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

ukcarper

p00hsticks wrote: »

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.

The choice to rent was much more limited for the boomers there was not the amount of reasonable conditioned rental property as there is now.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

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.

You can alway commute as many people have done for years.

The_Last_Username

Much of what is said in both the article and above in posts makes sense.

Personally I think many prospective buyers (choose to?) ignore the associated costs of maintaining their own home; it's not just about the mortgage payment. Things that are often (yes I know, not always) not "of concern" to those that rent as it is part of the agreement.

Just as your car will need tyres and servicing, so will your home need "consumables" as these items simply wear out.
For example new windows; a new fence; brickwork repointing; or a boiler replacing - on a regular basis throughout ownership.

There are positives and negatives to be weighed-up whichever direction is chosen; to rent or to buy. As has been said before earlier in the thread; " everyone has to compromise in one way or another. "

System

Conrad wrote: »

What's happened to all the voices calling for Brits to be more European in mindset, happy to rent, not obsessed with ownership?


.

Because Europeans have moved on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

So the "renting is OK look at the Europeans" brigade have gone very silent.

cadon

lisyloo wrote: »

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.

Oh, I'm not complaining. I'm merely pointing out it's not true to say that it's always cheaper to get a mortgage than to rent. The opening quote suggests people who rent who have iPhones have no financial sense and it's their own fault they can't afford to buy - not true.

It doesn't cost a huge amount to run an iPhone (if you choose the right deal) and yet the price differential between renting and having a mortgage is huge. Getting rid of the phone wouldn't bridge that gap.

Jonbvn

Generali wrote: »

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

Of course he's not. £400pcm for a ten bedroom pile with 30 acres and stabling in the home counties is more than reasonable.:p

lisyloo

I'm merely pointing out it's not true to say that it's always cheaper to get a mortgage than to rent.

Oh, I totally agree. I have a 40% lost opportunity cost, plus CGT if I purchase a second home. I reckon I'm better off renting unless I'm willing to speculate on continuing masssive HPI in London.
I think HPI in London is likely to continue but it's not something I want to speculate my entire future pension pot on.

lisyloo

You can alway commute as many people have done for years.

Of course people can.
Do you think people don't know they can commute to London?

I don't agree with you that people forego the right of complaint everytime they do something. It may be that all the choices have some downside and that's what life is like for most people.

I'm not sure why you personally are not sympathetic to people making difficult choices?
Is it just you think it's a first world problem? or some other reason?
It would be really good (for me) to understand where others are coming from on this.
I realise it's a first world issue (not that much for me personally as I'm relatively comfortable), but I honestly expected a little more milk of human kindness from like minded people.

fred246

Surely renting or buying doesn't really matter while you are working. At some stage in life you won't be able to work any more. A pension is then usually a pay cut. Will you still be able to pay the rent/mortgage then? Do you want to be on the streets in your retirement? Will you just walk into social services and ask to be housed? On the other hand it may be advantageous in that you don't have a property for the state to sell to pay for your care.

lisyloo

Will you still be able to pay the rent/mortgage then? Do you want to be on the streets in your retirement? Will you just walk into social services and ask to be housed?

We have a house (and FWIW can pay the mortgage off too), so none of that is a concern.
It's just not within commuting distance of where we both work (London).
We did try the commute - which is about 5 hours door-to-door but I crashed the car one morning at 6 a.m. It was not a serious crash in a car but could have been very serious or fatal to collide with a solid object on my motorbike, so that was a wake-up call and when I decided that wasn't a viable option for me personally.
People who drive whilst they are not capable (like Harry Clarke) are the scum of the earth. So people (like me) who decide NOT to drive should be commended not harranged with snide comments such as "well others do it, why can't you".
Fortunely it was merely a post and a dent in my car so no damage done, but it was fast enough to rip an Aorta out of a motorcyclist under sudden decleration which a human body can't cope with.
BTW - 5 hours is if there are no floods, engineering issues, "jumpers", strikes etc. The worst case was a 9 hour commute one day,

I'm not complaining or expecting any sympathy merely explaining why I've ruled out commuting from our home to London. At the time DH had no alternative employment on offer and he didn't fully appreciate the length of the door-to-door commute.
We are not choosing to move at the present time as we have 88 year old parents who can't look after themselves. MIL has a sister who's 92 so will most likely survive another few years. She may go into a home at some point which will leave us free-er of commitments, but at the current time we have to feed and pick her up off the floor etc. (if an elderly person falls but is indoors/comfortable then sometimes paramedics take 4-5 hours to arrive if they have higher priority calls - again not a complaint - just stating the fact that family often need to step in).
I'm not sure whether others here would "up sticks" and abandon their parents or whether the outspoken people here lack the milk of human kindness or just like to play devils advocate, but abandoning our parents at this stage when they will either die, lose thier independence or end up in hospital i.e. at their greatess hour of need is not something that WE would do.
I'm not trying to deliberately make that emotive - that's just the way it is.
I expect the parents needs to increase as MIL increaingly loses the use of her legs and it won't get better until she goes into a home (or dies).