Proposed mortgage cap 'suicidal' say 'property experts'

Really2

piggeh wrote: »

phew, well I'm glad I put 'appearing to' I know what you're saying. Still, if they can 'just' outperform a single person that's ok with me :cool:

(I have probably contradicted myself with that statement now..)

Sorry It is just this as rumbled on so long I am still strugling myself to remember what I was saying.:)

Really2

chopperharris wrote: »

True singles have more to spend , thats what I said , theres less overheads.So they spend it on what they want , not what they need ie nappies , kids clothes etc.But they do still have standing orders for the same things are families , just not in the same amount.

sorry you are wrong , utilities are more for families as is the cost of feeding more than one person.Council tax is less for singles , electricity and gas is less on a sinlge persons flat than say a family home.

so you agree familys should be able to get a better multiple on a longer term or they will have to live in smaller accomodation than single people.;)

(we were saying single people could get the same mortgage as couples so surely they would have the same size homes, so not comparing a flat and a 3 bed semi )

Do singles have more to spend or do they just dispose money on going out and clothes etc?

dopester

whathavewedone wrote: »

So I'm afraid I don't agree that we should be dumped out on the street, put into emergency housing and owing the bank more money than we could hope to pay back in our lifetime. We don't owe a penny other than our mortgage. We saved hard for a good deposit.

You all want to believe that everyone who bought in the last 5 years has untold debt, borrowed 8 x income, lied about their income and had no deposit. Well it's not true. The majority are families just like us who wanted nothing more than a secure home for their children and didn't want to wait indefinitely for it. Why should we have done when we could afford to buy anyway?

I've read your post over a few times now - and don't really understand it.

Agreed about that natural progression, all for buying something which doesn't represent value - unless your own outlook saw house prices as sensible, and you could afford it.

You put down £100,000 and now an extra £16,000 to maintain LTV on a house? Around how much did you pay for this house?

You justify the purchase by having done your time in "grotty" rental properties (err freedom to choose somewhere nicer).

You're telling me about all you've spent from your own pocket on a bathroom, redecorating, re-plastering, electrical work? So?

Why should you lose your home? You might lose value, but you say yourself you could afford to buy at the price you were happy to.

piggeh

Really2 wrote: »

Sorry It is just this as rumbled on so long I am still strugling myself to remember what I was saying.:)

to recap :

- It's the immigrants fault, they should be paid less to make things fairer (dont ask how that works).
- The financial holocaust is coming so we should stock up on tinned fruit.
- The Lizard people will enslave us anyway.

Really2

piggeh wrote: »

to recap :

- It's the immigrants fault, they should be paid less to make things fairer (dont ask how that works).
- The financial holocaust is coming so we should stock up on tinned fruit.
- The Lizard people will enslave us anyway.

Not My words but that's what I hear on here..:D

chewmylegoff

Really2 wrote: »

So two people need to be in full time work to be able to just out perform a single person.(so in reality due to costs familys would have to buy smaller homes than single people due to other costs)

What happens when children come along.

£25K + £8K (part time) + 2 kids = £75K;)

Sorry 3X single or 2.25X joint plays stright in to the hands of single people unless couples work fulltime for life.

well, if that was true, the mortgages have always played into the hands of single people, as the multiples have always been lower for joint incomes.

hence your argument is not relevant to the proposal that a cap be placed on income multiples. your argument is with the long standing policy of the banks and building soceities to offer single people a higher multiple than a joint income (a sound, risk based policy - assuming the multiples are sensible).

plus, if you pick the right numbers, the situation reverses:

i.e. 2x average wage = £50k vs. 1x average wage = £25k.

2.25x £50k = £112,500
3x £25k = £75,000

i.e. the couple can borrow 50% more than the single, assuming everyone earns the same amount. if one of the couple doesn't work, they are on a level playing field with the single person, re: how much of a mortgage they can get.

Really2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

well, if that was true, the mortgages have always played into the hands of single people, as the multiples have always been lower for joint incomes.

hence your argument is not relevant to the proposal that a cap be placed on income multiples.

plus, if you pick the right numbers, the situation reverses:

i.e. 2x average wage = £50k vs. 1x average wage = £25k.
.

So why do so many say they are priced out by couples?

What so men and women get the same wage and do exactly the same jobs.

I take it you are not in a relationship or know people on a differnet wage than yourself.

I wish my wife earned the same as me but unfortunatly life is a hell of a lot different to averages

b0rker

I suspect that Gordon Brown and others are probably calling for all the major players to do a certain amount of gradual quantitative easing at this G20 meeting. If all the big players gradually do QE at the same time then we can acheive a slow deflation of the bubble along with an equilibrium in world currency strengths.

As I said on another thread if you go from 6x multiples and 125% mortgages one year to 3x multiples and 90% mortgages the next year then you are effectively crashing the housing market by at least 50% overnight. It would be political and financial lunacy. You would be looking at mass reposession/bankrupcy and trillions of pounds bad debt for the already massively endebted banks.

A slow deflation of the bubble is surely the more responsible action? I certainly do not go along with the mad bears (who want low house prices at any cost) who suggests that everyone who bought in the last 3/4 years deserve to be bankrupt because they were either not well informed enough, not clever enough or not clairvoyant enough to know what was round the corner.

MrDT

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Perhaps the government could also stipulate the price of cigarettes, alcohol, bread, milk, petrol, gas & electricity.

The government wouldn't be stipulating the price of a house, they'd be limiting levels of borrowing. We're no longer in the land of 100% ltv you know. They already control the price of fags booze and fuel to a similar degree, how much per litre is duty do you think?

If you want a more expensive house it's simple, save a bigger deposit, or earn a higher salary. Why should an unsustainable amount be lent to you to buy a house? What's wrong with saving up to buy things, why does everything have to be bought on tick?

The 'want it now' attitude in this country is laughable.

My aunt asked a few months ago if I had been to view any more houses recently, I said no, gonna save more before I bother with more viewings, looking to put down 25% as a deposit. She looked at me as though I were insane, that it simply couldn't be done. Thing is, add my savings to 'er indoors and we're already at around 40%, I'd just like to make it a round 25% each if you know what I mean.

My aunts son, on the other hand, is deep in negative equity already (to the tune of about 40k would be my guess) having bought last year. Aunt still thinks I'm worse off. Obviously her son is in a better position than me, he lives in "his own house", bricks an' mortar innit. I'm pitied for being a poor renter lol :rotfl: I'm happy to rent, I'll eventually buy a house that'll never give me sleepless nights, it won't ever be taken away from me.

wolvoman

All of this talk of income multiples is a bit pointless.

Before UK house prices even got anywhere near affordable for people with 3x salary and 10% deposits then foreign investors will already have snapped them up.

Or indeed foreign investors using mortgages at 4/5 x salary in their own countries.