Article about Crashy in the DT today

westernpromise

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/12/population-silver-renters-set-hit-million-people-leaving-late/

According to analysis carried out by campaign group Generation Rent, the number of private renter households in England headed by someone aged 65 or older is set to increase from 370,000 in 2015-16 to 995,000 by 2035-36.

The rise will come as the result of more people reaching their forties without having made their first step onto the housing ladder, at which point it becomes increasingly difficult to get a mortgage, the report said.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Ouch....

With life expectancy increasing and pensions becoming lower returning the prospect of 30-40 years of market rents after retirement would be terrifyingly expensive.

Anyone pushing 40 that hasn't bought yet should get on with it...

Crashy_Time

Is your house worth less than you paid for it yet Hamish? How are the "soaring" rents up there? :T

Cakeguts

It balances out in the end as the renters won't have to fund their own care. They haven't got a house to sell to fund it.

Crashy_Time

Cakeguts wrote: »

It balances out in the end as the renters won't have to fund their own care. They haven't got a house to sell to fund it.

They have already funded it through taxation IMO, but most people don`t need care, not in the "Old Folks Home" sense of the word anyway. Cash flow is what is important at all stages of life, not whether you have been sitting in the same pile of bricks for 60 years.

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

They have already funded it through taxation IMO, but most people don`t need care, not in the "Old Folks Home" sense of the word anyway. Cash flow is what is important at all stages of life, not whether you have been sitting in the same pile of bricks for 60 years.

If someone had owned the same house for 60 years, they have most likely lived mortgage free for 35 years, plus the last 15 years mortgage payments would have been much lower than renting too. I'd say that would have helped boost their cash flow very nicely.

lisyloo

Cakeguts wrote: »

It balances out in the end as the renters won't have to fund their own care. They haven't got a house to sell to fund it.

You don't always have to sell your home.
My MIL owns but doesn't have to fund care as FIL is still living in the home so it's disregarded.

Plus those funding their own care have a choice of nicer homes than those who are limited to the local authority budget.

Thirdly people don't stay in care home for very long (on account of not being in a very good state when they go in). It would be quite unusual to spend 100% of the equity in a home so it's not true that it balances out. People only go into homes when they are past the stage of coping with 4 home visits. There are an army of social workers, doctors, district nurses, carers who are doing their best to keep people out of homes (partly for economic reasons).

Fourthly - other assets are included, so being a renter doesn't exclude you from paying care home fees.

Crashy_Time

chucknorris wrote: »

If someone had owned the same house for 60 years, they have most likely lived mortgage free for 35 years, plus the last 15 years mortgage payments would have been much lower than renting too. I'd say that would have helped boost their cash flow very nicely.

Makes you wonder why the country is in such a state with it`s national and personal borrowing doesn`t it? Reality is many people don`t have a clue about money and spend all or nearly all of everything they get (including some governments) most long term property owners (including yourself) just lucked into a credit bubble, there wasn`t any real economic savvy involved, many outright owners will have been relying on the property for their retirement, many will now wish they had other plans in place.

GreatApe

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Makes you wonder why the country is in such a state with it`s national and personal borrowing doesn`t it? Reality is many people don`t have a clue about money and spend all or nearly all of everything they get (including some governments) most long term property owners (including yourself) just lucked into a credit bubble, there wasn`t any real economic savvy involved, many outright owners will have been relying on the property for their retirement, many will now wish they had other plans in place.

yet the old still manage to leave the younger generations ~£200,000,000,000 annually.....

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I have two elderly, frail Nans. At least we don't have to add greedy LLs and thieving, lying agents to the list of worries about their welfare.

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Makes you wonder why the country is in such a state with it`s national and personal borrowing doesn`t it? Reality is many people don`t have a clue about money and spend all or nearly all of everything they get (including some governments) most long term property owners (including yourself) just lucked into a credit bubble, there wasn`t any real economic savvy involved, many outright owners will have been relying on the property for their retirement, many will now wish they had other plans in place.

I bought most of mine between 1991 and 1993 Crashy, there was no credit bubble, very few were buying, prices were falling. You are the last person that I would expect to comment on other people's economic wisdom, I honestly can't think of anyone worse than you, for not only getting it wrong, but even worse, being totally oblivious to doing it.