CITY AM--- Housing no longer overvalued

geoffky

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Then does he have the mental capacity to manage his finance and mortgage payments, balance the books and ensure that he pays his bills on time?

The DFW and BR boards are filled with people who cant seem to manage this, yet have far more mentally demanding jobs than shelf stacking.

sorry harry i have just typed a big page of reply and my computer crashed :eek:

geoffky

andkn..has hit it on the head.. i know life is unfair but when you look at it something as basic as a roof over your head..i am sure we could do better..

Harry_Powell

geoffky wrote: »

sorry harry i have just typed a big page of reply and my computer crashed :eek:

LOL, no worries mate. I know that feeling

You just don't have the heart to re-type it again sometimes, do you and if you do, it's never as good as the original. What a nightmare.

geoffky

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I r.

You're confusing the right to have a home to live in, which I do beleive in, with the right for everyone to be able to buy a home, which I don't.

why.what makes you better than a service provider....where you born different to them.why should they not be able to buy as it seems a very elitist view to me.

i am not saying everyone should have everything but a basic as a secure roof over your head to me is not much to ask in life..maybe one day all basic housing will be affordable but at the moment its not and for me that is a sad reflection on our society..

chucky

geoffky wrote: »

andkn..has hit it on the head.. i know life is unfair but when you look at it something as basic as a roof over your head..i am sure we could do better..

i don't think anyone ever disagreed with you.

the amount of social housing doesn't help.

wolvoman

geoffky wrote: »

why.what makes you better than a service provider....where you born different to them.why should they not be able to buy as it seems a very elitist view to me.

Everyone is able to buy.

Whether everyone is able to afford is a different matter.


In my opinion everyone has the right to eat food, drink water, have warmth and have shelter. Whether they rent or own that shelter is entirely up to them. And if they can't afford to buy it then they can rent it, either from social or from private sources. In the UK people will even get help paying for that shelter if they can't afford it.

I can't see what the problem is. Houses can't be priced for minimum wage people to buy them because they'd be so cheap that rich people would buy 10 of them straight away.

Graham_Devon

To be honest, most of the problems could be sorted out, from a "population" type viewpoint.

Just limit mortgages to 3.5x a single salary, and 1x for joint.

And regulate BTL in a more stringent way. I.e. if you want to go into BTL, fine, but I do believe we need better conditions for tennants.

This way, the single person, or single earning couple, won't be at such a disadvantage. The working couple will be on the same footing, but can afford to save a larger deposit for a nicer home if they wish. The rich can buy homes outright if they wish.

I doubt the financial world, or investors, however, would like this that much. And to be honest, it could be viewed as a little socialist in it's thinking, but I do believe it would sort out a hell of a lot of the problems we are facing today. Not that I think such a thing would happen in todays society. The banks nearly cried that we were paying down our debts.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

wolvoman wrote: »

I can't see what the problem is. Houses can't be priced for minimum wage people to buy them because they'd be so cheap that rich people would buy 10 of them straight away.

You hit the nail on the head with that one.....

You cannot price an entire asset class to the lowest of earners.

Its why prices were never going to crash by 70%, or 90%, or all the other mentalist TFH theories.

If prices of flats round here dropped by 70%, I'd buy 3 in cash, and stick another two on a credit card.

Almost everyone I know would do the same. Hence the reason why prices can never fall that far.

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

i do understand your point but it stayed at 15 for 8 months and didn't go under 10% for nearly 3 years.

that wouldn't have been a cheap mortgage

actually kinda feeling this is pretty cheap seeing the interest payments reduced by a third within 3 years imo

the_ash_and_the_oak

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Whereas the one that started at 6%, dropped to 1%, and didn't go above 5% for another 5 years would be one of the cheapest mortgages in history....:D

The savings for anyone that took out a tracker in 2007 will more than pay for the small drops in average prices experienced by most people to date, versus those who bought a little cheaper but got stuck with higher rates.

see where you're going w this but fact remains the cheaper interest meant higher purchase price and amount outstanding after the 5 years. in the hypothetical situation the former person has much lower capital to pay off at now around 8% than the latter - both are only 5 years into their mortgage w not that much capital paid off

the person borrowing at 6 then 1 then 5 admittedly better off than the person borrowing at 1 then 5 tho