Rent or buy at 44?

bouicca21

Being mortgage free or having a small mortgage left at the point of retirement makes a major difference to quality of life. Worth taking a mortgage so as not to be dependent on landlords now, even more so for the future.

[Deleted User]

If I were in your shoes i'd buy, purely because I'd not want to be worrying about paying rent going into my elder years when I should be enjoying retirement.

TBagpuss

Personally, i would buy - it is likely to be cheaper than renting a whole property would be, even once you factor in maintenace costs, and it means that you start to build up equity. You can alsways chos to sell later if you want.

if you buy somwhere you have the option of overpaying your mortgage so you can clear it if you do retire early, and depending on the property and the location you might be able t o take in a lodger to add a bit to your income.

Lnger term, if you own, then you won't be faced with the risk of being forced to move, or of struggling to pay rent, once you are retired, and if you get to a stage where you need care and can no longer live at home, being abl to sell and use the equity will give you better choice of nursing homes!

Alternatively, if you decide home-owneship isn;t for you after you have bought, you can sell in a few years time. It's unlikely (Althouh anything is possible) that it will wind up costing you more than renting would have done for the same period.

Cakeguts

I would buy simply because when you retire it is nice not to be having to pay rent or a mortgage. You own the property and you can plan how much you want to spend running it.

pjcox2005

Is your life stable or up in the air? Do you see yourself moving location (job, life experience) or alternatively moving in with a partner in the near future.


If yes, then you may be better renting rather than incurring Stamp duty land tax, legals etc. If not, and you want to be settled then it sounds like buying may be better.

onwards&upwards

PasturesNew wrote: »

For those on lower incomes, "just state pension and minimum top ups", rent is also paid. What would be a struggle though would be perpetual moving costs/new deposits/new rents up front each time a LL wanted to sell up.

I definitely wouldn’t make any decisions based on hoping that state benefits still exist in 30 or 40 years.

george4064

As others have suggested, if I were you I would seriously look to buy a property to live in.

sal_III

If by your own account you want to buy and can afford to buy, you have your answer. If you plan to live in the same area for the next 5+ years, renting is only !!!!ing money away.

Cisco001 wrote: »

Go ahead and getting a house.
3 bed semi and rent a room out would be a good idea.

I wouldn't recommend a lodger with two young kids visiting regularly. If the money gets tight at some point - sure, but definitely not as "plan A"

kangoora wrote: »

In your situation I'm pretty sure I'd be looking to buy.

Personally I'd be looking for a 2 bed and try to get a bungalow if affordable so you could avoid moving again. Maybe look at a decent bed/settee for the living room for son when visiting. You may get more house for your money with a semi obviously.

I concur with most posters that it is far better to own your own home when 60+ rather than chance being kicked out by a landlord in your 60s/70s.

OP is only 44, a bit early to think about old age and inability to climb stairs...

I might be expressing an unpopular opinion, but I don't find it appealing to retire in the same area I lived during my working life. For majority of people there are better and/or cheaper areas elsewhere in the country and abroad to live in, once you don't care about job prospects. It makes no sense to overpay for a bungalow at 44, just so you can grow old and die in it 30+ years later.

bouicca21

sal_III wrote: »

I might be expressing an unpopular opinion, but I don't find it appealing to retire in the same area I lived during my working life. For majority of people there are better and/or cheaper areas elsewhere in the country and abroad to live in, once you don't care about job prospects. It makes no sense to overpay for a bungalow at 44, just so you can grow old and die in it 30+ years later.

Yes, but if you own a place you can do swopsies for somewhere else and still be rent free.

ReadingTim

sal_III wrote: »

It makes no sense to overpay for a bungalow at 44, just so you can grow old and die in it 30+ years later.

You do know you can sell it and buy somewhere else, right?