Where do you see house prices 2 years from now?

lostinrates

GDB2222 wrote: »

If you like the idea of the pitter patter of tiny feet, get a dog instead. They are much cheaper, and you get more feet.

I have a dog already.;) And two cats. and the rest of them. In all my 'animal' baby replacers (they're not really baby replacers) number er...34 feet I think. so far Its not the pitter patter of feet that I feel I'm missing out on.;)

wymondham

lostinrates wrote: »

We certainly wonder how we will/would afford it and have put off worrying about it 'not happening' because as much as we really would love a baby, and we are not greedy, one would do fine they are expensive creatures. That said, people have children in all economic climates don't they...have birth rates altered significantly during HPI .

If you're waiting for the best time financially to have kids, it wont ever arrive... go for it

HelpWhereIcan

kingkano wrote: »

I've decided I don't subscribe to Nationwide or Halifax figures. Afterall they are based purely on mortgage completions by those banks only. Many houses in my area change hands as cash sales. I expect much more than 50% of sales don't go through those 2 banks since there was/is so much competition in the mortgage market....

30% was the combined mortgage market share of Nationwide and HBoS last year http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=172513&d=11&h=24&f=254 .

Considering that other lenders accounted for the remaining 70% of mortgaged sales and that there will be an element of cash sales further diluting that, I am sure that the Land Reg offers the more accurate data.

HelpWhereIcan

wymondham wrote: »

If you're waiting for the best time financially to have kids, it wont ever arrive... go for it

Wish we'd waited less between our two.

A three year gap meant 7 years of nursery fees (3 years @ 1 child, 2 years @ 2 children and 2 years @ 1 child).

All over now :j

I think that means we should have some spare money :T

Hang on, there's school trips and football and ballet and judo and capoeira and Laser quest and ..... :eek:

mr.broderick

carolt wrote: »

Please read my post number 34 - it's clear that you are the one wishing misery on other people's children.

I expect you eat babies too.

Gen you posted the other day pleading with the members not to react to one of carolt's threads. I challenge you to come on here now and defend this lunatic. She should be reported to the education services. God help the families out there who have children being taught by her. Makes you want to unsuscribe to this forum. I am seething.

fc123

carolt wrote: »

Absolutely, lostinrates - childcare is expensive, plus the (sad) reality is that few mothers who work 50% hours earn 50% salary; partly because women's work is still generally lower paid than men's, but largely because the kind of jobs that allow for part time work are rarely the better paid ones; not many part-time managers/lawyers etc but lots of part-time shop assistants. It's also hard to go up the career ladder whilst working part-time; even for those lucky enough to stay at the same level, few people actually progress until they return to full-time work.

Not that this is just hard on women; it's also hard on men who want to work part-time and take on childcare responsibilities/have some work/life balance, and, ultimately, on children whose parents often have no option to be there for them, however much they'd like to.

That is very true.
Running ones own business is a good choice (if so inclined) as you can manage your workload to suit your family life.
Doesn't always go to plan as ones salary is never guaranteed...but that's the trade off I guess.
It's just as stressful as anything else, but one does have 'Freedom of Mind'.

I know it's true, though I have flown the flag for 'Equality' (whatever that is) as my youngest is now 14 and it's absolute heaven to schedule stuff without worrying about school pick up, and not have to tell someone..oh, sorry, can't do that, I have half term or whatever that week......

And IME, if it's a bloke (of a cetain age) on the other end of the 'phone...the silence says it all.

Sorry to all blokes of a certain age who don't fit this stereotype.

fc123

mr.broderick wrote: »

Gen you posted the other day pleading with the members not to react to one of carolt's threads. I challenge you to come on here now and defend this lunatic. She should be reported to the education services. God help the families out there who have children being taught by her. Makes you want to unsuscribe to this forum. I am seething.

Perhaps something said in real life as a lighthearted joke doesn't translate well into the written word?
I don't get all this carolt is an etc etc. I don't like to even read the threads that descend into strange attacks (that don't seem to have any real basis on anything much at all)...
Anyway, back to babies and houses and working mums......

mr.broderick

fc123 wrote: »

Perhaps something said in real life as a lighthearted joke doesn't translate well into the written word?
I don't get all this carolt is an etc etc. I don't like to even read the threads that descend into strange attacks (that don't seem to have any real basis on anything much at all)...
Anyway, back to babies and houses and working mums......

Sorry i just do not accept that.

fc123

carolt wrote: »

From my recall of the last crash, when average houses dropped to low multiples of average earnings, so did desire to buy - after years of prices falling (a) people thought prices might well keep falling or at least not rise and (b) banks had had their fingers burnt and so lending was much tighter. So banks wouldn't lend enough for the average person to buy a street even if they thought they could afford it (or indeed could afford it).

In the early 90's, from my experience as a 20 something, renting was mainly 'Rising Damp' type stuff, lodgings in a house owned by old people who liked cooking cabbage (that was my experience), owning, or council accomodation.
From personal recollection, renting 'nice places to live' was more expensive that buying...someone can correct me if that wasn't officially the case.

Currently, renting is cheaper than buying if most of the house is on a loan.


I come from the 'Rent is dead money ' generation and when we moved fpr work reasons and chose (well sort of...it turned out like that) to rent, instead of selling and buying, all my 'Modest, suburban, Middle England' aquaintances didn't get it......esp as there was the whole MEW thingy to put a deposit down trend going on at the time.

I am in a different situation, but, currently live in a house that we couldn't afford to buy (if sold and did price for price) so, bit of a good deal at the moment.

I hate the inspections...I mean REALLY hate them....the 21 yr old and the clipboard, hiding the cat, feeling that the way I live is being inspected. Irrational I know...but it's how it makes me feel.

In the glass half full moments, I see it as a moment in time to be lived in for what it is.

You may have the same experience so that when you do buy....IF you need to compromise a little on what you get, the trade off is owning it (one day) and no inspections.

fc123

mr.broderick wrote: »

Sorry i just do not accept that.

Oh well.....perhaps I am missing something? This Internet Land is a strange place sometimes No offence to anyone on here...just how I see it.
But I don't want to go back to Telly Land and Real Life Land is over for another day......and I don't do Pretend Land (computer games etc)