Is buying a house a good idea?

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

Meanwhile you've been paying rent for 22 years that you will never get back and you're no nearer owning the roof over your head than you were in 1996.

A lifetime of renting, Crashy. All in hopes of the crash that never came, that you wouldn't spot if it did and that wouldn't get you out of your hole if it did.

On your gravestone it's say "Here lies Crashy. He rented for 50 years waiting for a crash. Has it crashed yet? Just you wait till interest rates go up..."

There was also a period of free accommodation attached to a job, did you crunch that in your calcs? :rotfl:Renting suits some people, just get over it, I actually owned a house in 1996, the problem was that I lived 200 miles away :T not everyone wants to stay in the same spot for 50 years nowadays No matter how many breakdowns of the supposed costs involved you post the fact stands - less and less people are interested in property at bubble prices, and paying bubble prices now is going to get you in trouble if rates rise. Rent is just a cost that is part of a hopefully diversified investment plan and diversified streams of income, relying on a house as a "savings" fund is very very risky now IMO, and it always amazes me the amount of energy posters like you, supposedly happy in your house owning bliss spend chasing people around the internet who say that it is a bubble pure and simple

dunroving

This thread reminds me of that Bill Murray movie. (prize for the first person who figures it out).

eidand

its funny talking about rates that might rise, we had a decade of low rates, the time to buy something was during all this time and you can still secure a long term deal, for a low interest ... just saying

51mm5

Crashy is the Internet equivalent of those people who walk around the streets with sandwich boards saying the end is nigh. It!!!8217;s cannot be good for health waiting all these years for a crash that has not happened and posting thousands of posts saying the same things on repeat.

tom9980

Crashy_Time wrote: »

There was also a period of free accommodation attached to a job, did you crunch that in your calcs? :rotfl:Renting suits some people, just get over it, I actually owned a house in 1996, the problem was that I lived 200 miles away :T not everyone wants to stay in the same spot for 50 years nowadays No matter how many breakdowns of the supposed costs involved you post the fact stands - less and less people are interested in property at bubble prices, and paying bubble prices now is going to get you in trouble if rates rise. Rent is just a cost that is part of a hopefully diversified investment plan and diversified streams of income, relying on a house as a "savings" fund is very very risky now IMO, and it always amazes me the amount of energy posters like you, supposedly happy in your house owning bliss spend chasing people around the internet who say that it is a bubble pure and simple

You were basically being paid less in salary and given accommodation for free with that job so you were paying for it with a lower salary. Naturally you will come back and tell us that isnt true.

Crashy_Time

tom9980 wrote: »

You were basically being paid less in salary and given accommodation for free with that job so you were paying for it with a lower salary. Naturally you will come back and tell us that isnt true.

How do you know this? :rotfl:

Crashy_Time

51mm5 wrote: »

Crashy is the Internet equivalent of those people who walk around the streets with sandwich boards saying the end is nigh. It!!!8217;s cannot be good for health waiting all these years for a crash that has not happened and posting thousands of posts saying the same things on repeat.

The only difference is that the MSM don`t tend to be trumpeting the same message as the guys with the sandwich boards :rotfl: Dread to think what the health of the Price Police is like, trolling all those posts day after day :rotfl: