Is it really THAT important to own your own home?

Generali

SquatNow wrote: »

No it's not, housing(land) is a unique commodity as unlike any other, NO MORE can be created.

There is no true "supply and demand" as you cant create more.

You can easily create more housing. Get in an architect and a load of builders and build some.

While you are nearly right when you say that you can't create more land (the Dutch have done pretty well at creating land from the North Sea down the years), you can allow more land to be built on, thus increasing the amount of housing it is possible to build.

The key point I think that you overlook is that supply isn't 'total housing stock' and that demand isn't 'total number of people that want a house'. Supply and demand are the total number of willing buyers and sellers at any given price. The market price is where supply and demand are equal.

If more people want to buy than there are sellers at a price then the market price will rise, driving buyers out of the market and drawing sellers in. If there are more sellers than buyers, the reverse process will happen.

When you have a bubble, as I believe we have at the moment in house prices, the views of the participants get a little distorted as many of them come to believe that prices will rise quickly and indefinitely. That keeps sellers out of the market - why sell today if you'll get more tomorrow - and drags buyers in - gotta buy before I'm priced out.

pigeonpie

haven't read the whole thread so this may have been said before: the obvious (to me anyhow) answer to housing shortage is more rental accommodation, but not on the current AST terms. The main advantage, other than economic, of buying a home is that you move when you want to, not when your landlord tells you too. Some peeps may have the luck to have long term tenancies and make a real 'home', but for many urban tenants particularly, you can't make it a home because in theory you could have to move every 8 months (6 months fixed plus 2 months notice) which is a terrible way to live.
In Europe they have 3 year renewable leases for unfurnished flats, where the tenant provides even their own kitchen and pays for repairs etc other than major ones. The landlord can't chuck them out in winter and can only do so if s/he wants the place for his or her own use. Alternatively if this scares a landlord, they can do a 1 yr furnished lease, renewable.
It's not a perfect system but better than the horrible uncertainty of AST 6 month leases imho. People don't just need affordable accommodation; they need a home.

sooz

PasturesNew wrote: »

washing line in it, I could hang my washing outside instead of having the airer just 3 feet in front of me for 3 days at a time while it's drying!

If you were to buy a flat (rather than a house) you probably would still not be able to put your washing out in the garden. It normally states this in the lease. You may also find that you couldn't have a pet either.

carolt

pigeonpie wrote: »

haven't read the whole thread so this may have been said before: the obvious (to me anyhow) answer to housing shortage is more rental accommodation, but not on the current AST terms. The main advantage, other than economic, of buying a home is that you move when you want to, not when your landlord tells you too. Some peeps may have the luck to have long term tenancies and make a real 'home', but for many urban tenants particularly, you can't make it a home because in theory you could have to move every 8 months (6 months fixed plus 2 months notice) which is a terrible way to live.
In Europe they have 3 year renewable leases for unfurnished flats, where the tenant provides even their own kitchen and pays for repairs etc other than major ones. The landlord can't chuck them out in winter and can only do so if s/he wants the place for his or her own use. Alternatively if this scares a landlord, they can do a 1 yr furnished lease, renewable.
It's not a perfect system but better than the horrible uncertainty of AST 6 month leases imho. People don't just need affordable accommodation; they need a home.

Very wise.

Doozergirl

pigeonpie wrote: »

In Europe they have 3 year renewable leases for unfurnished flats, where the tenant provides even their own kitchen and pays for repairs etc other than major ones. The landlord can't chuck them out in winter and can only do so if s/he wants the place for his or her own use. Alternatively if this scares a landlord, they can do a 1 yr furnished lease, renewable.
It's not a perfect system but better than the horrible uncertainty of AST 6 month leases imho. People don't just need affordable accommodation; they need a home.

I like that. Everyone knows what they are getting - both tenant and landlord. Not the lottery we have of whether you're about to be turfed out. I'd be happy to maintain a property if I knew that I would definately reap the benefit.

MonkeySaving?

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

OK renters, how many of you own your own car? The fastest depreciating asset known to man. High maintenance, high running costs, servicing, repairs etc etc etc.

Do you rent your cars?

I do, because it's cheaper than buying a new one and running it into the ground doing 30k+ miles a year. It would be identical if not worse depreciation on a second hand car.

MonkeySaving?

As to the OP's question, no it's not that important... i have a good quality life, able to spend money on holidays, getting lashed every week with the lads and generally having a good time... splitting £595 a month on a house worth 280K with the missus. Don't have to worry about repairs or deciding what crappy colour to paint the walls. To me renting (and the current state of my savings/investments/shares account) are BLISS

inmypocketnottheirs

MonkeySaving? wrote: »

I do, because it's cheaper than buying a new one and running it into the ground doing 30k+ miles a year. It would be identical if not worse depreciation on a second hand car.

Me too! For exactly the same reasons! I do not invest money in depreciating assets, especially those that can lose upto 50% in the first year.

But I do invest in property. There may be ups and downs, and there may be short term slumps. But even amongst all this doom and gloom surrounding the Northern Rock fiasco, the population is set to rise by 9m by 2020. Where are they all going to live?

All the doom mongerers talking about property prices falling by 40%. I hope it happens, because then I will buy more.

I just hope that everyone else continues to rent, more tenants for me.

inmypocketnottheirs

MonkeySaving? wrote: »

As to the OP's question, no it's not that important... i have a good quality life, able to spend money on holidays, getting lashed every week with the lads and generally having a good time... splitting £595 a month on a house worth 280K with the missus. Don't have to worry about repairs or deciding what crappy colour to paint the walls. To me renting (and the current state of my savings/investments/shares account) are BLISS

But the property is worth diddly squat to you and the missus. It's worth 280K to the landlord, whose interest on the mortgage you are paying!

MonkeySaving?

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

But the property is worth diddly squat to you and the missus. It's worth 280K to the landlord, whose interest on the mortgage you are paying!

It's worth 280K to the landlord, but by us not having that kind of mortgage saves us £1k per month :beer: I guess we're lucky to be able to rent a 280k house for that amount a month, i will continue to do so until asked to leave..not happened yet, i heard she is 70 and is quite happy with the £595 we're giving her At least we're not paying, and it's unlikely that she is paying any interest to the bank