A serious question for the Bears....

the_ash_and_the_oak

julieq wrote: »

If he had bought he'd be 6 years into paying off a 25 year term mortgage. It's nothing to do with rental yields, it's about the argument that paying off your own mortgage is financially more efficient than paying the same amount to a landlord over the same period.

As to the singleton thing, it's really not a question of whether that's good or bad, it's what happens unless you restrict mortgages to one salary only which isn't going to happen. You only fix that by rejigging the supply and demand, i.e. by reducing the population or building a lot more houses.

pretty sure you have to take into the account the interest paid during those 6 years tbh (it may be cheaper to pay a mortgage than rent for those 6 years, but it is not *necessarily* so imo)

SingleSue

Really2 wrote: »

We have a child my wife had the first year off and as gone back three days. We both home by 5:30pm.
You cope Graham that is life.
Children are not the massive drain on resources like many say. (in fact we are better off as we go for less nights out now)
soon the little one will qualify for the free child care places.

We live a good life and spend a lot of time with our child who is also able to learn more social skills at nursery for 3 days than he ever could at home (EG sharing, peer interaction etc.)
So I fail to see the point that the family unit is broken if some one does a part time job.
Some women actually want to feel they have a life and are not just secluded from the rest of the world after child birth.
We are social creatures, social interaction is the main point, so unless you want us to go back to having 9 children each and women are just baby machines I fail to see your point.
Times have changed, move on, the world will with or without you.

I'm in a quandry here as I agree with both you and Graham....life is not just about working just so you can buy a house, conversely, I also agree with your point that a fair few woman would go absolutely doo lally being forced to spend the time at home all the time and want to work.

I think the problem comes when both parties are needed to be working full time all the time to be able to afford that mortgage (albeit easier at the present time with low interest rates) but then I also agree with your point about the family unit not being broken with the female working (mind you, it didn't do mine any favours, he really resented the fact that I worked in the evening and he had to do the child care...oh and the fact that even doing part time, I still had the greater earning potential!)

Eldest went into day nursery whilst I worked when he was very young and it didn't do him any harm and did improve his socialisation..the problem came with the other two and their disabled status, the same problem I have now!

Anyway, not sure what my point was now....brain all over the place today due to lack of sleep and being over stressed.

Graham_Devon

SingleSue wrote: »

I think the problem comes when both parties are needed to be working full time all the time to be able to afford that mortgage (albeit easier at the present time with low interest rates) but then I also agree with your point about the family unit not being broken with the female working (mind you, it didn't do mine any favours, he really resented the fact that I worked in the evening and he had to do the child care...oh and the fact that even doing part time, I still had the greater earning potential!)

Thanks Sue, you have just picked up on the point I was making. I never said women couldnt go out to work, or shouldnt, or whatever. Never mentione broken families. Just said the "both couples should wok full time" bit to afford a home didn't really work in my view when you apply the myriad of life issues we all face, one being kids.

The others being illness, job losses, etc etc.

If one of the couple cannot work for any reason life throws at us, the whole thing fails.

SingleSue

Really2 wrote: »

I answered your very, very, simplistic point Graham.

Most budget for their wife to be off a year and then go back part time until children are older! (you do usualy plan having a child, then you have nearly 9 months to sort things out:))

Can you explain how they are back to one wage? I expect you to cross referance that to the average family income and average wage.
If you can prove that the average family income is virtually the same as the average single wage I will be very, very, surprised.

Lol, we didn't! He came as one big blooming shock bearing in mind I had been told 2 years earlier I couldn't have children at all!

Nice shock though......

Really2

SingleSue wrote: »

I
I think the problem comes when both parties are needed to be working full time all the time to be able to afford that mortgage (albeit easier at the present time with low interest rates)

I agree, it is not wise to over stretch yourself so you both scrape by just to buy/support a house.

But i think most when they have a family are pretty focused that family comes first.
if I stuggled and owned I would sell up and move to rented. Family always before anything else.

But I also think that the majority of owners are not having to work just to pay for the house (but then I don't live in the south)

chucky

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

think graham has wrong end of stick here tbf.

it's not the first or the last time :rolleyes:

chucky

SingleSue wrote: »

I'm in a quandry here as I agree with both you and Graham....life is not just about working just so you can buy a house, conversely, I also agree with your point that a fair few woman would go absolutely doo lally being forced to spend the time at home all the time and want to work.

I think the problem comes when both parties are needed to be working full time all the time to be able to afford that mortgage (albeit easier at the present time with low interest rates) but then I also agree with your point about the family unit not being broken with the female working (mind you, it didn't do mine any favours, he really resented the fact that I worked in the evening and he had to do the child care...oh and the fact that even doing part time, I still had the greater earning potential!)

Eldest went into day nursery whilst I worked when he was very young and it didn't do him any harm and did improve his socialisation..the problem came with the other two and their disabled status, the same problem I have now!

Anyway, not sure what my point was now....brain all over the place today due to lack of sleep and being over stressed.

do you think you'd be earning the same wages after 10 years of owning a house?

if not then affodability gets better...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chucky wrote: »

do you think you'd be earning the same wages after 10 years of owning a house?

if not then affodability gets better...

Exactly.

Buying a house is ALWAYS a stretch at first.

But with time, pay rises, and inflation, it gets easier.

You lock in the house at todays prices, and in a decade it seems cheap.

Buying a place for 50K/100K/150K/200K (depending on type/area) a decade ago would have seemed expensive then, today it's laughably cheap by comparison, and easy to service the mortgage.

julieq

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

pretty sure you have to take into the account the interest paid during those 6 years tbh (it may be cheaper to pay a mortgage than rent for those 6 years, but it is not *necessarily* so imo)

It's certainly cheaper to pay a mortgage over 25 years than to pay rent over a lifetime. Rents will rise with general inflation, mortgages just fluctuate on interest rates. Over time as a proportion of both take home salary and in real terms a mortgage repayment falls back quite quickly, but rental will always increase, and of course has to be funded into retirement.

Also to take the point that the idea of couples buying falls down if one partner can't work, that's rubbish. It just means that the load falls on the working partner, it's actually a very common circumstance. Mortgage approvals are based on a conservative view of affordability, 3x (ish) joint salary, which was established when rates were 7%+ (and indeed up to 15% as we're always being told). That doesn't mean they're not affordable if you don't have that level of joint income, it means that they have to be paid out of whatever income is available or from savings that have been built up.

Anyway as I say, it's not a question of good or bad, it's what people do, and while you are competing with joint applications in a situation of restricted supply prices will rise.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Also to take the point that the idea of couples buying falls down if one partner can't work, that's rubbish. It just means that the load falls on the working partner, it's actually a very common circumstance. Mortgage approvals are based on a conservative view of affordability, 3x (ish) joint salary, which was established when rates were 7%+ (and indeed up to 15% as we're always being told). That doesn't mean they're not affordable if you don't have that level of joint income, it means that they have to be paid out of whatever income is available or from savings that have been built up.

What are you on about, 3x salary?! Mortgage approvals based on this conservatilvely!? Just where on earth have you got this from!?

As for the rest.



Everything seems so darn perfect in the world of Julie!