Rabbit Hutch Britain

Pobby

julieq wrote: »

Someone saw them coming, because that's an atrocious mortgage deal.

But anyway, in ten years (assuming 3% annual inflation) when they might be considering children, their payments will be the equivalent of £750 today, and on an annualised HPI of 2% compounded they'll be sitting in a house worth just shy of £250K, so they'll already have £75K of equity. At the end of the 40 years with the same assumptions on HPI, they'll have £340K of house for which they'll have paid £500Kish, assuming they aren't earning enough at that point just to pay off the mortgage early. And this is with house prices losing 1% net on average in real terms!

In that period, assuming a rental of about a grand starters (which would be low for the SE), and 3% inflation, someone renting will have paid about £540K and have no asset. The cost of the rental after the 10 years period is about £1300pa.

Now forgive me, but I don't honestly see why you are criticising this couple. Even with a mortgage deal which is diabolically poor, they still win hands down over someone renting over the same period. They're over £380K better off in fact. And they don't have to worry about where they are going to live for the next 30 years or fund a pension that allows it.

I take your point. I just seems so young and so much money, let alone their ages.

PasturesNew

When I move, it'll be unfurnished. I plan on getting two pieces: A 3-part mattress from ikea for £30 http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/10082712
And a sun lounger for about £17 from a supermarket

... if I get the place I want.

I have a laptop table that can quadruple up as: eating table, laptop table, garden table, bedside table... £17 from ikea: http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/20078234

I'm easily pleased.

LilacPixie

I hate new build houses with a passion. I want a nice solid home with 3-4 bedrooms and ideally a drive/garage and an enclosed back garden for the kids 140k-180k depending on area and size. DH in contrast wants a shiney new build 200-250k depending on area/size. We looked at one 4 beds with garage and driveway £249950 but apparently price was negotiable :rolleyes:. Rooms were tiny, Garage was too small for a vectra-mondeo type family car and driveway would only hold one car (we have two). Furniture inside was tiny and garden to the real was too.

It was detatched but only around 5 feet between houses. only way to get to the back garden was throught the house and wheely bins were either kept on the driveway or you had to pull them through the house on bin day to take out to kerbside.

DH was told a resounding NO.

ninky_2

i know i'm a bit of an oddball but i'm personally getting sick of the built environment. personally i'd rather live in a teepee in a section of land than in these teeny tiny boxes in the sky and as soon as i've worked out a way to finance such a lifestyle i plan to do it.

bo_drinker

PasturesNew wrote: »

I was tempted to hide in the large understairs cupboard and shout "BOO" at the next people that came along.

That wasn't a cupboard it was another study

Running_Horse

Blame John Prescott. He was the one demanded a zillion houses per acre (while living in a mansion). Then blame local authorities demanding ever higher compensation to grant planning permission. Oh yes, and blame greedy developers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6797740.ece

Wish I could find that recent article showing a league table of new property sizes in Europe.

mizzbiz

And all the problems people have with them too. I mean, the point of buying new for many people is that lack of maintenance, but I don't think that's a given anymore. Anyone seen New Homes from Hell? They even have snagging action groups, such is the extent of the 'snagging' required.

At least with a Victorian terrace, you expect a few cracks in the walls and the pointing to be redone - but once it's been restored it lasts again as long as it already has. Give me proper bricks 'n ' mortar anyday over a £10 pile of plaster board and a postage stanp of land.

Running_Horse

Oh yes, and blame us for paying stupid amounts of money to live in modern slums.

Mr_Mumble

Prescott scheme is short on detail and long on promises

Friday, 19 July 2002

John Prescott has blamed decades of inaction for a crisis in housing as he outlined sweeping measures yesterday that he claimed would allow thousands of families to gain a foot on the property ladder.

He promised action to tackle the rocketing cost of homes in London and the South-east, while announcing a new scheme to support house building in the Midlands and the North, where the value of houses is often less than the cost of building them.

He estimated at least 200,000 new homes could be built in four areas around London: the Thames gateway in east London, Ashford in Kent, Milton Keynes, and an area between Stansted and Cambridge.

But new planning rules will insist on at least 30 new homes per hectare (two-and-a-half acres). Ministers want architects to respond with dynamic new designs to make better use of land without recreating tower blocks or back-to-back Victorian housing.

If you can't say something nice... Prescott is a ruinous idiot

bumpoowee

julieq wrote: »

Someone saw them coming, because that's an atrocious mortgage deal.

But anyway, in ten years (assuming 3% annual inflation) when they might be considering children, their payments will be the equivalent of £750 today, and on an annualised HPI of 2% compounded they'll be sitting in a house worth just shy of £250K, so they'll already have £75K of equity. At the end of the 40 years with the same assumptions on HPI, they'll have £340K of house for which they'll have paid £500Kish, assuming they aren't earning enough at that point just to pay off the mortgage early. And this is with house prices losing 1% net on average in real terms!

In that period, assuming a rental of about a grand starters (which would be low for the SE), and 3% inflation, someone renting will have paid about £540K and have no asset. The cost of the rental after the 10 years period is about £1300pa.

Now forgive me, but I don't honestly see why you are criticising this couple. Even with a mortgage deal which is diabolically poor, they still win hands down over someone renting over the same period. They're over £380K better off in fact. And they don't have to worry about where they are going to live for the next 30 years or fund a pension that allows it.

Lol. Your economic genius and business acumen are wasted on this website.