The reason for my pessimistic thoughts

SandC

Many of the older generation even lived in one room of the house they bought and spent at least 5 years furnishing it. In many cases, the house was not fully furnished for more than 10 years as they bought things as and when they could afford it.

Really2

SandC wrote: »

Many of the older generation even lived in one room of the house they bought and spent at least 5 years furnishing it. In many cases, the house was not fully furnished for more than 10 years as they bought things as and when they could afford it.

Indeed I seem to remember my dad saying his first house may have been so many times his wage.

But nearly half of that wage was mortgage due to interest rates.

people forget prices are driven by affordable credit not really the wage.

Which is the more affordable

£75,000 at 14%

£151,000 at 5%

answer £151k by about £3 per month on repayment.

System

Really2 wrote: »

?

house price follow what people pay nothing else.

In a nutshell.

My parents paid eff all for their place as well. Times change.

2 choices, !!!! and moan about it and hope that prices come down or get on with my life.

Easy decision.

Conrad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We will have millions upon millions with no assets,

This is so wrong Graham, and an example of you not taking charge of your pessimism.

Step back a minute and think it through.

60 years ago most people rented and had no assets. We are immensly richer now and for the majority there is inheritance as thier parents life long worth trickles down.

the_ash_and_the_oak

not sure why people are comparing the struggles of the past to buy a house with the struggles of the present to buy a flat imo

the_ash_and_the_oak

Really2 wrote: »

Which is the more affordable

£75,000 at 14%

£151,000 at 5%

answer £151k by about £3 per month on repayment.

this is good point. feel the former is better than the latter even though the latter is cheaper.

5 years down the line I'd have punted on rates having come down from 14% (might even have side effect of increasing worth of the house), but 5 years down the line I'd be feeling rates might have gone up from 5% (which could also have detrimental effect on worth of house)

in the former example I'd be betting on a fall in rates and a rise in value

in the latter...not so much

Castleman

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I have worked since I was 18. So 10 years so far in full employment.

And I always pictured you as a retired old man.

Oops.

lilac_lady

It's become "uncool" to rent unless you're a bright young thing moving to a city. Britain has an obsession with owning property compared to other countries. There's a feeling that people have failed if they don't own a mortgage. (You don't own the property until the debt is paid off).

I'm mortgage free in retirement but my first mortgage was £13 per month - seems unbelievable but I still have the payment book. No direct debits, just a visit to the Building Society each month with a cash payment. If we felt we could afford it we paid more (£25 on several occasions). It was for a tiny flat, not a 4/5 bedroomed house with everything new in it.

Most people started like you Graham. Hopefully time will be on your side.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Indeed I seem to remember my dad saying his first house may have been so many times his wage.

But nearly half of that wage was mortgage due to interest rates.

people forget prices are driven by affordable credit not really the wage.

Which is the more affordable

£75,000 at 14%

£151,000 at 5%

answer £151k by about £3 per month on repayment.

No, answer 75k.

Why? Because people may actually be able to get that level of mortgage by working. Plus, 14% interest rates have happened how many times in the last century? go to 13%, also extremely rare, and the 75k is cheaper than the more normal 5%.

Castleman

nightsong wrote: »

The advertising industry has convinced so many people that the only way to be happy is to spend money. This is NOT TRUE.

http://www.storyofstuff.com/