Dilbert: 'treat housing as consumption' = good?

grizzly1911

staffie1 wrote: »

When you say 'sensibly', what do you mean exactly?

What ash28 said in post 9 really.

thanks ash28:)

Thrugelmir

Derivative wrote: »

Justifying larger purchases on the basis of homes being appreciating assets is flawed on a few fronts:

A property bought to let is often far different than people to aspire to live in.

robmatic

paddyrg wrote: »

I'm torn. Financially it's not a huge difference in terms of monthly payments, some people rent for cheaper than a mortgage would be, others save cash buying.

The difference is renting means it is never fully your own place to do as you will, so walls are all magnolia forever, and you don't plant trees you want to keep. On the other hand, renting means the boiler gets fixed, and you can move homes/areas easily. We have lived all over the country and world which wouldn't be the case with a mortgage (why pay UK rent if you're in Nepal or NZ for months, for instance). Having no mortgage and not having to do a big, slow buy/sell means we can move city within 31 days if we want to. And with the nature of my work, sometimes you could be on contract somewhere else!

Horses for courses.

I don't fully understand the argument that renting a property gives you ultimate flexibility whilst owning a property is the ultimate ball and chain.

If I was offered a lucrative short-term position elsewhere in the UK I would be able to move city fairly rapidly (I wouldn't need to give notice to myself) and rent out my property which would give a decent subsidy to my living expenses in my new location.

It's actually quite likely that I will move overseas (Turkey) within the next couple of years and again owning my property will be a help rather than a hindrance. A cash generating asset in the UK will give me a bit of a safety net or help pay the rent whilst I'm over there.