Fantasy house prices

kataklysm

leveller2911 wrote: »

The PROBLEM I have with it is many,many people gambled in the last 18-24 months borrowing 125% on interest only which was totally f eckless and because of them my savings rates like many others have fallen through the floor.
As far as I'm concerned people can borrow what they like, just don't make the rest of us pay for their c*ck ups......;):rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure that nothing in my post referred to 125% mortgages... in fact didn't I say the word 'deposit' twice? Still, I bet you were quite happy with the 125% mortgages whilst your savings were earning 10%... that's got nothing to do with FTBs I'm afraid, and everything to do with financial mismanagement by the banks and the regulators. No one forced them to offer huge mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.

The fact remains that with a 20% deposit now, you can still quite easily buy a house if you earn an average salary. And that's why prices are what they are.

phil_b_2

StevieJ wrote: »

In English, the noun mathematics takes singular verb forms. It is often shortened to maths, or math in English-speaking North America. ...

Lets not take things to the grammar gutter again.

JonnyBravo

LydiaJ wrote: »

You make owning a home out to be something that can only be achieved if you don't put a foot wrong:

Form stable relationship young and stay together
Both partners get (and keep) well-paying jobs
Buy house young
Pour all excess income into house for a few years
Have kids only if/when mortgage manageable

OR

Be born before 1975 and buy before 2002

If you missed out on the second option and "fail" on any single part of the first option - eg don't meet partner until older, lose job, have kids too soon, split up from partner, etc - well then, tough, you don't deserve to be able to buy.

I accept that that is how it is at the moment. But just because it's worked out OK for you, doesn't mean that everyone will agree with you that it's OK for society. Some of us would like to see a society where home ownership isn't limited to such a small elite.

I agreed with all your post right until the last bit.

"Small elite"????

Do you know how many people own their own house?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

macaque wrote: »

Mortgage repayments as a percentage of income are 7% different to the 27 year average; even though the 27 year average base rate is more than 1000% higher than today's levels. That is a jaw dropping statistic.

It would be if it was remotely accurate, monkeyboy.

Average mortgage payments for new borrowers are at 30% of after tax income, versus a long term average of 37%.

But new borrowers are paying essentially the same rates as they were in 2007. When base rates were 1000% higher.

The base rate has had almost no impact on mortgage rates for new borrowers.

macaque_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It would be if it was remotely accurate, monkeyboy.

Average mortgage payments for new borrowers are at 30% of after tax income, versus a long term average of 37%.

But new borrowers are paying essentially the same rates as they were in 2007. When base rates were 1000% higher.

The base rate has had almost no impact on mortgage rateans for new borrowers.

Despite the fact that you are wrong, I love the passion and enterprise of your rebuttals. You put many bears and bulls to shame.

StevieJ

phil_b wrote: »

Lets not take things to the grammar gutter again.

Nothing to do with grandma, it is a spelling that is used in the US, which may suggest you are from there.
Elementary my dear Phil

phil_b_2

oh god no, not a yank (or septic as you say). It was the septic thing that confused me the most. not heard that one. Wasnt sure if you were being a meanie.

StevieJ

macaque wrote: »

Mortgage repayments as a percentage of income are 7% different to the 27 year average; even though the 27 year average base rate is more than 1000% higher than today's levels. That is a jaw dropping statistic.

But it is surely the average mortgage rate that is relevant here not base rate

StevieJ

phil_b wrote: »

oh god no, not a yank (or septic as you say). It was the septic thing that confused me the most. not heard that one. Wasnt sure if you were being a meanie.

http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/slang/sceptic_tank

julieq

leveller2911 wrote: »

The PROBLEM I have with it is many,many people gambled in the last 18-24 months borrowing 125% on interest only which was totally f eckless and because of them my savings rates like many others have fallen through the floor.
As far as I'm concerned people can borrow what they like, just don't make the rest of us pay for their c*ck ups......;):rolleyes:

Errm, the reason interest rates are low is NOT because of 125% mortgages in the UK, it's NOT because of interest only mortgages (if that is a problem it'll be a problem in 20 odd years) it's because of reckless lending in the US which brought the banking system to the edge of the abyss. Lending to people who could NEVER pay back their loans under any circumstances to create a debt based product to sell on to others.

And if above inflation house price rises are unsustainable, so are above inflation interest rates on savings. Where, as the bears are fond of asking, does the money for that come from?