In a muddle! No Cash Saved, need mortgage

tek-monkey

barnaby-bear wrote: »

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

I am a young person with student debt, I weighed that up before going to uni to decide if it was worth my time/money. Didn't everyone? The tenancy and rent controls issue was because of the government, why weren't a party to reverse this voted in? Because those eligible to vote didn't want them out (overall). Lax lending was a fault of the banks, but also surely responsibilty should fall to those who borrowed it? As for the pensions, property was going through the roof. What else were they meant to invest in? They had a duty to try to get the most return for the investment, which is what they did. Investments are not a sure thing.

Life is not under any one persons control, each persons decisions impact on those around them. Its life, you roll with it or get knocked down. It might not be 'fair', but its just how it is.

barnaby-bear

tek-monkey wrote: »

I am a young person with student debt, I weighed that up before going to uni to decide if it was worth my time/money. Didn't everyone? The tenancy and rent controls issue was because of the government, why weren't a party to reverse this voted in? Because those eligible to vote didn't want them out (overall). Lax lending was a fault of the banks, but also surely responsibilty should fall to those who borrowed it? As for the pensions, property was going through the roof. What else were they meant to invest in? They had a duty to try to get the most return for the investment, which is what they did. Investments are not a sure thing.

Life is not under any one persons control, each persons decisions impact on those around them. Its life, you roll with it or get knocked down. It might not be 'fair', but its just how it is.

So why have any controls - why can your LL not give you a week's notice? Why 2 months - it used to be they could never make you move, and rental market was limited..... is 2 months the right level? Why have safety and minimum standards in rental if you believe in a free market?

People make the best of things if they can but a wider debate on the laws/limits of society is surely healthy?

barnaby-bear

tek-monkey wrote: »

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.

True - neighbours from hell when renting? Off like a shot... young, carefree wealth of job opportunities move to every exciting place for 6 months.... moderate income, couple of kids in school catchment though and the needs may be different....

tek-monkey

Obviously we need some stability, moving house can't be done overnight. Its a balance between the needs of a tennant and the needs of the landlord, which is why both must give notice. They want someone in long term, you want to stay long term. A period must be agreed on that allows you to move out when needed, but allows the landlord to find a new tennant whilst you do so. A month seems fine to me, any changes should be reflected from both parties though.

Failing that, let the state own the property and charge us all rent? That'd be fairer, and a good income generator for the government. They sold off what they could years ago though to make short term gains.

Fly_Baby

Renting short term may be unavoidable but it is not right, IMHO, to judge only by convenience. I.e. renting is convenient because everything if LL's responsibility, you can get up and move at any time etc. But we all are encouraged to invest in future and make financial provisions for older life, i.e. make en effor and make sacrifices in order to ensure that you are well provided for future. Is it clever then to steer clear of commitment by not buying house and securing a place to live for your family?

Renting is expensive in the areas where houses are expensive. I.e. it is not much cheaper to rent if you cannot afford to buy - £1200-1500 pcm for an average 3-bed house if a lot of money to give away monthly.

tek-monkey

Then move somewhere cheaper?

dopester

Fly_Baby wrote: »

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.

No.. haven't bought. Still armed with my deposit, renting, and watching property values crash.

House I'm sweet on buying has been reduced by £60,000 over the last 18 months and the owner still hasn't sold. Rents for near identical house on same street were £1200 pcm.. now £950 pcm as the landlord has reduced price in order to try and attract a tenant.

So renting is fine for me. It is paying rent whilst gaining by watching property values become ever more affordable.

I'd have been a bit stupid to have bought when the seller was asking £60K more than they are now... then over the lifetime of a 25 year mortgage having to repay essentially about £120K in repayment on that extra money borrowed in interest.

Renting is for winners.

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.

Fly_Baby

tek-monkey wrote: »

Then move somewhere cheaper?

And spend hundreds of pounds and hours commuting to work daily? Not to mention uprooting kids, changing schools, leaving friends behind? Sometimes there is just no other way than either a big rent or a big mortgage. When that's the choice then the big mortgage is a more sensible solution in the long prospect.

barnaby-bear

Fly_Baby wrote: »

And spend hundreds of pounds and hours commuting to work daily? Not to mention uprooting kids, changing schools, leaving friends behind? Sometimes there is just no other way than either a big rent or a big mortgage. When that's the choice then the big mortgage is a more sensible solution in the long prospect.

you forgot about cutting ties with your family and grandparents - plus the benefits of moving to a cheap area (which will be cheap because a) really bad b) there's no work))

tek-monkey

Then you need a better job, or a smaller house. If you can't provide for yourself, then who should be doing it? Living beyond your means is nobodys fault but your own, you can't expect to just be lent money because you want it. Thats kinda why the country is so screwed as it is.

The way I see it, people like us have 3 options:
1) Stay renting where you are, never manage to save for a deposit.
2) Rent somewhere else cheaper, save for the deposit then buy.
3) Pray someone brings back 100% mortgages.

I went for 2, cut my costs and am reducing my debt. In 5 years time I'll be debt free and have a deposit, I may even pay back my student loans! If I chose 1 or 3 I'd still be in the same situation in 5 years time, hoping someone will lend me some money.