In a muddle! No Cash Saved, need mortgage

tek-monkey

I know what you're saying is true in essence, but in my experience it doesn't happen that often. I have never been asked to leave a property, neither have any of my friends or family. How often do people really get moved on, against their will?

Fly_Baby

tek-monkey wrote: »

As for what they do when they no longer earn, they go into the benefits system. Isn't that what a huge proportion of my tax goes towards? How would they pay their mortgage if they no longer earned? Its not a free ride.

If one takes a mortgage they usually have 25 years to repay it. WIth the pension age of 65 years, there is plenty of time to pay off the mortgaged house completely. Whereas with renting, it is always paying and never gaining.

barnaby-bear

tek-monkey wrote: »

I know what you're saying is true in essence, but in my experience it doesn't happen that often. I have never been asked to leave a property, neither have any of my friends or family. How often do people really get moved on, against their will?

6 times in 4 years - but I live in an accommodation shortage area - with a lot of short term landlords, people moving abroad for a year or so (big research university), property was going through the roof - lots of cashing in.... we didn't have kids and a couple of times it was 'choice' to move to avoid lousy LL lack of repair issues. But when you have to move because your LL's getting divorced and needs to cash in the asset for the pay off - you kind of feel your life is at the whim of theirs....

tek-monkey

Fly_Baby wrote: »

If one takes a mortgage they usually have 25 years to repay it. WIth the pension age of 65 years, there is plenty of time to pay off the mortgaged house completely. Whereas with renting, it is always paying and never gaining.

But what if you cannot afford to repay it? People should not expect to just buy a house with no deposit, it is a huge sum of money to borrow without any collateral. Thats the problem nowadays, people just expect credit regardless of their situation. The banks are at fault for lending out to people who can't afford to borrow, but there has to be some form of personal responsibility. Its not the banks fault that people want what they can't have, its just their fault for helping them get it.

Want a nice house? Get a good job. Want a nicer house? Get a better job. If you can't, whose fault is that really? Its your life, take some control of it and steer it where you want it to go. Otherwise you are making a mockery of all those who have bettered themselves to better their situation, all those who have accepted temporary hardship to further their longterm prospects. All those with the balls to actually try, rather than sit scratching their bums watching jeremy kyle waiting for things to improve. Necessity breeds invention, yet this generation expect everything on a plate.

Failing that, move to a country that supports you in the way you expect to be supported. If they wont have you, question why.

For the record, I can't afford to buy. I'd love to, I just can't. I fail to see why that is anyones fault but my own though?

tek-monkey

barnaby-bear wrote: »

6 times in 4 years - but I live in an accommodation shortage area - with a lot of short term landlords, people moving abroad for a year or so (big research university), property was going through the roof - lots of cashing in.... we didn't have kids and a couple of times it was 'choice' to move to avoid lousy LL lack of repair issues. But when you have to move because your LL's getting divorced and needs to cash in the asset for the pay off - you kind of feel your life is at the whim of theirs....

OK, admit that situation sucks! I can see why you'd want the stability, but it's not something you have a right to. Thats just life, **** as it is. The capitalist system we live in is not fair, in that we are not all equal. I can't see another system that actually functions though, so we're stuck with it for now. I don't pretend to like it, I just accept it because there is very little possibility of change:(

barnaby-bear

tek-monkey wrote: »

OK, admit that situation sucks! I can see why you'd want the stability, but it's not something you have a right to. Thats just life, **** as it is. The capitalist system we live in is not fair, in that we are not all equal. I can't see another system that actually functions though, so we're stuck with it for now. I don't pretend to like it, I just accept it because there is very little possibility of change:(

I don't think it's a 'right' to own but we have tenant laws as it is to protect people and to set a moral and legal right and to engineer to some extent what is right for society - my view is that a little more security and a tweaking of the basics of tenancies in private rentals would be a good thing (and have the added benefit of making homes less of an investment vehicle for financial basketcases)

Fly_Baby

dopester wrote: »

I don't need lectures from someone about the unfairness of not owning, when I've saved hard for many years for my deposit, in order to buy. That is because I'm in the real world whereas you're championing all peoples right to own who have no savings and no job.

Hang on - now who is lecturing? I didn't mean that OP has the right to own at this point of his life and neither did the OP - he just asked if that's feasible for him right now. If you care to read my second post in this thread I put that it is a common knowledge that the mortgage instrument exists for people with savings and income.

I worked hard too as did my husband and we saved over £70K over 7 years in order to be able to buy in our area where 3-bedroom houses go at £225K plus. So I know very well about affordability and effort. You bought your house but still for some reason advocate renting as a normal way of life - spending hard-earned money helping other people pay off their mortgages and own that house.

barnaby-bear

tek-monkey wrote: »

Failing that, move to a country that supports you in the way you expect to be supported. If they wont have you, question why.

For the record, I can't afford to buy. I'd love to, I just can't. I fail to see why that is anyones fault but my own though?

But there are facotrs that affect you over which you have no control but to an expent have been political policy (something that countries and societies do change or do differently):
-young people with student debt
-removing tenancy protections and rent controls in 1997 made BTL a viable investment
- lax credit lending fueled the boom
- pension policies made people invest in property

Fly_Baby

tek-monkey wrote: »

But what if you cannot afford to repay it? People should not expect to just buy a house with no deposit, it is a huge sum of money to borrow without any collateral. Thats the problem nowadays, people just expect credit regardless of their situation.

That is wrong, nobody questions that. You need to save first to get a decent deposit. You need secure job. Which is why I have been waiting 7 years for a chance to buy whilst listening to other peoples nudging "you've got to settle down, what are you waiting for"?

Yes, lending should be responsible and people should be responsible. But there are risks in any situation and if things become worse and you have a mortgage then at least you know that you are killing yourself making these extra money for YOUR house, your property, your asset, something that stays with you and that you will pass to your children, to make it a bit easier for them to buy their house. Whereas with renting, again, if you are living through hard times you are just doing it to stay afloat. You have risks with ownership but you have a fair chance of owning the place in the end of it. With renting, you are never going to gain everything.

tek-monkey

But if you rent and things go bad, you can walk with no responsibility. Downsize, its the landlords problem not yours. Both sides have their benefits.

If you can afford to, then buy. If you are considered a good risk in the current economic climate someone will lend to you, so take the money and buy. If they won't, there must be a reason.