Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9696380)

In 1980 the average wage was £6,000 (the equivalent of £19,000 in todays money) A little less than todays average earnings but in 1980 you got paid time and a half for extra hours and double time if you worked Sundays or holidays, so you could substantially build up that wage to average out with todays earnings.

In 1980 an average three bed house (not including London and Surrey) was £24,000. By 1990 that same house was £62,00. By 2000 it was worth £116,000. By 2010 its worth was £216,000 That house today has an approximate worth of £275,000
So if you purchased a house in 1980, without doing very much at all other than sitting on your investment, you’ve made a whopping quarter of a £million.
Now we could say that’s all subjective because if you sell your house tomorrow and purchase the one next door, its going to swallow all of your investment. You can, of course, move to a much cheaper area and live in a bigger, grander house, but you have to make compromises to do that.
What about the new buyer though? Mr Joe average is now earning slightly more than you were earning when you purchased that house but he’s not like you, looking at a mortgage of £24K, but a mortgage of £275k or a quarter of a £million more than you had to find.

The heyday of property buying for the average earner attempting to get on the property ladder is gone. Whilst the big banks make it possible for even the average earner to buy a house in the north, the property is so expensive that they will probably never pay off their mortgages and until they pay off their the mortgage, the house isn’t theirs, it’s the banks. As for saying the property is the banks, as TS said any equity is yours and your are not paying for someone elses mortgage as you do when renting with nothing to show for it, pay rent for 25 years, pay a mortgage for 25 years I know which one I would prefer to do.



When people who bought their homes in the 80s claim that they had to work equally hard to afford their homes… they must be living in Narnia.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9696388)

It's not really technically true that a mortgaged house belongs to the bank and not the buyer, to be fair... A mortgage is simply a loan that is leveraged against the property as a guarantee that the money will be repaid. So long as you keep within the terms of the loan, the property does for all intents and purposes belong to you. For example... If you buy a run down flat for 25k on a small mortgage, do extensive work on the flat that doubles the value, you still only owe the original amount of your mortgage... The bank only owns the debt, not the property (which is now worth £50k).

Worked out pretty "well" for my parents in that sense, they bought a house (4 large bedroom, detached) for £69k in 1997... And got divorced at what turned out to be a very good point to do so - 2005, after the property value had soared in 8 years to nearly £125k but before the bubble burst. They had a nice chunk left each after the mortgage was paid back. Which they both blew through in like a year, but that's another story :joker:.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9696407)

Your property is your asset that ensures you can re-pay your loan. During the last recession, many people defaulted on their mortgage payments and many lost their homes back to the lender.

Yes, you only owe the amount agreed but if the bank forecloses on you, they still re-possess the house, re-sell it and give you the residue not owed to them. They can't only take a portion of the structural asset, unless, its been divided into apartments, in which case they could take one apartment.

We had quite a nice house in Surrey but we reached a stage where everything revolved around working hard and paying the endless bills. The decision to give that up was the best thing we ever did. We still work hard but we now have enough free cash to play hard too. Life's too short!

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9696407)

Your property is your asset that ensures you can re-pay your loan. During the last recession, many people defaulted on their mortgage payments and many lost their homes back to the lender.

Yes, you only owe the amount agreed but if the bank forecloses on you, they still re-possess the house, re-sell it and give you the residue not owed to them. They can't only take a portion of the structural asset, unless, its been divided into apartments, in which case they could take one apartment.

We had quite a nice house in Surrey but we reached a stage where everything revolved around working hard and paying the endless bills. The decision to give that up was the best thing we ever did. We still work hard but we now have enough free cash to play hard too. Life's too short!

Originally Posted by bitontheslide (Post 9696416)

its also worth pointing out that 95% or greater mortgages weren't available in the 80's, you had to cough up 25% minimum. There were no easy buy schemes either, interests rates were in the 20%+ range. So we can say times were better, but they weren't, they were just different. However, the same principles apply, as they have always done. For Mr & Mrs average to be able to buy a house, they need conviction to do it, they need to focus on that as their goal and go for it.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9696419)

[/B]

If you want a roof over your head you have to pay rent or a mortgage? if you have a family, you don't have the luxury of selling up and downsizing to a canal boat, good for you for doing that if it suits you, it wont suit everyone and I expect your kids are somewhere? are they renting?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9696430)

Well exactly, it is yours, you own it but it is forfeit should you default on the terms of the loan... However, it is for all intents and purposes "yours", and you can make modifications / do pretty much what you want with it, so long as you do keep up with the repayments... If the bank literally owned mortgaged properties, you wouldn't even be able to paint the walls without seeking permission.

Also, the only thing you need to do to keep your home secure is make the payments... Which is a world away from the private rental sector, where if your tenancy is ending and your landlord fancies selling up, you're ****ed... Bye bye "home".

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9696574)

We don't live on a canal boat. :conf:. Our living space is bigger than the house we previously sold on.

One is at York uni. One is engaged and living with his girlfriend and the others live with us.

Yes, we did what suited us because we didn't want to be burdened with debt. We could have moved up north but why should we. We've made our life here and this is where we want to stay.

Edited to add: I'm sorry you see it as downgrading. I never took you to be a snob Cheryl

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9696559)

They were better in that they were a fantastic investment. There was no quicker way for the average person to make money than own property.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9696619)

Way to put words in my mouth if you think using the word luxury to downsize is snobbery, Plus I used the word downsize which you have changed to downgrade :idc: first I'm middle class now I'm a snob...anything else? Could have sworn you said you lived on a canal boat must be confusing you with someone else :think: canal boats are beautiful btw

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9696619)

Way to put words in my mouth if you think using the word luxury to downsize is snobbery, Plus I used the word downsize which you have changed to downgrade :idc: first I'm middle class now I'm a snob...anything else? Could have sworn you said you lived on a canal boat must be confusing you with someone else :think: canal boats are beautiful btw

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9696621)

People bought homes to live in and to pass to their kids, if they wanted to make money they invested in buy to let, no one had a crystal ball back then any more than we do now

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9696659)

Canal boats are small and narrow, which is fine for a single person or even a couple but they aren't very suited to a large family.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9696665)

I'm not saying people bought houses back in the 80s to make money but make money they did and a lot of it.

Originally Posted by smudgie (Post 9696660)

I must admit I took it to be a barge type boat as well.

Originally Posted by smudgie (Post 9696434)

When we bought our first house mortgage payments were way higher than rent.
If you rented in the same area now the rent is more than a mortgage would be.:shrug:
Varies area to area, even in the same district.
As has been said, it's down to choice how you spend what money you have, and what you are prepared to sacrifice to get that choice.

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9696671)

And they are resented for it! They were the crusaders good on them

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9696681)

Okay, I give in. Its a Thames barge. This means its too big to fit on any British canal. It has a mast and sails which makes it an ocean-going vessel.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9696685)

Where did I say they were resented for it. I don't resent my parents. I'm envious of the opportunities they were given regarding property. I'd love to be able to do what they did and make the sort of money they made but I don't resent them.