Myth: Generation rent is worse off than home-owning parents.

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

And for the boomers who have missed the last selling exit point there will be no "free money" (not as much as they thought they deserved anyway) for holidays and retirement either, so tough titty either way really. Only the bankers win in the end in this casino.

You have this strange idea that all boomers/owners will need to sell while in reality the vast majority will not sell and live happily rent free in the homes they have bought.

fred246

You need a big house to bring a family up in and a small house to retire to. I would not like to start retirement renting but if I owned a small house adequate for retirement then that'd be fine. To retire still renting you'd have to have a much larger pension and you couldn't predict rents in the future. Imagine if you got to 75 and suddenly rents went up and you couldn't afford to live there anymore.

Crashy_Time

fred246 wrote: »

You need a big house to bring a family up in and a small house to retire to. I would not like to start retirement renting but if I owned a small house adequate for retirement then that'd be fine. To retire still renting you'd have to have a much larger pension and you couldn't predict rents in the future. Imagine if you got to 75 and suddenly rents went up and you couldn't afford to live there anymore.

:rotfl: Imagine, the horror :eek:


My rent has gone nowhere during the biggest property bubble in history, so I`m sure you will excuse me if I don`t shat myself just yet...:rotfl:


Imagine getting to 75, believing you had won the property Lotto for sure, then not being able to sell your house for anything like it`s real "worth" (in your head) and realising that it was just four walls and a few bedrooms after all, not a perpetual cash generator.........:eek:

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

:rotfl: Imagine, the horror :eek:


My rent has gone nowhere during the biggest property bubble in history, so I`m sure you will excuse me if I don`t shat myself just yet...:rotfl:


Imagine getting to 75, believing you had won the property Lotto for sure, then not being able to sell your house for anything like it`s real "worth" (in your head) and realising that it was just four walls and a few bedrooms after all, not a perpetual cash generator.........:eek:

Still be better off than you by £400 a month and most likely living in a better property or at least not sharing a bathroom.

fred246

When you own a house you just live in it. No mortgage or rent. You don't sell it because you wouldn't have anywhere to live. You might downsize at some stage because it's too big.

Generali

Crashy_Time wrote: »

My rent has gone nowhere during the biggest property bubble in history, so I`m sure you will excuse me if I don`t shat myself just yet...

Either you're getting mate's rates or you are lying.

Certainly the vast majority of people that rent face rises most or even every year. That is captured in the Household Spending Survey and can be seen in the RPI data.

If you are relying on paying the same nominal figure in rent from now until the day you die then you might want to rethink your financial strategy.

Mistermeaner

Or die soon

PasturesNew

To rent my little house would cost me about £750..... I'd not be able to afford that. My last rental was a converted garage on the side of a bungalow, £600/month.... and all manner of up front fees, huge deposit and made to feel unworthy during the vetting process. One of the criteria to rent that garage was an income of £18k..... I'd not be able to rent that on a state pension. While I'd get some LHA help as a pensioner I'd have to move into the "well dodgy" bit of town to get a rent low enough that LHA = market rent levels.

Owning gives me flexibility/stability during my dotage, in an area I can choose and stay. You don't get that with renting. It's easier to sell/downsize if you're making all the decisions/choices, rather than trying to negotiate a system that would remove many choices. e.g. owning, I can go and live anywhere; renting you have to consider which council boundaries you're crossing etc and starting claims in potentially new areas and stuff.... and you might still be moved on when you're 73, 77, 82, 84, 87, 88, 90, 94, 97, 101, 105 ..... that'd be hard!

lisyloo

Not in London, for the very simple reason that the smallest property you can buy is a studio, and many professionals rent pokey rooms in houses because that's all they can afford.

The general answer on here - is if you don't like it then don't live in London.
If it's part of a trade-off then tough - everyone has to compromise in one way or another.

p00hsticks

A lot of the article makes sense to me , but I don;t agree with the headline - in general more of the previous ('baby boomer') generation had a realistic choice as to whether to buy or rent, depending on their outlook on life, and that choice has now disappeared for many... I would argue that having choices taken away from you almost always makes you worse off.