apelike Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) The mortgage started ten years ago. I had a 33% deposit though. In general, paying a mortgage is cheaper than paying rent. It has to be, if you think about it. So this argument is a non-starter really. Please state why it has to be as this just seems to be your idea and not reality given the current house sale prices. So how much would your mortgage now be if you had not paid a 33% deposit as that drastically lessens any mortgage payments, and also skews the cheaper than paying rent argument. Edited February 7, 2015 by apelike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Please state why it has to be as this just seems to be your idea and not reality given the current house sale prices. So how much would your mortgage now be if you had not paid a 33% deposit as that drastically lessens any mortgage payments. It has to be, because people buy houses and let them. My mortgage would be 33% bigger if I didn't have the deposit, maybe a bit more because I might have paid a slightly larger interest rate. It would still be at least £500 per month short of the rental value of my home though. I fully expect to pay for my own care in old age, should I need to. How about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Two lads start off working for the same company and remain with it for their entire working lives. They reach the same level and receive the same wages. Both marry and have children, one decides to save, make a few sacrifices and buy his own house. When that house requires decorating or needs a new boiler or roof repair he pays for it. The other decides he will be quite happy in a council house, have more holidays and go out on a more regular basis. His rent includes external decorating and repairs etc. When they reach old age and require looking after in a care home the one who has paid for his own house and looked after his own repairs etc is expected to hand over the value of what he has worked for to the care home. Whilst the one who lived in a council house and spent his extra money on having a good time receives the same treatment without any contribution. Does that seem fair and reasonable? If the house in question is a modest semi valued at £150,000, instead of having the satisfaction of leaving his children a small legacy - which he and his wife worked for - he is supposed to hand over that amount in addition to anything paid in taxes throughout his working life? In comparison to the treatment received by his work colleague how is that equitable? Couple of ways to look at this. When the family of the spendthrifts (I've been informed today I've spent my life using this word wrongly. Where do you get thrift stores then? Moving on....) visit granny in her state-provided care home, after they've nodded hello at the non-English speaking care worker (providing they actually found one at all) got used to the all pervasive smell of urine, and actually recognised her in the soul destroying day room she is in 12 hours a day (she's wearing someone else's clothes again) and through her dementia addled brain she's trying to tell them she wants to go home (it's hard to hear over the bawling of another resident) or just somewhere else, the family will wish they had had a few less holidays. Or there's dignitas - £5k - £7k (not state funded). Prudent family "b" may well not go through all that because a) the money that was in the house has given them options - although you still might have to wait to get into one (top tip - if there is a waiting list, it's worth waiting for) her final years won't be as bad. Oh and b) just maybe the family might not be money grabbing mercenaries who appreciate what theirs parents did for them (which may in this day and age have included helping with a deposit for a mortgage). If I can't care for my mum, which I probably couldn't do very well, I wouldn't begrudge her burning through everything to ensure her final years are comfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 It has to be, because people buy houses and let them. Has it not occurred to you that those that buy to rent out usually have multiple renters per property guaranteeing that the income from them easily covers any mortgage payments. They also have somewhere else to live as house buying is only an investment when more than one is owned. The situation is totally different for the single house buyer. My mortgage would be 33% bigger if I didn't have the deposit, maybe a bit more because I might have paid a slightly larger interest rate. It would still be at least £500 per month short of the rental value of my home though. I asked how much it would be not what % it would be bigger as that is quite obvious. So again, and in figures how much would the current rental value be compared to mortgage payments if you had not put down a hefty 33% deposit. And also where would you live if you rented it out and how much would that cost? I fully expect to pay for my own care in old age, should I need to. How about you? I'm already in my old age, have money and investments that are safe and don't pay a penny in rent, mortgage or rates. Even get a free travel pass! If I have to go into a care home then the taxpayer will be paying for it not me or my family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I thought this was a forgone conclusion, hasn't it been happening for some years now? Unless people take out private health insurance against this sort of thing, how else are home owners to fund their elderly care? http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/556444/David-Blunkett-pensioners-inheritance-tax If it's been happening it for years, why bother mentioning it? BTW the link doesn't work so I can't see what it says and no doubt it'll be a journalist's interpretation of what he has supposed to have said anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 If you feel that way, why on earth did you buy your property? My husband grew up in a council house, and before our first child was born, we had a council flat in Scotland. When we moved to South Yorks in the early 70s, council houses were let via a waiting list. Need wasn't considered, but local and family links (and in some instances relationships to local councillors ) went a long way to getting one, especially on the more desirable estates. We didn't stand a chance of getting one, so after a few years in a run down, private rented house, we scraped a deposit together to buy a home. We didn't get the option of a council house, so that was our reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Night Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I'm already in my old age, have money and investments that are safe and don't pay a penny in rent, mortgage or rates. Even get a free travel pass! If I have to go into a care home then the taxpayer will be paying for it not me or my family. Well done the same applies here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 My mortgage is roughly 40% of the rental value of my house. I'd say that the bloke who has paid rent all of his life should ask his landlord to pay for his care. And I'm sure we'd both wish him well with that suggestion. Not my point though, I am simply pointing out the unfairness of the situation, they both had choices, why should one have to pay over a hundred thousand pounds more for his care because he tried to do what he considered to be the correct thing? There aren't enough council houses to house the entire population, so by making sacrifices and being prudent he helped to allowed the people who are really in need of them a better chance of acquiring one. Whether or not that was his intention that was part of the result of his actions. Now he's being made to pay for it with money he earned and paid tax on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Night Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I've made sure that like less prudent people I don't pay twice, I've paid enough for other peoples care so as far as I'm concerned I've paid enough into the pot so its now my turn to draw from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Your comment smacks of the politics of envy. You don't half talk rubbish. There is no such thing as politics of envy. if people were envious they would just jump ship and go with a party which supports their views. They don't because they are better ways of doing things ---------- Post added 07-02-2015 at 11:26 ---------- That's another alias sent to Coventry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now