[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The majority of people have finite budgets and its entirely up to individuals how they choose to prioritise and spend their surplus cash. If someone wants to blow it on a nice car, that's their choice, if someone wants a nice phone, thats their choice. If someone wants to save for a house, that's their choice. It's been the same for generations. We all have our own priorities and very few get all they want handed to them on a plate

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The majority of people have finite budgets and its entirely up to individuals how they choose to prioritise and spend their surplus cash. If someone wants to blow it on a nice car, that's their choice, if someone wants a nice phone, thats their choice. If someone wants to save for a house, that's their choice. It's been the same for generations. We all have our own priorities and very few get all they want handed to them on a plate

That's fair do's and perfectly obvious, however it doesn't detract from the fact that for many who traditionally would've been able to work and live (if frugally) and still save with their folks now cannot.
They have been totally priced out of the market.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That's fair do's and perfectly obvious, however it doesn't detract from the fact that for many who traditionally would've been able to work and live (if frugally) and still save with their folks now cannot.
They have been totally priced out of the market.

This is only really true in London & the SoE Kizzy... even the graph confirms that. Prices vs Income seem to be relatively stable otherwise, with the national average being skewed upwards by London + South. This graph from one of your own link confirms that:



In Scotland and the North, average prices have been hovering around 3 to 4 times average income since at least the early 80's. Obviously that also differs by area, e.g. Edinburgh can get very expensive, and the village I live in has basically no property under Ł100k, but the next village over has 2-bed flats going for Ł35k. Not particularly nice ones, but still. I've also seen 3 bed houses for as little as Ł45k, though admittedly they would need at least and other Ł10-15000 spent on them before living in them.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This is only really true in London & the SoE Kizzy... even the graph confirms that. Prices vs Income seem to be relatively stable otherwise, with the national average being skewed upwards by London + South. This graph from one of your own link confirms that:



In Scotland and the North, average prices have been hovering around 3 to 4 times average income since at least the early 80's. Obviously that also differs by area, e.g. Edinburgh can get very expensive, and the village I live in has basically no property under Ł100k, but the next village over has 2-bed flats going for Ł35k. Not particularly nice ones, but still. I've also seen 3 bed houses for as little as Ł45k, though admittedly they would need at least and other Ł10-15000 spent on them before living in them.

So that proves my point, and cals... if you were raised in London or the SE there is zero chance of buying a property there.
Of course there are good and bad places everywhere, the playing field is not level at all you have areas of high social deprivation and areas where house prices have sky rocketed. In the 80s fuel, utilities, travel and food was much less, therefore even if your home was double your annual wage you could afford to live... Now you cant.

[DemolitionRed]

The big problem is London, outer London and anything within a decent commuting distance of London. These areas all require a massive amount of blue collar workers and blue collar workers aren't going to bother with commuting fees when they can earn almost the same money working in the north. Why would blue collar workers cripple themselves with a 275k mortgage when they can have the same property in a different location for 75k? What this inevitably means is, we drive the workers we need in that area out of that area.

We need to forget about cheap buyable housing in London cos it aint going to happen. We recently had a new build of one and two-bed flats, built and advertised as affordable housing close to where we live. The one beds were put on the market for 275k and the 2 beds 300k. That isn't first time buyers affordable housing but its the best anyone's going to get if they want to remain in the same area they work.

We need more social housing in the London area. We need housing for the average blue collar wage earner because if we lose the labor, London will crumble.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

We need to forget about cheap buyable housing in London cos it aint going to happen. We recently had a new build of one and two-bed flats, built and advertised as affordable housing close to where we live. The one beds were put on the market for 275k and the 2 beds 300k. That isn't first time buyers affordable housing but its the best anyone's going to get if they want to remain in the same area they work.

We need more social housing in the London area. We need housing for the average blue collar wage earner because if we lose the labor, London will crumble.

Are there no prisons? And the Union Workhouses... are they still in operation?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Are there no prisons? And the Union Workhouses... are they still in operation?

I can't wait for December so I can watch that again

[user104658]

Well for one you're still pretty stuck on the London bubble which is misleading; you're making out that it's a national issue when it's very much a London issue. Secondly... 100 years to save 90k is clearly a massive exaggeration: that would be Ł75 a month. I don't think anyone who can only save Ł75 a month is in a position to be buying, no matter what the price...

[bots]

it's simple economics really, if you want to save cash, you reduce your costs or earn more money, and you do that in whatever way is feasible/acceptable to you.

You don't need to live with parents, i didnt, when I was starting out, I paid rent while saving to buy, like everyone else. Saving for a house is a long term goal, but it needs to be broken down into achievable milestones. When you do that, you see progress, get encouragement and incentive to continue in the process.

[DemolitionRed]

In 1980 the average wage was Ł6,000 (the equivalent of Ł19,000 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 Ł24,000. By 1990 that same house was Ł62,00. By 2000 it was worth Ł116,000. By 2010 its worth was Ł216,000 That house today has an approximate worth of Ł275,000
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 Łmillion.
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 Ł24K, but a mortgage of Ł275k or a quarter of a Łmillion 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.

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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

In 1980 the average wage was Ł6,000 (the equivalent of Ł19,000 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 Ł24,000. By 1990 that same house was Ł62,00. By 2000 it was worth Ł116,000. By 2010 its worth was Ł216,000 That house today has an approximate worth of Ł275,000
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 Łmillion.
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 Ł24K, but a mortgage of Ł275k or a quarter of a Łmillion 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.

I didn't buy in the 80's I bought in the 90s when interest rates were 15 per cent and then we had a recession and Mr C had to travel long distances to get work, anyway as I said earlier we should leave London out of the equation as prices in London are ridiculous but as has been pointed out, outside London prices are not that extortionate and seem pretty affordable in general.

With regard to the property belonging to the bank, as TS pointed out any equity isn't the banks and pay rent for a roof for 25 years when you are at the whim of a landlord and might have to move frequently and have nothing to show for it in 25 years time, or pay a mortgage and own your house, plus have the stability that unless things go seriously wrong its your home. I can think of nothing worse than a landlord rocking up with a notice to quit especially if you have a family

so have had a look at Leeds prices they seem to range from 44,000 for a one bed to 150,000 for a two bed.

https://www.payscale.com/research/UK...a-Leeds/Salary

and the average wage is 26,000

https://www.payscale.com/research/UK...a-Leeds/Salary

how is that not affordable

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

[/B]

I didn't buy in the 80's I bought in the 90s when interest rates were 15 per cent and then we had a recession and Mr C had to travel long distances to get work, anyway as I said earlier we should leave London out of the equation as prices in London are ridiculous but as has been pointed out, outside London prices are not that extortionate and seem pretty affordable in general.

With regard to the property belonging to the bank, as TS pointed out any equity isn't the banks and pay rent for a roof for 25 years when you are at the whim of a landlord and might have to move frequently and have nothing to show for it in 25 years time, or pay a mortgage and own your house, plus have the stability that unless things go seriously wrong its your home. I can think of nothing worse than a landlord rocking up with a notice to quit especially if you have a family

so have had a look at Leeds prices they seem to range from 44,000 for a one bed to 150,000 for a two bed.

https://www.payscale.com/research/UK...a-Leeds/Salary

and the average wage is 26,000

https://www.payscale.com/research/UK...a-Leeds/Salary

how is that not affordable

Why are you so fixated on Leeds.... I'm not on nearly the 'average' wage or even a 'living' wage sadly, and neither are a lot of people in London and the rest of the south...What about them, why can't we talk about them?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Why are you so fixated on Leeds.... I'm not on nearly the 'average' wage or even a 'living' wage sadly, and neither are a lot of people in London and the rest of the south...What about them, why can't we talk about them?

Because London is a shadow realm wot must never be named lest its influence spill out into the real world

[user104658]

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 Ł50k).

Worked out pretty "well" for my parents in that sense, they bought a house (4 large bedroom, detached) for Ł69k 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 Ł125k 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 .

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 Ł50k).

Worked out pretty "well" for my parents in that sense, they bought a house (4 large bedroom, detached) for Ł69k 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 Ł125k 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 .

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!

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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!

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?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Cherie

[/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?

We don't live on a canal boat. . 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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

We don't live on a canal boat. . 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

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 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 canal boats are beautiful btw

[user104658]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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!

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".

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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".

Private rentals are like throwing money into a pit and setting it on fire. I agree that private rentals are not a good option if you are trying to save up to buy. That said, more and more people, at least in London, are renting long term and seem happy with it.

[bots]

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.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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.

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

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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

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