getting my own place

staffie1

Carer wrote: »

I have the opposite opinion to most posters - I can't think of anything worse than having a huge debt hanging around my next for the next 25 years of my life. I'd be always worrying something will happen, illness, redundancy that would mean loss of income and therefore possible loss of my home.

It's pretty normal in a lot of countries to rent for life and it was here too until fairly recent history.

I have always said I will never buy a house unless it is outright. I am very happy renting, no maintenance bills, no worries about possible job losses. Been renting for 25 years now and brought up a family in rented.

Oh and never been in debt in my whole life and I'm now mid-forties.

This is interesting. I think as a society, most of us have been conditioned to believe that buying (with a mortgage) is the way to go. I guess the main problem I see with renting longer term is the uncertainty over rent increases / possession. But no more than interest rate increases possibly?

The other consideration I suppose for a single person with no dependants - why buy a house if there's no-one to leave it to?

Edit: But what happens when you retire and your income stops...? (assuming your renting in the private market)

freeisgood

Carer wrote: »

I have the opposite opinion to most posters - I can't think of anything worse than having a huge debt hanging around my next for the next 25 years of my life. I'd be always worrying something will happen, illness, redundancy that would mean loss of income and therefore possible loss of my home.

It's pretty normal in a lot of countries to rent for life and it was here too until fairly recent history.

I have always said I will never buy a house unless it is outright. I am very happy renting, no maintenance bills, no worries about possible job losses. Been renting for 25 years now and brought up a family in rented.

Oh and never been in debt in my whole life and I'm now mid-forties.

Absolutely fine..........but then you get to 65 and stop work, with another 30 years or so of life left to live, how do you pay your rent then?

jamels2

Reading the last 2 posts, it's obvious the question lies in what happens when you no longer work. That could lead to another question, why do you want to stop working? Maybe you will have to change the work you do (less physical) but you don't have to stop totally. Why not have more breaks here and there during our working lives, instead of working so hard all the time because we're worried what will happen when we're 65?

I remember reading a post somewhere else, where somebody could no longer work and basically went into care/old peoples home and any assets were used to pay for this. So the house they had worked for was sold to pay for their care. However, this care would still be paid for if somebody has no assets, so that's a kind of argument for not accumulating anything, if it gets taken away later on anyway.

Cloudydaze

jamels2 wrote: »

Why not have more breaks here and there during our working lives, instead of working so hard all the time because we're worried what will happen when we're 65?

Having breaks during our working lives sounds great but I'm not sure it makes a difference if you rent or paying a mortgage. You still need somewhere to live and have the cash to pay for it.

Homeownership and a degree of financial comfort at retirement is essential for me but if you're happy to live on handouts and in some grubby council-funded care home in your old age - go for it!!

ognum

jamels2 wrote: »

Reading the last 2 posts, it's obvious the question lies in what happens when you no longer work. That could lead to another question, why do you want to stop working? Maybe you will have to change the work you do (less physical) but you don't have to stop totally. Why not have more breaks here and there during our working lives, instead of working so hard all the time because we're worried what will happen when we're 65?

I remember reading a post somewhere else, where somebody could no longer work and basically went into care/old peoples home and any assets were used to pay for this. So the house they had worked for was sold to pay for their care. However, this care would still be paid for if somebody has no assets, so that's a kind of argument for not accumulating anything, if it gets taken away later on anyway.

There are many reasons to give up working.

-No job available
-Physical unable
-Mentally unable
-Caring for a loved one
-The desire to do something other than work
- No desire to work any longer

many people reach near retirement age and have plans to do other things.

Your post suggests when retired you head into care home, for most people they never go into a care home and if they do there are maybe 20 years of active retirement when you have to live somewhere.

staffie1

jamels2 wrote: »

Why do we want to own? What's the point of having worked so hard for an asset that we can't take with us? I know some will say to pass on to your kids, but in my case I don't have them, and anything I've got I've had to work for and don't feel like I should have had anything given to me.

I can see both sides to the argument but I feel I am siding with the no-debts lifestyle, less anxiety/worry. As long as it's still possible to save, have a contingency, money for holidays, isn't that all you need?

Trouble is, when you reach the stage when work is no longer an option (and you don't know what cards life will deal you) the income you've been used to, stops. Your savings won't last forever if you need to live on them.

You will have no assets to see you into retirement, and your comments suggest you'd be perfectly happy for the state (ie everyone else) to fund the last 20 years of your life in a council care home, even though you don't feel like anyone should give you anything.

This country has an ageing population and everyone who is doesn't have sufficient pension income will need to make some provision to pay for their own care when the time comes (whether it be the sale of their assets, an insurance plan, etc). I think that's the reality.

SantaKlaus

The way i see it is:

1. I get a mortgage because then it stops me paying someone elses mortgage off (via renting),

2. When i retire i will sell my house and move overseas to my wifes country, it's very cheap and hot lol.

3. When my house is sold i will give my son a large deposit for his first home as he will not inherit my house because it will be sold to provide for us (my wife and i) in retirement.


This is the reason why i am going to get a mortgage.

If i rent all my life we'll be left with absolutley nothing at the end. Even if the house devalues a lot it doens't matter when the mortgage ends because it will still be money in my pocket at the end, no matter what, if i rent then there is no money at the end of it.

caeler

Europeans that I know typically don't buy but then rents remain affordable and secure tenancies exist. Far more security than we have in the UK. I jumped on the housing ladder in my early 20s, briefly stepped off for 18 months and I'm here in my early 30s with a nice big mortgage but thankfully no other debt. I figure the sooner I start the sooner I'll pay it off. I dream of the disposable income I'll have when I own my home, I actually can't imagine only paying bills but I look forward to that! The sooner I manage it the sooner I can take a different approach to work, whereas at the moment I need to work full time in a 9-5 type of job.

jamels2

I am not saying owning is bad, ideally everyone would own their own homes. When I was younger it was a shock to me to realise people have mortgages and don't own their homes. It was a huge shock to be told how much houses cost!!! This was when I was quite young and didn't know a lot, but it goes to show how maybe we have been brainwashed into accepting how things are. A kid just thinks its a house where you live and there's no concept of debt/worry about paying for it.

What I am wondering, is if it is possible to rent (or perhaps share), whilst saving at the same time and maybe in 15-20 years being able to buy outright. However as the last poster said, rents here are so high, that saving is difficult. If we had lower rents people could save more and there would be less need to get a mortgage and avoid throwing money away on rent as most people call it. I think those people forget that their mortgage payment is mainly interest which is actually no better than rent.

SantaKlaus

jamels2 wrote: »

I am not saying owning is bad, ideally everyone would own their own homes. When I was younger it was a shock to me to realise people have mortgages and don't own their homes. It was a huge shock to be told how much houses cost!!! This was when I was quite young and didn't know a lot, but it goes to show how maybe we have been brainwashed into accepting how things are. A kid just thinks its a house where you live and there's no concept of debt/worry about paying for it.

What I am wondering, is if it is possible to rent (or perhaps share), whilst saving at the same time and maybe in 15-20 years being able to buy outright. However as the last poster said, rents here are so high, that saving is difficult. If we had lower rents people could save more and there would be less need to get a mortgage and avoid throwing money away on rent as most people call it. I think those people forget that their mortgage payment is mainly interest which is actually no better than rent.

so what is rent? in my eyes its just the same as paying interest, you dont see it again. your mortage payment will all come back to you when you sell (minus the interest), your rent will not EVER come back to you.

This is a no brainer, rent for life have nothing at the end (well if you want to risk renting for 15-20 years to buy a house at the end you can try, but houses don't stay the same price, they'll probably be much much more in 20 years time), or get a mortgage on a freehold right now and its just like putting your cash in a savings account, to withdraw later on in life when you need it :beer: