To think there must be a better way?

[ziggiestardust]

Than the traditional saving up for a massive deposit and buying a house (or succession of houses) with a mortgage that will tie you in for the whole of your working life with a stupid amount of interest paid during that time?

Isn't there a better way? The whole thing just seems ridiculously unstable.

I've been thinking about it tonight. DH and I are looking to buy in the next few years, but I'm wondering if we'd actually be better off investing the money elsewhere; like periodically buying plots of land, or investing in gold or something and keeping the flexibility of renting?

I know people sat housing is an investment, but it really depends on when and whether you plan on selling it. My parents' 3 bed semi was valued at £190,000 in 2007, now it's £140,000. It's all relative, but the people who bought the house next door to them just before the bust are in negative equity.

Is there an alternative? Or should I just get on with it, like everyone else does and accept it?

Yanbu. There are better ways..I don't know them yet though! I am 40 and even if we did manage to get enough deposit together well I don't want a bloody mortgage round my neck for the rest of my life.

No way. The only thing I've considered is a canal boat. Not for everyone though...I'm not sure I could live in such a small place.

icame I just don't know that I want to put years of savings into a deposit for a house I'm not really sure I want. It seems like such a millstone; how do you know you're going to be able to pay for that house payment next year? What about repairs? All the homeowners I know are constantly forking out for repairs and improvements... It just all seems so futile. You know?

Would you be better off buying a cheap lot of land, and putting a small, but really efficient log cabin style dwelling on it for your retirement years?

Or investing in gold? Or renewable energies?

It is daft and, as you say, variable around the country. When you stand back and look at the bigger picture it means, in effect, that all the "little people" in the country are continually paying into the banks who pay out to the rich in wages, bonuses and dividends. We might as well be serfs paying our lords and masters but at least we don't have to tug our forelocks any more.

My DCs are older and most of their friends who have moved to the SE have help from parents to get on the ladder so, even when your own mortgage finishes, you can end up helping children out.

In your situation I would definitely be looking at land and a build it yourself kit house for sure.

I wouldn't invest it in anything but somewhere to live...that comes first. Then any "extra" is invested. With investments come potential losses and if you don't even own a home, then investing seems mad.

timid that's it! You're tied in until you've finished work. You're saving for when you retire.

Most of my friends have had to come up with the deposit for their homes on their own. Their parents may have downsized, but they've downsized to a smaller place in a more exclusive area.

Be very careful of investing in gold! Apart from that, I think you are smart to consider investing your cash in other assets whilst housing is so expensive. Maybe in ten years' time you'll be a cash buyer with no need for a mortgage. Good luck.

finance I was more using it as an example, but you catch my drift. I'm just thinking that my hard earned £30k could be better spent than signing away that next 25 years of my life to debt.

I don't think buying property to be your home is something you should do as a financial investment. Do it because you want to own your home, not because you expect to get money back from it.

You will pour money into maintaining a property, especially when you live in it, and the only way you will ever see any financial return is if or when you are in a position to downsize, by which time anywhere else you will want to live will have risen in line with the property you are selling anyway.

Get a deposit together and look to buy in a cheap area of the country where the rental returns are good.

That way, you can sell the property when it picks up in value and put that towards your own home or pop it into other investments unti the prices drop.

In the meantime, look to rent a nice house in an area where the rent, compared to house prices/mortgage repayments are low so you get more bang for your buck.

Being able to make on the property market is solely dependent on buying and selling at the right time. I've bought 1st time buyer homes at the bottom of the market. That's now picked up and if any of my tenants decide to move, I'll sell and plough the profit back into a home that's 2nd rung as these haven't picked up in value yet.

Housing is far too important to be left to the market but yet it's moving more and more back to that situation, with less and less council housing.

There are better ways but we won't be getting them any time soon.

I would echo buying in a cheap part of the country, as long as you are happy to live there indefinitely.

DH is from Surrey. He was in a position to buy his own home in his early 20s, when he was in his late 30s he moved up north. He sold his house, paid off the mortgage, and bought a bigger house in a nicer area, with no mortgage at all.

All good, but he can never go back to where he was brought up, as the house prices there are more than double where we live now.

I suppose I don't see buying a house as a way to make money, I've always seen it as a way to keep down outgoings when you're older. If you buy a house, once you've paid off the mortgage, it's yours and you can live there for free! Being as my projected pension is just £8000 a year at the moment, I wouldn't want to be paying rent out of that, I like the idea of having a place that's all mine.

We bought our own home, not as an investment, but because we pay less on the mortgage than we would in rent for the same house. As a bonus, we have a chance of recouping some of the money spent on a mortgage whereas you don't have that chance with rent money. Oh, and the fact that the house is ours means no waiting around for landlords permission when you want to do something, or trying to get hold of them in an emergency.

WooWoo- you don't necessarily only see a return if you downsize. If your house value stayed the same then if you bought a bigger home then you would have effectively saved for a deposit, as you would have however much you have paid off the mortgage to put into your new house. We are in negative equity- yet we still have an advantage when it comes to moving, because we can negotiate a 100% mortgage from our current provider. I don't think there are any 100% mortgages generally available now.

Sweetpea, why can he never go back? If he's earning, he could put aside the equivalent of rent/mortgage each month- say £500- plus whatever he usually puts into savings. If we had no rent or mortgage to pay we could realistically save £700-800 a month (up to £9,600 a year!) and we're not that well off. And he would have a hefty 50% deposit to put on a new place down south. Let's say his house is worth £150,000 and he's looking at a place for £300,000 down south. He would only need a £150,000 mortgage, which puts him in more or less the same position as anyone getting on the property ladder up north. Except he's better off because they would need to save for a deposit while paying rent, and he would be able to negotiate better mortgage terms with a 50% deposit than they could with their 5-10% deposit.

I think the rental market needs an overhaul in this country. At the moment, millions of working adults are renting and the law is skewed heavily in the favour of the landlords. People have no rights at all....now in an economy like ours this isn't a good thing. It creates even more insecurity...you have low income families living at the mercy of landlords who can give them notice at any time and many low income families do not have the means to save up a cushion against this happening.

Renting a new home costs thousands. I think the government should arrange a scheme whereby landlords who offer long term tenancy for people should get rewarded. The ones who offer short terms should not....also, in Australia, the landlord pays their equivalent of council tax...not the tenant. Perhaps this could be the reward...let long term and the tennant pays, let short term and you pay.

I don't believe ALL people should have the chance to buy...it should not be a necessary thing....all people need is a secure home and since Thatcher sold all the council houses, then something else needs to be put on the table.

I thought this for many years and despite pressure from dp's side of the family, we have only just bought our first home after being together 9 years. And despite me being a mortgage adviser for 8 years .

For us it was security. With rented the landlord could come along at any time and take the house back and as we are starting a family I wanted to know my house was my own and I couldn't be forced to move through no fault of my own (obviously provided we keep up the mortgage payments - but then again same applies to rent payments).

Also I can make it my own. If I want to change the kitchen or bathroom I can, I can paint the walls any colour I like etc.

It's not an investment to me it's my home.

Well that's right Eminybob which is why it's all the more sickening that tennants are not given more protection in terms of long leases. Of course that would not be great for all landlords but for some it would especially if there were some rewards.

People tell me that it's only really the british who see their home as an investment. I do know that renting is far more common and socially acceptable in many other countries and there's not the same expectation of people making a living out others' homes so the rent is kept low. Social housing (ie no profit) would be a solution. Investments for later life, children etc are made elsewhere.

Personally, I don't mind a mortgage. My home is not an investment and I'd rather pay a mortgage than rent.