My obsession with not buying in UK - Prove me wrong

onylon

RobHT said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

Slithery said:

RobHT said:

I don't have 3 months of notice, no one in IT has 3 months, we all have 1 month.

I can tell you from personal experience that this just isn't true.

What's the point of this debate if you just keep on making up untrue facts to suit your agenda?

I gave up with this argument.

I work in IT (it was me he was replying to). I've checked our company Ts and Cs for new starters (which isn't as generous as my Ts and Cs)

Our starting state is 4 weeks "at risk" at which point full notice is given. 1 full week's pay for every year, no maximum what a week's pay is.

If more than 20 people are at risk, the law says 90 days consultancy in addition to standard notice. My standard notice is 3 months as I'm at a management level.

I know from experience (I made a couple of people redundant last year) that this is far from what reality is. I had a guy with 6 years who wanted to retire early given 3 months notice (garden leave - was allowed to leave straightaway and no restriction on getting immediate work) and 3 months pay. Another who had 18 years service was given a whole year.

Good for you mate, I've never seen such thing though .
Plus, many companies don't observe such human treatments, neither the law to be precise, so I don't count on anything, law or company good intentions.

Please let's make it clear that the week as an exit payment it's stuff of your contract, it's not the one from the law capped at 544 pounds.
I've never seen even this in a contract .

Sounds like buying a house is the least of your worries. There are lots of good employers out there who will offer generous terms for a skilled engineer. If your company isn't one of them, then it may be time to vote with your feet.

Slithery

RobHT said:

I'm not so idiot...

All of your previous posts suggest otherwise...

GoogleMeNow

OP, is it better to own or rent if you become very unwell? 

 I'm thinking of the scenario where you are in your forties having been very healthy and working in a well-paid job and you are either paying £1000 per month mortgage or rent.  Then you are diagnosed with, for example, cancer/leukaemia/multiple sclerosis etc etc, and it becomes impossible to work, so for 6-12 months, you receive full income, but after that your income drops by half, if not nothing.

 Your employer decides you are a candidate for redundancy - you might receive a package that enables you to live reasonably comfortably for a year or two, but you are now not in the best of health and would have to declare the reason for having time off ill to any future employer, which makes it difficult to get alternative employment. 

Your landlord will be sympathetic, but will they allow you a payment holiday, or reduce your rent to a level you can afford and, if not, would it be possible to find another rental which is cheaper?  On the other hand, explain your difficulties with your mortgage lender and a payment holiday and/or changing the mortgage deal, might mean saving on your monthly expenses and, if all else fails, you should be able to move to a cheaper property, possibly without a mortgage if you have enough equity to do so.  Of course, if you become seriously unwell in your 40's, you won't be able to get your state pension and many employers will not retire you through medical health as redundancy is a cheaper option for them.  

Sorry if I've repeated what others have said.  I didn't read the whole thread.

lookstraightahead

GoogleMeNow said:

OP, is it better to own or rent if you become very unwell? 

 I'm thinking of the scenario where you are in your forties having been very healthy and working in a well-paid job and you are either paying £1000 per month mortgage or rent.  Then you are diagnosed with, for example, cancer/leukaemia/multiple sclerosis etc etc, and it becomes impossible to work, so for 6-12 months, you receive full income, but after that your income drops by half, if not nothing.

 Your employer decides you are a candidate for redundancy - you might receive a package that enables you to live reasonably comfortably for a year or two, but you are now not in the best of health and would have to declare the reason for having time off ill to any future employer, which makes it difficult to get alternative employment. 

Your landlord will be sympathetic, but will they allow you a payment holiday, or reduce your rent to a level you can afford and, if not, would it be possible to find another rental which is cheaper?  On the other hand, explain your difficulties with your mortgage lender and a payment holiday and/or changing the mortgage deal, might mean saving on your monthly expenses and, if all else fails, you should be able to move to a cheaper property, possibly without a mortgage if you have enough equity to do so.  Of course, if you become seriously unwell in your 40's, you won't be able to get your state pension and many employers will not retire you through medical health as redundancy is a cheaper option for them.  

Sorry if I've repeated what others have said.  I didn't read the whole thread.

Whereas I understand your point, if you have security through other means rather than relying on your property that's even better.

Taking equity out of a property to down size is great if you don't have a 80/90% mortgage or if there's not a correction in prices, but most people aren't in that position until retirement age anyway.

you have to get all your ducks in a row whether you buy or rent, security can come and go in lots of ways.

FrugalCat

GoogleMeNow said:

OP, is it better to own or rent if you become very unwell? 

...

Sorry if I've repeated what others have said.  I didn't read the whole thread.

That applies if you live hand to mouth. I don't think that's the idea.

Having a mortgage gives you a leveraged loan, but the more it's paid off, the more money in a house is becoming less and less productive.
If someone invests six figures over their lifetime instead of paying off a loan for a house, the compounding will make them extremely wealthy. (It's not for everyone though, the forced savings effect of a mortgage is positive for most - as they would otherwise spend the money.)
It's positive vs negative compounding.

But of course you can positively compound despite having a mortgage - so it's not really an either/or question, especially with low interest rates.
Depending on duration, interest rates and property value, the scenario changes - so some arithmetic is needed:
https://smartmoneytools.co.uk/rent-vs-buy/

MobileSaver

lookstraightahead said:

GoogleMeNow said:

OP, is it better to own or rent if you become very unwell?

Taking equity out of a property to down size is great if you don't have a 80/90% mortgage or if there's not a correction in prices, but most people aren't in that position until retirement age anyway.

That's simply not true. The average age people finally pay off their mortgage in full is around 58 or 59 which means most will have plenty of equity from age 50 onwards, well before they retire.

RobHT

GoogleMeNow said:

OP, is it better to own or rent if you become very unwell? 

 I'm thinking of the scenario where you are in your forties having been very healthy and working in a well-paid job and you are either paying £1000 per month mortgage or rent.  Then you are diagnosed with, for example, cancer/leukaemia/multiple sclerosis etc etc, and it becomes impossible to work, so for 6-12 months, you receive full income, but after that your income drops by half, if not nothing.

 Your employer decides you are a candidate for redundancy - you might receive a package that enables you to live reasonably comfortably for a year or two, but you are now not in the best of health and would have to declare the reason for having time off ill to any future employer, which makes it difficult to get alternative employment. 

Your landlord will be sympathetic, but will they allow you a payment holiday, or reduce your rent to a level you can afford and, if not, would it be possible to find another rental which is cheaper?  On the other hand, explain your difficulties with your mortgage lender and a payment holiday and/or changing the mortgage deal, might mean saving on your monthly expenses and, if all else fails, you should be able to move to a cheaper property, possibly without a mortgage if you have enough equity to do so.  Of course, if you become seriously unwell in your 40's, you won't be able to get your state pension and many employers will not retire you through medical health as redundancy is a cheaper option for them.  

Sorry if I've repeated what others have said.  I didn't read the whole thread.

The situation is worst than that, I'll explain point by point.
For rare desease, I'll take 150k lump sum, but you know that it's never enough for such deseases, especially if I don't work, plus there's can be the desease that it's not covered or partially covered, nothing shines in this scenario...
After 12 months, my unemployment insurance cuts off the monthly payment completely, there is nothing else...
The one from the employer could pay me, but as you said, I may be the next candidate for redundancy, or the payment may not be enough, they also pay after 3 months only...

There will be no redundancy package unless they make a huge mistake, which they will, but it's not guaranteed that I'll take enough money to live up to 24 months, I'd be lucky to get 6 months of salary, but I'd say 3 are more possible with an agreement, without fighting in the court.
The following employment due to sickness would be a very bad situation, at that point, I finished to live.

My landlord will not be kind, as well as my employer, forget it.

The mortgage could give me flexibility, but I don't need to discuss that flexibility with the liabilities, effort, risk and cost that the house purchase and maintenance bring on my finances.
It was probably the most important part of the discussion in this thread, but I went over it, no one convinced me 100% that buy an house was better, they just spinned around as I did for a long time, thinking in the same exact way I did, ignoring the fact that I want to avoid: liabilities, effort, risk and cost.
It's an asset that appreciates, sure, but it depends where and in what era, two things that I don't see in UK, not in the London commute zone for sure.

In essence, replying with a short comment to your post, if the !!!!!! goes down, purchase or not, I'll go down with it.
I can't avoid the worst, I can only reduce the risk and costs associated in reducing the risk, another topic completely ignored by the people in this thread.

RobHT

FrugalCat said:

GoogleMeNow said:

OP, is it better to own or rent if you become very unwell? 

...

Sorry if I've repeated what others have said.  I didn't read the whole thread.

That applies if you live hand to mouth. I don't think that's the idea.

Having a mortgage gives you a leveraged loan, but the more it's paid off, the more money in a house is becoming less and less productive.
If someone invests six figures over their lifetime instead of paying off a loan for a house, the compounding will make them extremely wealthy. (It's not for everyone though, the forced savings effect of a mortgage is positive for most - as they would otherwise spend the money.)
It's positive vs negative compounding.

But of course you can positively compound despite having a mortgage - so it's not really an either/or question, especially with low interest rates.
Depending on duration, interest rates and property value, the scenario changes - so some arithmetic is needed:
https://smartmoneytools.co.uk/rent-vs-buy/

OMG, I love that tool ahahah, I did the calculation by myself anyway before posting this thread , no need to be a scientist to understand how much is easy to pull out investments, how much more they appreciate, probably 2x in a decade up to 3x MORE, compared to a property. Obviously, excluding pandemies, wars etc.

Now, looking into it with my special eyes, I can see that the issue is the calculation of 5y only by default, we all know that in 40y it's a good bet to buy, but ain't gonna take such long term risk, simple . This is why everyone here went against me.

I just mention the result of that tool, it takes 9y to be more profitable with buying, plus you don't lose equity as people say (but that's not a stable statement, it depends...).
Also, commonly people that buy have no money to invest, or they don't invest at all because are busy to make their house as they want, much more money on it. Plus, they'll feel that their house is an investment and more things they add to it, more it appreciates, wrong! Unless you talk about a new garage, new print everywhere, new plumbing, LOL that will cost 20k minimum.

It takes 15y to start being more profitable if I consider also a potential house price drop.

In essence, we all agree that buy it's the golden long term solution, but I don't see anything long term apart my investments, which don't bring me much liability and all can be cashed out in a matter of days max, including the bank transfer.
I can also relocate because I depend from my job, not from my house, eventually, the house will become my dependency (like an addiction). Very bad when you are young.

Thrugelmir

Is this thread still running. Beginning to understand why it's titled "My Obsession".