3 ms·
A case where it isn't fake savings is where people who work and live an a very expensive urban area, like london, may use the home as a retirement investment. S
by Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
A case where it isn't fake savings is where people who work and live an a very expensive urban area, like london, may use the home as a retirement investment. So when they retire they move to a less expensive area and can use the difference in housing costs in the two areas as a retirement nest egg.
- AstralStorm 2y agoIt's an interesting way to try to save, and assumes anyone will want and be able to buy it. And that you will be able to keep the expensive property with expensive costs. Plus compare if living in the expensive vs cheap place gets you more savings... No, it does not make sense. I can see holding a property for a child, but not as retirement.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoYou misunderstand I think. When you retire you sell the expensive property and then buy a less expensive property in a cheaper area. If retired, then potentially have fewer restrictions on where you live because you don't have to commute to work any more. The difference in property costs between the old and new areas is your nest egg.
- StopDisinfo910 2y agoYou will still earn the difference between the expensive property and the less expensive one. It will just be a lot less and that’s a good thing. Using properties as store of value or betting on them becoming more expensive have too many externalities. Your case for exemple is directly leading to people actually living and working in the less expensive places being displaced by retirees from the city which is very much undesirable for local life.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago> being displaced by retirees from the city This is true, but it also creates vacancies in the cities. The retired have to live somewhere..