[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 £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.

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.

[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 £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 .

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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.

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

[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 £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 .

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!

[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.

[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?

[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".

[smudgie]

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.
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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

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

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.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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

[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

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.

I thought it was just two of you !

[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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by smudgie

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

Thanks Smudge

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by smudgie

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.
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.

Sums it up really

[DemolitionRed]

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.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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.

Sounds heavenly.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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.

I didn't say you per se, but plenty people resent them for it, same as they are resented for having free uni and all the other stuff that was around back then, its pretty pointless being envious because it was just a fluke that they bought at that time, there were plenty people who didn't buy as well, same as now.