What is a "starter home"

Really2

Other - Explained.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Glad you posted then roseland. Seems we can't be the same person then as Really2 seems to be suggesting as, god damn, we share the same opinion.

Just thought it was a coinsidence as roseland is in devon and you loged off when they started laying it on about bedsits.

A subject no one mentioned.

I just thought it odd you have a fan:)

chucky

1 bed flat / Bedsit i.e. small flat.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And I do not believe either that it works that way, i.e. 2 wages x 2 each.

it did on your mortgage calculator that you showed us all yesterday.

it also allowed for 5x income - i'll revise that to:

1 person earning £25k = £125k mortgage at 5x salary
2 people earnig £25k each = £300k mortgage at 5x salary

you can buy a starter home or a two bed - if you want to that is...

IveSeenTheLight

roseland69 wrote: »

To some extent it is human nature to have dreams that perhaps are just that, dreams. No doubt there are people who EXPECT to get something for nothing. You read in the papers about kids getting £20 a week pocket money and new cars for their birthday and that kind of nonsense. I don't see that as a good thing. I see that as an extreme.

What I'm talking about a hard working person earning a decent wage being able to buy a modest place for his or herself, perhaps to start a family. Why should owning a modest home be a "dream" for the average working person? Why should that be a "high" expectation?

Sometimes progress is good. Years ago people didn't have inside toilets. they didn't expect to. They would go on out to the outide loo - normally a shed with a seat over a hole. But over time people started getting proper sanitation and plumbing inside their homes. Their standard of living improved. And inside loos became the norm. And now who would expect to find a home without an inside loo?

Likewise (and I agree) Yes, expectations have got bigger since the time when my parents first bought. But I see that as a GOOD thing. Because before that the expectation was for them to be beholden to a wealthy landlord who could, if they wanted, kick them out on a whim. There was no stability in that. Historially of course, you got "good" landlords and "bad" ones. Bad ones were known to clear a whole villiages so they could extend the boundaries of their Capability Brown garden. Good ones "looked after" their tenants and would come around and visit their "people". How nice.

So I'm sticking with my point that expectations are falling. Rapidly. Most 25 year olds I know (and I know a few as my brother in law is that age as are his mates) is that they've not a hope in hell of EVER buying anything, ever. Living in London. They all work and earn decent salaries. So I think is a shame that The option isn't there for them any more. The only people happy about that are landlords.

Just the same as it ever was then.

We are regressing, not progressing. We need to find a middle ground where average people can have an expectation (and not feel ashamed of that expection!) of owning a modest home to have a family. I see nothing wrong in that at all.

No problems with dreams, desires and goals for a better life, this is good.

I don't agree that people should expect these better things.

Like you infered, society has changed by giving excess pocket money, cars etc.
Because the younger generation in general have been given more, they expect more

Progress is good, a better life is good, just dont expect it, go out and earn it.

Really2

Other - Explained.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not everyone earns 25k. Therefore some people will be able to buy on their own, some not. We are living in a society now where less and less are buying as couples anyway.

!

what? more people buy as couples not less, go back 40-50 years and a woman would not get a mortgage as they would be a house wife.

If you believe less and less are buying as couples you are in a different world to me.

Graham_Devon

1-2 bed house / 2 bed flat

roseland69 wrote: »

When we bought it was

1 wage x 3.5 (i.e 30K x 3.5 =£105K
2 wages x 3. (i.e 30K + 20K x 3 = £150K)

When I was looking it seemed to be 3x (or in those days 6x!) the main wage, and then the second wage x 1.

So say main wage = 20k, it was 20k x3 = 60k

Then second wage of 16k x 1 = £76k.

All figures just for examples.

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This thread wasn't about what the starter home should be, rather what people see as a starter home, as as you know, I seemed to be the only one on the other thread and I couldn't quite believe it. Least I know now, I'm not the only one, infact, in the majority!

A starter home is whatever you can afford to get "started".

A couple can afford more, so a starter home is different for a couple.

This doesn't work if you do not agree with the first sentence.

Can't make it any clearer.

Graham_Devon

1-2 bed house / 2 bed flat

Really2 wrote: »

what? more people buy as couples not less, go back 40-50 years and a woman would not get a mortgage as they would be a house wife.

If you believe less and less are buying as couples you are in a different world to me.

Let's do the twist

I said less and less. Not that the figures ARE less, just less people are buying as couples.

Simples!

Remmeber guys, no one is right here. No one is wrong. It's opinions only

Really2

Other - Explained.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Let's do the twist

I said less and less. Not that the figures ARE less, just less people are buying as couples.

Simples!

Have you been drinking?
If less and less are buying as couples the figures would be less!

Graham_Devon

1-2 bed house / 2 bed flat

Really2 wrote: »

Have you been drinking?
If less and less are buying as couples the figures would be less!

Jesus.

It's the most simple of analogies. I'm sure you are just trying to twist things to make out I'm wrong, as I don't believe you don't get that really simple analogy.

Really2

Other - Explained.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Jesus.

It's the most simple of analogies. I'm sure you are just trying to twist things to make out I'm wrong, as I don't believe you don't get that really simple analogy.

simple in what way.

Are you saying less people are buying as couple because of the current market EG less people buying all together? (would that not be the same for singles etc and just a compleatly rubish false statement as it is the % what counts)

I really don't understand what you are saying at all because the statement you have made does not make sense.