Anyone else feel this way? Y Generation Living!

Cornucopia wrote: »

Apologies for not having read the the whole thread.

But...

I see the OP as positioning renting as a lifestyle choice (or at least the relatively flexibility that comes with it). There's nothing wrong with that as long as the consequences are understood.

The basic maths of Renting versus Buying are pretty straightforward:-

Renting = 60 years+ of a rent payment that increases with inflation.

Buying = 25 years of a mortgage payment that is static with respect to inflation, then 35 years+ mortgage free, just covering property maintenance.

Even if the mortgage payment is higher than the rent now, the maths makes it a pretty good deal. (And for some people, their rent is higher than their mortgage would be).

You could also look at this another way.

Buying

1) 25 - 30 years or more, of paying back an astronomical loan at a price that often works out more than renting, for the privilege of having somewhere to live that you won't be booted out of with 2 month's notice.

2) No guarantee that the house will always be yours, as you could end up in a position where you cannot pay your mortgage.

3) Having to pay multiple 10s of 1000s over the years on maintenance and repairs; dreading the sound of the heating system popping and banging, knowing you will soon need to find £3K for a new boiler, having to get loan after loan to update the kitchen/bathroom etc, and pay multiple 1000s for roof and general house repairs.

4) Never knowing if your monthly payment of £x amount will double if the interest rates shoot up suddenly. (Remember the 1990s??? I do, and I remember dozens of people I knew, losing their homes.)

5) If you become unable to work; not getting the mortgage payments paid, as housing benefit doesn't cover mortgage payments. And 'unemployment insurance' is not worth the paper it's written on, because even if they do decide to pay your mortgage payments, it's only usually for 12 months, so you will lose your home if you are long term sick or jobless.

6) Potentially being stuck next to someone who is a neighbour from hell and being unable to sell up, or wanting to leave the area because work dictates it, and you can't sell.

7) You don't 'own' the house until you have made the very last payment, and have the potential to lose it at any time.

Renting:

1) No repairs or maintenance: as it's all covered by the landlord,

2) No insurances - except home contents.

3) Not tied or trapped in one house or one area... the freedom to move around.

4) Rent paid if you become sick or unemployed.

5) Able to love with a month's notice, if neighbours from hell move in.

6) Also, many landlords do let you put pictures and photos up and generally don't mind you making the house your own, within reason, as long as you look after the house. Also, many landlords offer long-term tenancies. Yes, the rent is not as cheap as social housing, but it's very unlikely that any mortgage payment in this day and age, would be less per month than private let.

I think that advantages of renting far outweigh the advantages of buying. Certainly if you're in social housing.

If people do want to buy, then that's up to them, but the long term cost of repairs and maintenance is quite phenomenal. I have lost count of the amount of properties that I have seen that have badly let go, because the person buying the property cannot afford to maintain it, especially people who bought on the right-to-buy and naively thought that a) the council would still do the repairs or b) repairs could be done themselves or it was lot cheaper than they thought for a contractor to do it. Many things have to be done professionally anyway, or you can invalidate your home insurance.

Regarding older folk selling their property and wanting a social housing bungalow. I do not have an issue with this, if they desperately need a bungalow. I do take umbrage though, to someone saying they plan to sell 'all their housing stock,' and spend the money as frivolously as they possibly can, and do not intend to declare the money they have frittered away to the social housing landlord. If someone has a number of properties they can sell, then why not sell them and buy a bungalow.

Someone who has multiple properties that they are going to make a fortune from, should not -in my opinion - be entitled to social housing. Indeed, someone who has made a lot of money from just one property, should not be entitled to social housing. (By a lot of money: I mean enough to purchase the type of bungalow they want outright.) If they have made a lot of money from several properties, (or one,) then - IMO - they should buy a bungalow and put some of the profit they intend to 'spend as quickly as they can' away for repairs and maintenance.

I literally don't think any different of anyone who is buying or renting: nobody is better or worse than anyone else, but there was a lot of snobbish attitudes a few years ago, from people who were buying their homes, towards people who rent, like they were somehow better because they were a 'homeowner.' Not so sure it is the same now, but it was in the 1990s. And the look of dismay on my cousins's face back in the late 90s, when a housing association built 23 social housing homes, 5 minutes walk from her 'big executive house.' was hilarious. 'I bought in the cul-de-sac, to get AWAY from people like that!' she said. :rotfl: I know that not everyone who is buying looks down on people who rent, but I have seen more snobbish attitudes from people buying aimed at renters, than I have 'bad attitudes' from renters towards people buying.

P.s. I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I promise! I have both rented privately, been a 'homeowner,' AND rented from social housing, so I see it from all sides.

As someone said earlier, 'horses for courses' and it would be a sad world if we were all the same, wouldn't it? :P

Tiglath wrote: »

I've rented in the past, but my own choice will always be to own a property. I look forward to the day when we've paid off the mortgage and no longer have huge amounts going each month; the current location suits us as I work in the City, and there's no way I'd want to be paying housing costs once I retire. To rent our current house would cost approx £400/month more than our mortgage, and it could be whipped out from under our feet at the whim of a landlord. I imagine we'll move once I decide to do something different. Of the people I work with, I'd say roughly 30% rent as opposed to buy, but there's no judgement made - it's their choice.

Like I said Tiglath, horses for courses. And good luck, and I wish you well ... I know several people - over 50 mostly who are mortgage free and have plenty of dosh, after years of hard work, who wouldn't want anything else other than to be a homeowner. I think many people over 55/60 would prefer it.

But as I said, in this day and age, buying is not necessarily better, because of the high house prices, the high repair bills and the fact that many people under 50 - ie; from generation X (and generation Y (the millenials) are not very well off. So struggle from week to week with basic living, and don't want high repair bills on top of everything else.

Ronaldo_Mconaldo wrote: »

So the advantages of sitting on your backside and letting the tax payer fund your entire life outway the benefits of having the ambition and dignity to stand on your own two feet and try to make it on your own. Who'd have thunk it?

No need to drag the royals into this!