Maggie was right

[DodgyAgent]

Well I do - otherwise landlord would sue me and get lots more money!

External upkeep is a matter for landlord though. And this is where common fail is - despite "owning" this house many landlords don't like putting money into them, meaning tulipy stuff on all levels. Now I don't say all of them do it, however plenty do.

Owning a house does not make one responsible, just like graduating from University does not guarantee job.



Yes, that's correct - I grown my business organically until the time was right to get investment from long term understanding shareholder, who isn't a bank or VC. It's capitalism innint? Seems like I know about it better than you

Owning a house is more likely to make you responsible, just as owning your own business will make you more responsible for its well being than simply managing it.

As far as your business is concerned you are still borrowing the money just as if you were buying a house on a mortgage.

[AtW]

Incidentally, why not also look at countries like Germany or Switzerland, where renting is common?

He does not like Germany. Apparently the cost of labour is very high there and they are doomed.

[Mich the Tester]

If you want to see an example of responsibility go and look at a rented property and then go and look at a property that is "owned". I think you will find that people who rent do not bother with the upkeep of the house whereas those who own it do.

Presumably you are following your own doctrine by building your business organically and not going cap in hand to the banks to borrow money to build it.

Good point. When Lady Tester and I first lived together we had a modest income from her work as a trainee nurse and my part time work at the water board as a very junior IT dogsbody. We lived on a street of terraced houses built in the 1920s, in a working class neighbourhood of a medium sized Dutch town. Nothing glamourous, but certainly not a slum. We bought the house. On that street about half the houses were owner occupied and about half were rented. The people on the street, owners and renters alike, all fell into similar income categories. If you walked along the street (and it’s still the same 15 years later) you could point to the precise line of bricks where the owner occupied houses ended and the rented houses started. Instead of smart, clean doors and windows, footpaths that were cleared of snow or ice in winter and neat plantpots on window ledges in the owned houses you saw scruffy doors, dirty windows, graffiti left uncovered, messy gardens and no plants to cheer things up. If you walk along the owner occupied part, people greet you with ‘good morning’ and if you drive along it you’ll have no problem driving between the neatly parked cars. Walk along the rented bit and you’ll be stared at as though you have three legs, and try to drive along it and you’ll find it’s too narrow thanks to the badly parked cars and childrens’ bicycles left lying on the road.

A microcosm of society.

[AtW]

As far as your business is concerned you are still borrowing the money just as if you were buying a house on a mortgage.

Eh? We did not borrow anything, read up on equity investments: it's not a debt.

I did not want to take any money from bank in form of a loan, not that they'd give any significant amounts anyway. Same with housing - I'd love to buy but I needed money to invest into SKA and having to pay mortgage would not have allowed me to work full time on it for 5 years, so I simply would not have reached current point if I did not rent. It was responsible move - buying a house would not have been in this case, certainly not at prices they were and still are on the market.

[DodgyAgent]

That is a political statement. I might well agree, but I am drawing attention to what is involved in it - and it isn't the "freedom" that owning your home supposedly confers.

It is not as simple as that. I rented for a year recently after moving back to the UK and before buying a house. The outward effect was exactly as you describe, but the cause was not my fliplessness as a tenant. The cause was the owner's disinclination to perform maintenance and repair on his property, regardless of whether he was obliged to, or would lose by its deterioration if he didn't. I did some of his repairs for him, but I was not about to do them all.

Incidentally, why not also look at countries like Germany or Switzerland, where renting is common? The housing stock there does not seem to me to be dilapadated.

As ever with IT people everything has to be black or white. If it isnt then it either confuses or forces you to be irrational in order to fit into a box.

I am not saying that rented houses are automatically trashed and nor am I saying that "owned" houses are palaces. I am saying that if something is owned it is much more likely that the owner will look after it, better than if it is rented.

[darmstadt]

If you want to see an example of responsibility go and look at a rented property and then go and look at a property that is "owned". I think you will find that people who rent do not bother with the upkeep of the house whereas those who own it do.

Until it gets repossesed because you can't keep up with the morgage as you've spent so much money putting uPVC mock Georigan double glazing in which required a loan on top and now your finances are stretched to the limit and when your house is repossesed you lose out and are declared bankrupt and for the rest of your life you're known as a loser.

I rent here in Germany, as many people do, and this is just not true, in fact my property is in much better condition than those that purchase because the landlord is responsible for all maintenance otherwise he gets taken to court.

[DodgyAgent]

Eh? We did not borrow anything, read up on equity investments: it's not a debt.

Same as a mortgage then.
man puts money in bank for 2% interest. Bank invests money in property by way of mortgage at 4%-everyones happy

Fool puts money into bank account at 0% interest, draws it out and invests it in some idiot's iffy website hoping to make a 1000000% return. Idiot is very happy.

[Mich the Tester]

Incidentally, why not also look at countries like Germany or Switzerland, where renting is common? The housing stock there does not seem to me to be dilapadated.

I’ve lived in Switzerland and visited Germany on many occasions; one difference I've noticed in Germany and Switzerland is a general culture of doing things properly. That’s why their trains run when it snows, their cars are good quality and their rented houses are neat and tidy.

[AtW]

I am saying that if something is owned it is much more likely that the owner will look after it, better than if it is rented.

I'd agree with that.

What I find hard to agree is idea that giving council flats in tower blocks in "ownership" would radically change situation. People who live there probably did not vote Cons, so it seems to me that Thatcher was bribing electorate she'd otherwise not get. Additionally she probably shifted all that stock off the maintenance books.

[DodgyAgent]

Until it gets repossesed because you can't keep up with the morgage as you've spent so much money putting uPVC mock Georigan double glazing in which required a loan on top and now your finances are stretched to the limit and when your house is repossesed you lose out and are declared bankrupt and for the rest of your life you're known as a loser.

.

So what you are saying is that people are too stupid to be entrusted with the responsibility of owning anything?