchase a new roof,boiler and re-wire when aquiring a house.
Thats why its cheaper to rent...:pOfficial MR B fan club,dont go............................0 -
"It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »You only have to go back to the post I stated them on to find out.
It all depends on circumstances, and all of us have individual circumstances.
Was it best for the women at work to buy a house with her new partner 4 years ago, spend 25k improving it via a personal loan, only to get divorced, sell the house for slightly less than they bought it for, and take the loan with her?
Or would she have been better off renting?
It's neither or. She could have had a succesful marriage. HPI could have paid off her personal loan upon selling. The improvements could have added value to the house.
At the end of the day, circumstances dictacted how much better off she would have been either on a mortgage or buying. Mathmatics dictate she would have been better off renting.
But for the girl who works with her, lived in her home for donkeys years, married to someone she met in secondary school, never needed or wanted to move....buying has worked out fantastic.
As I said, trying to dumb the argument down to what chucky did is absolutely pointless.
If you refuse to accept or allow for circumstances in mathmatical findings, then you can show whatever you want to show.
I kinda refuse to accept that the woman who bought a house with her partner and renovated it had the sort of crystal ball to know that she would end up breaking up with said partner and selling the house for less than they have invested in it.
Out of interest, are these the sorts of long, drawn out decision making processes that you bear types make? Christ, no wonder you're all stymied when it comes to making any sort of financial decision! You over analyse every decision until you're frozen into inactivity.
It makes me wonder if you're too fearful to even venture out of the front door in case you get run over. :rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards