Owner-occupied Property - A Risky Retirement!

First a secure retirement standard of living in old age. It is the biggest risk in old age, that you can get no income by working longer. Who's going to retire at 67, will thus exchange his labor income to the state pension, pension or private income from insurance. But at least you can count on the social assistance that is paid for the destitute and to ensure a minimum standard.

The aim of the pension: backup LebensstandardsDie securing living standards can now be realized in two ways: first by a reduction in expenditure and to a backup of the revenue. But it is already clear that the revenue will be through the state pension more than 50 per cent of previous earnings. Those who want to reach that level by reducing the expenditure is expected to soon reach its limits - especially spending on health expenditure and the findings leisure may rise rather than fall. Like us a self-occupied property is now helping in this case? Can this property securing the abolition of shares and income? Or is actually able to reduce our costs by more than 50 percent - when you consider about the extra free rent? Retirement income security is The truth is not like most: Your own property is actually a millstone around the neck, which makes it harder rather than easier in old age. Although it has been during his working life saves a lot of money in this property, but this capital in the truest sense "chiseled in concrete" and no longer at the age accessible. Who has financed a house at age 30 and this paid off until retirement, shall be paid no rent but then more, but this is what the latest after this long period of the first restoration work. Instead Mietersparnis says so again: Additional expenses or credits. One is at the age now dependent on the state pension, one's income drops to about 50 percent of the previous level. If you're unlucky, will have even more to retire, because he has become used to unemployed and can not find employment more. Resembles the house now from the foregone income? The self-occupied property is a bad deal In an emergency, you will therefore have to sell his house in old age, because the income is no longer sufficient to cover the costs. Who has not, however, previously invested in the conservation of the property will also have to reckon with strong reductions in the retail price! This makes the property so the double loss: It was his own money invested over a lifetime expensive loans in their own house, they instead invest profitably with. At the same time the property value without maintenance quickly drops to 20-30 percent of the actual value. As the last risk factor is the financing of pensions. The house belongs to the bank that is, until it is fully paid. The loans can not be operated anymore, because you become unemployed, forcing the bank to sell the buyer relatively quickly - which is afflicted with large losses in these circumstances. What is the result? The house is gone - but keep the remaining debt. The self-gentutzte property - a high-risk Anlage.Aus investment perspective, the owner-occupied property for retirement so rather represent a high-risk concentration of risk, the buyer makes itself dependent on his labor income and increases the risk of rising fixed costs in the form of real estate loan . A tempting offer Suppose the bank comes to us with the following offer: Must immediately and 250,000 euros for it completely live rent-free. Every month for 35 years must be paid 1,000 euros for the loan. Additional costs would be borne entirely himself. If payments can not be funded, the rates may be changed 2 times. If you are unemployed and do not have to pay the installments, you must pay the loan back in full immediately and the rent-free awareness is repealed. How's that quote? Would you accept it? The problem is that while we get an early payment on a property, but its preservation depends on personal income. So that payment is made sober a risky bet on their future with a secure income. The problem is that if the bet comes up, we end up but the house, but still no income. Would not it be smarter to take the risk for a business that this goal will actually be doing? This sober view is in your own house quickly becomes clear that this is more a luxury than a safe investment. While the rent was "lost", it still offers some advantages: Housing costs are largely capped because of maintenance can no additional expenditure. The payments are extremely flexible, because you can easily move into difficulties at a cheaper apartment. A proper retirement After all this criticism of the self-occupied house is now of course a question: What the heck is a secure retirement? The answer is not so simple in detail, but some basic features are found always: So shall the monthly income are hedged. This passive income is independent of one's own labor and can be realized in many ways. The most popular way is a private pension. But it is comparatively expensive. Effective, however, are the savings in securities such as equity funds or dividend shares. Alternatively, let properties are a good investment. Here one is dependent on that one also finds a tenant. Since shares compared are the easiest to maintain.

Basically it can be summarized that a retirement age must also generate an income. What this income is in relation to the deposit depends on the specific product. What is certain is that a never-occupied property generates an income for as long as they are not rented. Thus, it can serve as the second most block, if they regularly maintains.

Related Articles - property, risky retirement, retirement, generate income, investment, property, invest, make money, business, retire, business opportunity, ,

Email this Article to a Friend! Receive Articles like this one direct to your email box! Subscribe for free today!