House Price Increases-what for?

JonnyBravo

chucky wrote: »

if you could buy a house at 2 times your income you'd be earning £80k.
are you saying you'd rather earn £35k instead of £80k?

No of course he's not. He's saying the opposite of that.

Why this should be news is beyond me however... and why he is running some mythical scenario where the only thing he alters is his wage and the one where he earns most is best is baffling. No !!!!!! Sherlock.

Really2

Wouldn't life be great if you could select a wage like GD does.

I am on £80K if I buy at 2X my salary, or £32K if I buy at 5X.

Why not earn £160K at 1X.

It's a cracker.

chucky

JonnyBravo wrote: »

No of course he's not. He's saying the opposite of that.

Why this should be news is beyond me however... and why he is running some mythical scenario where the only thing he alters is his wage and the one where he earns most is best is baffling. No !!!!!! Sherlock.

i know what he's saying and led him down that path on purpose.

he does have a point in a romantic ideal fantasy kind of way that houses could be 2 times todays salary

JonnyBravo

chucky wrote: »

i know what he's saying and led him down that path on purpose.

he does have a point in a romantic ideal fantasy kind of way that houses could be 2 times todays salary

Well to be fair in an idealistic way I agree with him.






For me I'd rank them like this.

1. It is most important to borrow as little as possible, regardless of the LTV. You pay interest proportional to the amount you borrow not to the LTV.
2. Then get the best interest rate you can. Of course I'm aware LTV can influence this and perhaps part of the reason GD is banging on about it I suppose.

You can't know that interest rates are going to remain low or indeed know that they are not going to drop further or rise higher, so just borrow as little as possible and continue to assess whether one can get better terms on the loan whilst paying it back.

Unfortunately it's coming across that GD would rather that house prices were lower so his LTV could be lower even if that meant interest rates were higher. Unfortunately you don't get to choose that...... not in any meaningful way anyhow..... you can not enter the market etc til your conditions are met but that's no real example of exercising choice in this matter.

chucky

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Well to be fair in an idealistic way I agree with him.



For me I'd rank them like this.

1. It is most important to borrow as little as possible, regardless of the LTV. You pay interest proportional to the amount you borrow not to the LTV.
2. Then get the best interest rate you can. Of course I'm aware LTV can influence this and hence why GD is banging on about it I suppose.

You can't know that interest rates are going to remain low or indeed know that they are not going to drop further, so just borrow as little as possible and continue to assess whether one can get better terms on the loan whilst paying it back.

Unfortunately it's coming across that GD would rather that house prices were lower so his LTV could be lower even if that meant interest rates were higher. Unfortunately you don't get to choose that...... not in any meaningful way anyhow..... you can not enter the market etc til your conditions are met but that's no real example of exercising choice in this matter.

totally agree - borrow as little as possible and pay as much back as quickly as possible with that little caveat. if you can get at a better interest rate on your savings than your mortgage borrow as much as possible.

System

JonnyBravo wrote: »

So you're saying you'd rather earn £80k than £32k.

:rolleyes:

Brilliant.

You really can't argue with logic like that.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

i know what he's saying and led him down that path on purpose.

he does have a point in a romantic ideal fantasy kind of way that houses could be 2 times todays salary

It's absolutely nothing to do with houses being 2x todays salary as you well know.

It was in response to you saying:

that's a bit one-dimensional though. mortgages rates were much higher when multiples were lower so affordability would have been tougher then probably.

ps. sorry Mr Ash just seen your post.

I refuted this using examples, (which you have simply turned into me saying I'm picking a wage) of LTV's vs salary.

The example used was your OWN figures, not mine. I wasn't picking anything. You picked the figures, I showed WHY I stated I would rather have high interest vs low multiple.

And here we are, all saying I'm suggesting stuff I never suggested, because quite simply, I proved my point as to why I would prefer high rate vs low multiple.

It's all got a bit silly from there on with aqusations and, well, stupidness.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And here we are again, all saying again that I'm suggesting stuff I never suggested once again, because quite simply, I proved my point.

i added a little bit for you :beer:

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

i added a little bit for you :beer:

Good for you.

Easier to make a load of cr*p up than to accept in affordability terms, a lower LTV with higher rates, as seen in the past, is easier than lower rates and higher LTV's.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Good for you.

Easier to make a load of cr*p up than to accept in affordability terms, a lower LTV with higher rates, as seen in the past, is easier than lower rates and higher LTV's.

you certainly are plucky - got to give you that. you trying to prove a fantasy argument that has no bearing at all on today or 20 years ago - you can't compare what you're saying but you insist on saying that others are making stuff up.

btw don't they have inflation or salary increases in your fantasy world?