Subscribers don't see this.
Started by bgmnts, August 01, 2022, 05:04:10 PM
Quote from: katzenjammer on August 04, 2022, 02:19:57 PMOn the other hand there is an emotional appeal to entirely owning your own home that most people can relate to so I understand the appeal of paying off the mortgage ASAP too.
Quote from: MojoJojo on August 04, 2022, 02:48:18 PMYou get the money from the AVCs when you retire. Since the NHS is a defined benefit scheme, this translates into getting a lump sum of cash when you retire.
Quote from: MojoJojo on August 04, 2022, 04:13:56 PMI think so - I'm out of depth here though with it being an NHS pension. You can take 25% of the lump sum as cash tax free, then use the rest to buy an annuity, which you would pay income tax on the payments from. That's basically how a defined contribution scheme works.I'm looking here https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/member-hub/increasing-your-pension . You can pay extra to retire earlier, which might be a better thing to look at.
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on August 04, 2022, 02:50:15 PMI have no emotional appeal to owning my home other than not having to pay a mortgage.
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on August 04, 2022, 02:51:43 PMWould it be tagged to my NHS pension then i.e. I would only be able to claim it at 68? Also those figures quoted by Jasha surely that cash taxed when you withdraw it?
Quote from: katzenjammer on August 04, 2022, 05:05:42 PMFor me it would be knowing that the bank cannot repossess my home
Quote from: Dr Trouser on August 04, 2022, 01:37:01 PMdouble digit inflation
Quote from: Ferris on August 02, 2022, 06:20:00 PMI'm amazed there's any back and forth at all considering everyone here basically agrees this system is bad and wants fixing.
Quote from: katzenjammer on August 04, 2022, 06:57:17 PMcan't take the train to my job, there's a strike at the station
Quote from: MojoJojo on August 03, 2022, 09:45:22 AMOhh, keep it up guys. I've got a dinner party coming up, this conversational gold.
Quote from: Proactive on August 06, 2022, 06:55:01 PM@trenter, yes stocks and shares are basically gambling, but the trick is that rather than put money into one or a small number of companies, you instead spread your money around literally thousands of the world's biggest companies via a pre-packaged portfolio/fund,because some of those companies will ultimately go bust but some of them will become Apples, Amazons etc and it'll all equal out. I've mentioned it either in this thread or elsewhere but there's a book called The Simple Path To Wealth which helped me to get my head around it all, which I'd really recommend.
Quote from: Proactive on August 06, 2022, 07:05:20 PMWhat I don't want to do is put that kind of money in my SIPP as it's then locked away for at least another 12 years, even though I appreciate that would otherwise be the best means of accruing more ultimately. Given that the pot of money we have is for moving house, but I don't know when we'll make that move, surely it would be better off in bricks and mortar than just sitting in a low interest account decreasing in real-terms value?
Quote from: Proactive on August 06, 2022, 06:55:01 PM@trenter, yes stocks and shares are basically gambling, but the trick is that rather than put money into one or a small number of companies, you instead spread your money around literally thousands of the world's biggest companies via a pre-packaged portfolio/fund,because some of those companies will ultimately go bust but some of them will become Apples, Amazons etc and it'll all equal out. I've mentioned it either in this thread or elsewhere but there's a book called The Simple Path To Wealth which helped me to get my head around it all, which I'd really recommend.Edit: and when I say equal out, I mean grow over the long term.
Quote from: shoulders on August 07, 2022, 07:51:43 AMLive for now.
Quote from: Proactive on August 07, 2022, 11:01:35 AMOr, bit of living for now, bit of planning for later?
QuoteWhat is the base interest rate in this hypothetical? What economic driver caused the housing market to lose 50% of all value overnight - a recession? A nuclear war? Free houses on the moon? Does it impact all houses equally or is it mean vs median? What's the NPV for cash, and the inflation rate in this scenario? How about the future predicted values of all those figures? How about the generational expectation of house prices in the population - are those being priced in or what? What's the rate of population increase versus new housing starts in the country? Is the market stable or bearish, and what are employment levels in the broader economy?
QuoteI don't know why you keep arguing with strawmen over and over when me and a few other people have dropped it. Nobody thinks negative equity is a good thing in and of itself, and that's not a point anyone was making. Here's the headline though: ceteris paribus, your nominal house price fluctuating means nothing unless you are trying to sell.
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 07, 2022, 05:40:00 PMBut a house as an asset is not special to any other kind of investment, it's value is subject to rise and falls and if you need to sell during a fall you may well lose money, but in the longer term it will gain in value more than money in a regular bank account.
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on August 07, 2022, 06:01:30 PMHear me out here (or atleast humour me)It is though, for several reasons I've covered these in the other thread before. Having somewhere to live is an essential, negative equity increases someones vulnerability to becoming homeless - if you invest in luxury cars and this market halves this is not an essential commodity unless you've secured your investments to the equity in your home which just links this back through to the first point (and this is another point here lots of people have used their equity this way). They become more vulnerable to not being able to pay their mortgage as they can no longer use equity, they have no secured borrowing power, cannot remortgage, will end up on the banks standard rate. The house price halves not the debt.The context of this was if house prices halved it would help reduce misery because young people would be able to get on the market, but in the condition where people just sit in their houses and wait for them to rise again then everything stays the same. Someone has to lose in order for the new person to buy the cheap house because someone is still having to carry the debt. I'm not defending any of this btw, I'm just talking about it, specifically about how to deflate the market with the least pain - which seems to me to be reduce debts alongside prices (now a FTB is left carrying a 300k debt for a house they sold to YP for 150k - which just switched the debt around otherwise). Where neg equity might help is with my example up page in that via inheritance or buying when the market was low the drop might still even out the price so perhaps weighting around this would make things fairer.Does this makes sense? am I missing something here? I'm really puzzled as to why this being seen as such a bizarre line of thinking.
Quote from: jamiefairlie on August 07, 2022, 07:13:44 PMNo I broadly agree with you but it is classic supply/demand economics, more people want to buy houses than are available to buy, so prices go up. As long as that dynamic continues (and it's hard to see how it shifts) then it will continue to be that way.
Page created in 0.053 seconds with 22 queries.