Telegraph: Buying is cheaper than renting in more than 90% of the UK

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I laughed too. I thought the network upgrade might have to be paid for from profits which could have impacted my dividend receipts.

There was a commentator suggesting that it could all have been paid for via dividends. (nice of you to back up my post from 2 mins ago about how well people are doing though )

I'm unsure what is right or wrong in this scenario. I suppose it depends on how you view it. if you are an investor, of course it's good. If your someone who already struggles to pay the bills, £12 won't make a massive difference, but the principle of the stuff probably would.

It seems it's only really retail and the service sector left which don't appear to be able to command public money. It's kind of accepted utilities will take all they can get and we'll just have to continually pay more. But as with my Tesco analogy, I'm not sure the taxpyer would stand for that.

All I see it as is more money taken from the consumer and passed to already profit making (into the billions each year) companies, which means less to spend elsewhere.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

When did you last hear of anyone suggesting house price rises are a good thing, ever state they don't have much money?

I know a couple of skint coffin dodgers who think it would be good if their house went up in value. Don't think their skint offspring will be complaining either.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There was a commentator suggesting that it could all have been paid for via dividends. (nice of you to back up my post from 2 mins ago about how well people are doing though )

Yes I must be doing brilliantly - I've got some shares!

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm unsure what is right or wrong in this scenario. I suppose it depends on how you view it. if you are an investor, of course it's good. If your someone who already struggles to pay the bills, £12 won't make a massive difference, but the principle of the stuff probably would.

It seems it's only really retail and the service sector left which don't appear to be able to command public money. It's kind of accepted utilities will take all they can get and we'll just have to continually pay more. But as with my Tesco analogy, I'm not sure the taxpyer would stand for that.

National Grid hold a monopoly position and therefore the customer is paying for this upgrade whatever. The regulator must recognise that the work needs doing and so they've put a cap on the amount that can be passed on.

If you don't like how much of Tesco store upgrade costs are being passed on you can just go to Sainsburys instead. I'd prefer that to be honest because I've got shares in JS too.

Linton

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.....

I laughed the other day when I saw the National grid has been given the green light to take £12 a year off all of us to upgrade the network. What next? we all chip in £2 a year into a seperate tax pot for Tesco to upgrade their stores?

And who do you think does pay in the end for Tesco to upgrade their stores???

Graham_Devon

Linton wrote: »

And who do you think does pay in the end for Tesco to upgrade their stores???

Clearly you are going down the "customer always pays" route.

However, this is basically taxing the consumer to pay for specific upgrades. It's not the same as "the customer always pays", firstly, because there is no competition to keep the company in check. They can do what they like.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

However, this is basically taxing the consumer to pay for specific upgrades. It's not the same as "the customer always pays", firstly, because there is no competition to keep the company in check. They can do what they like.

What are you talking about? As there isn't any competition there's a regulator who has to balance the needs of the consumer in terms of costs and continuity of supply against the investors desire for a return on capital.

If they can do what they like why did you get into day trading rather than investing capital in utilities?

Conrad

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Ok the dozen or so Thailand living, retired early debt free cheap mortgaged(if any) three holidays a year, double digit rent raising landlords who have ten new clients at their doors five minutes after they put their rented homes on the market, with their small fortunes in their Swiss bank accounts only exist on this board.

All I say is in the market town I live near to, I know the investors, I know the agents, it's all pretty tight knit and a typical profile would be;

+ Aged 60
+ Own home worth c£1m, usually a mortgage of £200 k or so
+ 10 or more B2L's worth c£180k each
+ Low gearing around 30% mark
+ A typical real profit of c£100k pa, although good Accountants massage this of course, for example the spouse is the administrator of the entity

Do keep in mind though that I regularly also meet those with a £2 - £4m own home and larger poirtfolios. One such guy has 100 places.
Typical profile would be a bloke who bought an old scrap yard or car dealership on a load of land in the 1990s and it all ballooned from there.

None of these would show up in official stats as a millionaire thats why media talking heads commenting on numbers of millionaires is absolutely farscical.


I also have ordinary workers such as social workers and teachers that by dint of effort and will have manage to amass decent portfoilios. Often thier freinds and family have no idea!
Some of this group are a bit irritating as they take frugality to intense levels.

homelessskilledworker

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

You probably posted in the wrong thread, because this one is about the cost of renting vs. owning.

Any thoughts on the subject?

Again, silly boy

I am not talking about how I want the market to be, I am talking about how the market really is.

Mr._Pricklepants

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Again, silly boy

I am not talking about how I want the market to be, I am talking about how the market really is.

Yes, but - again - the thread is about the cost or renting vs owning, so your view on the market isn't really relevant here.