How times have changed....

Davesnave

The_White_Horse wrote: »

this is what happens after 12 years of lefty rule. the country is bankrupt and house prices are 4 times what they should be. all this nonsense could have been stopped by Brown raising interest rates (he could have, even though bank of england is independent - yeah right). But he wante dto build his economy on debt. the man is a fool. and a liar.

I'm not arguing with your other points, but of the ten years during which the sale price of my house multiplied by 6 (1977 to 1987) eight of them were 'enjoyed' under a Tory government led by a certain M.Thatcher.

Apparently, it happens under 'righty' rule too.;)

ess0two

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Erm.

Well, no.

Ever wondered why you bulls want to keep ramping the market? Surely it's so you can keep those who can't afford to buy a home in your rentals?

Pathetic post by the way.

Thanks for the insult...........still stand by what i posted,either cut the apron strings early,or save then cut em but dont complain if you failed to prepare/save a deposit.

Anyone still living at home at 35 is destined to stay there,embarrassing otherwise at that age.

I've said it plenty of times also, 3 bed semis local to me can be had for £80k.

Graham_Devon

ess0two wrote: »

Thanks for the insult...........still stand by what i posted,either cut the apron strings early,or save then cut em but dont complain if you failed to prepare/save a deposit.

Anyone still living at home at 35 is destined to stay there,embarrassing otherwise at that age.

I've said it plenty of times also, 3 bed semis local to me can be had for £80k.

But why do you think first time buyers are sitting at home with their parents at 35?

What makes you think the bulk are not in rentals.

One minute the bulls are saying "oh no, you should have two incomes to buy a house", then next, you are now suggesting these people are living at home with their parents, suggesting first time buyers are single, or, have not had the thought to move in together prior to buying.

Your local area means nadda.

ess0two

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But why do you think first time buyers are sitting at home with their parents at 35?

What makes you think the bulk are not in rentals.

One minute the bulls are saying "oh no, you should have two incomes to buy a house", then next, you are now suggesting these people are living at home with their parents, suggesting first time buyers are single, or, have not had the thought to move in together prior to buying.

Your local area means nadda.

May mean nadda to you,but there is affordable housing out there,aint my problem if people happen to live in high priced areas.

If i'd have saved and stayed at home till 35,i'd have amassed 13yrs of savings,easily 3-5k a year could have been saved.

Graham_Devon

ess0two wrote: »

May mean nadda to you,but there is affordable housing out there,aint my problem if people happen to live in high priced areas.

If i'd have saved and stayed at home till 35,i'd have amassed 13yrs of savings,easily 3-5k a year could have been saved.

IF you had stayed at home. The same as IF those other people had stayed at home.

Point is, unless you can give me some hard facts that these people are sat at home under their parents roof and not renting as a single / couple, you are talking nonsense.

You have basically suggested that the reason for first time buyers being around 35 is that they are sat in their parents house wasting money.

Facts or evidence please, as you are talking rubbish here. Thats not an insult, but you are!

Yakubu22

loueyn wrote: »

My parent bought their first house for £3500. They were earning 1800 and 2100 a year each.

Now I earn 18000, my partner earns 21000, if the stick a nought on it logic applies the same house would now cost £35000. The one next door just sold for £105,000. Madness.

Exactly right...My parents paid the same amount for their first home.
I wish I could buy the equivalent house in todays market for the combined income of my partner and I.

Basically trying to find a 2 Bed Semi in a nice location for £55K is just impossible. But yet some people tell us this is a myth and people have always borrowed 3-5x their combined salaries for a mortgage

ess0two

Graham_Devon wrote: »

IF you had stayed at home. The same as IF those other people had stayed at home.

Point is, unless you can give me some hard facts that these people are sat at home under their parents roof and not renting as a single / couple, you are talking nonsense.

You have basically suggested that the reason for first time buyers being around 35 is that they are sat in their parents house wasting money.

Facts or evidence please, as you are talking rubbish here. Thats not an insult, but you are!

Softlad you claim,people are still at home at 35 not me,p rick thats an insult.

D1zzy

Yakubu22 wrote: »

Basically trying to find a 2 Bed Semi in a nice location for £55K is just impossible. But yet some people tell us this is a myth and people have always borrowed 3-5x their combined salaries for a mortgage

This an old faarts fact but: when we were looking for a mortgage in the 70s - 3x mans salary + woman's salary (maybe), was the max; you had to have been saving with the building society; and you had to apply at the beginning of the month 'cos once that month's funds were spent there was no more; so getting any morgage was difficult.

Oh and the mortgage rate was 15%

1echidna

Yakubu22 wrote: »

Exactly right...My parents paid the same amount for their first home.
I wish I could buy the equivalent house in todays market for the combined income of my partner and I.

Basically trying to find a 2 Bed Semi in a nice location for £55K is just impossible. But yet some people tell us this is a myth and people have always borrowed 3-5x their combined salaries for a mortgage

With an increasing affordability problem more people are not going to be able to buy equivalent houses to their parents. Many, as is common on the continent and elsewhere, are going to have accept living in flats. There is a genuine shortage of houses which will keep the relative house prices higher than forty years ago. How much higher prices will be, even allowing for some further falls, remains to be seen.

tommy75

The_White_Horse wrote: »

this is what happens after 12 years of lefty rule. the country is bankrupt and house prices are 4 times what they should be. all this nonsense could have been stopped by Brown raising interest rates (he could have, even though bank of england is independent - yeah right). But he wante dto build his economy on debt. the man is a fool. and a liar.

I agree, hes a useless idiot who only ever thought about his partys position in power. After massive sums of money injected into the economy and bank bailouts for fun to stop the country going under, we are ment to thank him if he succeeds in stabilising the economy? Labour have saddled our country with massive debts in exchange for fake growth, give the man a medal.