Buying is £124 a month cheaper than renting

MrRee_2

How can one poster be so wrong?

You say I'm not special and have done what plenty of others have done - I accept that ...... I don't think I have said anything different.

What I am doing is giving others, younger generation, the benefit of my vast experience of private bought housing and how it has set me up for a decent retirement.

You seem to think that if you buy a property you are somehow unable, or too stupid, to make other investments - you are so wrong yet again.

I have plenty of investments ... and a fantastic retirement strategy.

The important thing to remember is that you should NOT exclude bricks and mortar from any investment portfolio ...... you have done, I think that shows how wrong you are, yet again, unfortunatley.

System

So which is it then? Why are you scared of council housing if you have enough investments to fund a retirement.

You don't make sense. So are you the only one that can invest? Could renters not be investing too? Why are you struggling with such basic concepts.

Yet more drivel from yet another one of your posts making a completely pointless argument using an article that is B/S.

MrRee_2

OH, dear ..... wish you had more money in property now do you?

Treehouse not going to return enough to retire on?

Your first post told us you were a hippy .... your second an investment guru .... your third is just, well, rubbish.

chucknorris

Walcott wrote: »

Go over to the investment board on MSE. There are people that wouldn't even give property investment a second look and are in positions to buy their house many times over and not even near retirement.

I do frequent (and also post on) the savings and investment board but I haven't noticed many (who are wealthy) who stated that they wouldn't give property investment a second look. Of course I would agree that a diverse portfolio is desirable, in recent years I have been diversifying into shares and additional DB pension. But property is a perfectly legitimate and profitable component of a diverse investment portfolio, but it is a long term investment and not for everyone.

Pixie5740

Owning your own home doesn't ensure you will have a better retirement. I know a few people who took out interest only mortgages when house prices were at their peak and are now bricking it about how to repay the capital as they approach retirement. It was always going to catch up with the sooner or later.

My mum worked in a mortgage centre for one of the biggest lenders in the UK for years and she processed a lot of applications for people applying for interest only mortgages who were going to put £50 a month away in a cash ISA and somehow this was going to repay all of the capital. :cool:

Those people are/were deluded.

Then there are the people who own their homes outright who sadly need to go into care homes in later life. After decades of stripping and saving, possibly through the days of 15% interest rates their homes must be sold to pay for their care whereas those who rented will have their care paid for by the local council.

System

MrRee wrote: »

OH, dear ..... wish you had more money in property now do you?

Treehouse not going to return enough to retire on?

Your first post told us you were a hippy .... your second an investment guru .... your third is just, well, rubbish.

Hahaha and this is the man trying to educate the young. Barely able to articulate an argument and thinks he is an educator :rotfl:

System

chucknorris wrote: »

I do frequent (and also post on) the savings and investment board but I haven't noticed many (who are wealthy) who stated that they wouldn't give property investment a second look. Of course I would agree that a diverse portfolio is desirable, in recent years I have been diversifying into shares and additional DB pension. But property is a perfectly legitimate and profitable component of a diverse investment portfolio, but it is a long term investment and not for everyone.

I agree with that. My post was in relation to the OP's extreme view re the 99.8%.

chucknorris

Walcott wrote: »

I agree with that. My post was in relation to the OP's extreme view re the 99.8%.

I don't know if you are listening to the budget but two things might be of interest:


1. ISA allowance now increased to £15k (more than previously announced).


2. Flexible pension income drawdown can now be taken with only £12k of guaranteed pension (from £20k).

Lily-Rose_3

I think as a few have said on here, that comparing renting to buying is somewhat futile, as no 2 situations are the same. I am seeing a bit of renter-bashing on here though. There's no need to have a go at people who rent, as not everybody is in a position to buy, and I am seeing a few people here who own their property looking down on renters. It's also not a waste of money, as you are simply paying someone to live in their property..so you are getting something for your money. I never understand this 'renting is dead money' mentality. What about people who lost £50K plus in negative equity after buying? That's far worse IMO.

I can understand perfectly, that someone who bought say 20 years ago and before that, could well find their mortgage somewhat lower than what it would be to rent the same property, particularly if they live in or around London (or more or less anywhere down south,) because the rents are very high there.

But as for most of the rest of the country (including where I live - approx 100 miles north of London,) you certainly can get a privately rented 3 or 4 bed house for about £500 to £650 a month. Some places a flat for £350 to £400 a month. These are not bad areas either.

As for my story; we bought a property back in the late 90s, (we previously rented privately for about 5 to 7 years,) and frankly, we were never happy as homeowners from day one. We were constantly stressed and constantly broke, and much worse off financially than when we were renting, for one reason or another.

Maybe we just got unlucky, but we ended up in two houses over the 10-12 years we were homeowners that seemed to need 1000s and 1000s spending on them. Like someone who mentioned in the thread earlier, we also moved into a new property, and had to almost immediately replace the boiler. We also had to remove forty 12 foot conifers, because the insurance company refused to insure the house unless they were trimmed to less than 6ft, and having them trimmed was almost as much as getting them all removed.

There are many other issues, in the 2 properties we owned that bled us dry. Some people claim that they do everything themselves and that they have only spend a thousand pound in repairs in 20 years and all that. I find that hard to believe, as we found that a house has an ever-open mouth. We never had any surplus cash when we owned, and often found ourselves in the position of having to take out loans for major repairs and maintenance.

A few people also seem to be under the illusion that social housing is always going to be in a horrible area. Not so at all. Many housing associations have properties in nice areas. All I can think of is that the person(s) saying this live in an area where most social housing is rank.

We are now in social housing (we sold our last property in 2008, then went into private let, and went on the social housing list.) We wanted a bungalow and were finally offered one last year after waiting 5 years on the list. It's in a small rural town and is part of a development that was built for private sale back in the late 1980s. The builder went bankrupt, and a local housing association bought the eleven detached bungalows and six 2-bed houses in this small street. Not surprisingly, people don't leave unless they die, as it is such a beautiful area; rural, and with a small population.

The only social housing for 2 miles are the 17 properties I have just mentioned. And 9 of them have exercised the right-to-buy (back in the late 80s.) So only 8 are social housing now-including ours. We now have a 2-bed detached bungalow in a beautiful area, near woodlands, not too far from the sea, and just £69 per week rent, with an indefinite tenancy.

We also have the right-to-buy, but we wouldn't buy it in a million years, even if we got 50% off (it's valued at £160K) because the mortgage even for £80K would no WAY be as little as the rent, and we would have the headache of repairs and maintenance again, and wouldn't have the pleasure and convenience of calling someone for a repair and having it fixed for free, within days (sometimes on the same day.) In addition, we would not be able to benefit from the safety net of housing benefit if we couldn't pay the mortgage, as you can when you rent.

Frankly, we were nothing but miserable when we were homeowners/had a mortgage, and one thing after another kept going wrong, the monthly amount would go up by fifty quid at the drop of a hat, and it would take ages, and a lot of money to get repairs done. We envied people MASSIVELY who were in social housing, with their low rents and fast and excellent repairs service, being able to claim housing benefit if they lost their job, and not a care in the world. We pay full rent, but if my husband ends up out of work, we know we need not worry.

I wouldn't go back to purchasing again for all the tea in China. We have never been happier, or more relaxed, and we have never been more solvent. Not absolutely loaded of course, but no debt, savings in the bank, and the ability to go for a drink or a meal with friends, the ability to go on a weekend away, and the ability to go visit our daughter at the drop of a hat, without being terrified of not having enough money to survive, and worrying ourselves sick about the next repair that's going to come up.

Of course, I acknowledge that people who bought more than 2 decades ago in a high rent area, are better off than private renters, but many areas (say more than 40-50 miles north of London,) have properties that are much cheaper to rent. £600 being the average for a 3-bed house where I live. (£400 if it's a 3-bed social housing property.) And as I said, it's not true that all social housing is horrible, and in horrible areas; many are nice homes in nice areas. I think that's just what the people who advocate buying want to believe.

The upshot though is that there is no right or wrong here, (as Citric squid said in a post earlier:

"Making sweeping statements in any direction about rent vs. buy is wrong, depends too much on the individual.")

There is no 'one-size fits all,' but the attitude towards renters from a few (not all but a few - one in particular) is rather rude and somewhat obnoxious.

Lily-Rose_3

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Owning your own home doesn't ensure you will have a better retirement. I know a few people who took out interest only mortgages when house prices were at their peak and are now bricking it about how to repay the capital as they approach retirement. It was always going to catch up with the sooner or later.

My mum worked in a mortgage centre for one of the biggest lenders in the UK for years and she processed a lot of applications for people applying for interest only mortgages who were going to put £50 a month away in a cash ISA and somehow this was going to repay all of the capital. :cool:

Those people are/were deluded.

Then there are the people who own their homes outright who sadly need to go into care homes in later life. After decades of stripping and saving, possibly through the days of 15% interest rates their homes must be sold to pay for their care whereas those who rented will have their care paid for by the local council.

Good post Pixie :T I never worked for any building society, but I know many. many people who are in the same position as those you mentioned. Wondering how the hell they are going to pay off their mortgage in 8 or 10 or 12 years time, and being asked for £200 a month more indefinitely to accrue the amount needed, and worrying about being asked to pay even more - maybe double that - in five years time!

As I said, people are quite entitled to think that buying is better, but the attitude from a small handful of people on here towards renters is quite shocking tbh, and the image they have of social housing is WAY off. Some of it is much nicer than private housing these days!