Why can no one be positive on this forum.

lostinrates

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

.

It was easier for them in the 80s than it is for us now.

Our experiences/family experiences seen very similar, you make me feel less nuts in confirming I am not the only one with this experience. Or at least nuts in good company

neverdespairgirl

My parents bought their semi in Blackheath in 1983, for £76k.

In 2006, £76,000.00 from 1983 was worth:

£177,178.11 using the retail price index
£177,280.17 using the GDP deflator
£261,966.59 using the average earnings
£304,026.40 using the per capita GDP
£327,083.73 using the share of GDP

So by any stretch of the imagination, the price of roughly £1 million is way more expensive.

baby_boomer

That's a very revealing post, ndg.

I'm positive ::j .

My income is going up 7% next year so I should just about cover rising living costs, and although I will "lose out" on the housing market in theory, I won't lose my place on the housing "ladder" [:rotfl: every time I see that phrase in (ever more desperate) advertisements] and I'm pleased that the current environment is bringing sanity back to the mortgage and housing market so that deserving individuals, couples and families can once again buy their own home

In a year's time if they've got any sense.

How can future students with £35K+ debts afford to buy accommodation unless prices come down?

What's negative about that accepting that reality?

mustrum_ridcully

moggylover wrote: »

Not necessarily - because if house prices crash as badly as many on here are hoping they will - then the economy will be so f***** that most of those young people will not only not be able to afford to buy - but may not even have jobs!

TBH - what we also need is to see first time buyers becoming less greedy in what they want to buy first time! I have had first time buyers coming to see houses that for most of us older house owners were third or fourth time buys - not what you started on the ladder with!

Oh please! It all depends on if you were buying a house in a boom or a bust period, your personal circumstances and where you were buying. There are plenty of people in their late 60's and 70's whose first home was the one they live in now i.e. a typical 3-bed semi, often bought on a single salary.

In 1983 the Nationwide FTB house price to earnings ratio was 2.7, going upto 3.9 in 1989, going down to 2.1 in 1995, then upto 5.4 in 2007. So yes it may of been hard for you in the early 80's but not as hard as it is now...

Please tell the 21 year olds just leaving university in 2007 why it should be far more difficult (price/earnings ratio of 5.4) for them to buy a house than their eldest brother/sister who graduated in 1997 (price/earnings ratio of 2.5). Oh and interest rates were around 7.5% in 1997 (so not that bad when compared with 15% they were at).

So perhaps what we need to see is home owners/sellers not being so greedy...

obsessed_saver

justpurchased wrote: »

2) I think it would be just as stressfull if you could not keep up paying the rent! homeless is homeless!
3) I would say heating a rented property is more expensive as it tends to be cheaper low maintainace storage heaters etc. I know it was when i rented.

2) Well, not really. Losing your rental home is not as traumatic as losing your "home" that you "own", and piled in all that money into.

3) No building insurance, or maintenance bills. My landlord just forked out £3000 to redo the roof, and is looking to do some work on one of the walls.

justpurchased

obsessed_saver wrote: »

2) Well, not really. Losing your rental home is not as traumatic as losing your "home" that you "own", and piled in all that money into.

3) No building insurance, or maintenance bills. My landlord just forked out £3000 to redo the roof, and is looking to do some work on one of the walls.

i only said heating,
Dont agreed on the homeless thing, if you rent and can't afford the rent any more you have put all your money in to it. You have still lost your home!

moggylover

[quote=

I have to disagree with moggylover that first time buyers have to "start" at the "bottom" of the ladder. Being first time buyers means they can start anywhere. Be it at the "top" of the ladder, or at the "middle", or at the "bottom". [/quote]

Well I don't mind at all WHERE they start - but I DO mind that they then moan like fury because that part of the market is too expensive for them!;)

It was termed a ladder (all of my life tbh) for a very good reason folks - had you been expected to start half way up it might have been termed a pogo stick - but not a ladder!

dopester

justpurchased wrote: »

i only said heating,
Dont agreed on the homeless thing, if you rent and can't afford the rent any more you have put all your money in to it. You have still lost your home!

Landlords aren't going to let their investments sit empty without income. Landlords will be forced to compete and lower their rents.

If those landlords with BTL mortgages can't afford the repayments then the bank will repossess them and put them back to market.

justpurchased

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

My parents bought their semi in Blackheath in 1983, for £76k.

In 2006, £76,000.00 from 1983 was worth:

£177,178.11 using the retail price index
£177,280.17 using the GDP deflator
£261,966.59 using the average earnings
£304,026.40 using the per capita GDP
£327,083.73 using the share of GDP

So by any stretch of the imagination, the price of roughly £1 million is way more expensive.

So we are arguing housing is a great long term investemnt.:D
Only joking, but those figures would indicate it.

justpurchased

dopester wrote: »

Landlords aren't going to let their investments sit empty without income. Landlords will be forced to compete and lower their rents.

If those landlords with BTL mortgages can't afford the repayments then the bank will repossess them and put them back to market.

? Bring on the trumpets! (I love that advert)