A quarter of home owners live on 'financial precipice'

silvercar

Mr.Brown wrote: »

Is it a double whammy - less income combined with restrictive lending?

And lurking under all this is the small matter of the biggest bubble ever in the history of UK house prices.

Now common sense tells me one thing. What does it say to those of you who have not got an iota of intelligence?

For a lot of people it has been swings and roundabouts rather than a double whammy.

Less income combined with the lowest mortgage rates in history. Remember there are a whole host of people out there on life time trackers, some BOE and some SVRs. Both historically low.

ukcarper

carolt wrote: »

I do think it's likely that those who inflated their income ended up with a mortgage that is too expensive for them, yes.

Isn't that common sense?

And that was too expensive for them from the start - let alone if any unforeseen events occur.

As the age range is 35 to 44 wouldn’t it be fair to assume that a reasonable percentage of the people who inflated their salary would have done it say 10 years ago and could now be earning in excess of what they claimed to be earning then.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hang on....

I do not have to take into account wage inflation. Wage inflation, also, is not guaranteed.

So are fuel (household currently falling by 10%) and food so do you not include them in averages also? (even though average wage inflation is 2% at the moment.)

What is your point GD? are you saying your last post was twaddle.

Why are you so desperate for people to be in trouble? I would like to know Because the article does not indicate any of them currently are in trouble.
Even though it is a motivated (paid for) survey what do you think it means?

What % of these people will actually default and why will they becasue I have been told is the 26% of 35-44 year olds could default if their income went down by £300 based on today.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

So are fuel (household currently falling by 10%) and food so do you not include the in averages? (even though average wage inflation is 2% at the moment.)

What is your point GD? are you saying your last post was twaddle.

Why are you so desperate for people to be in trouble? I would like to know Because the article does not indicate any of them currently are in trouble.
Even though it is a motivated (paid for) survey what do you think it means?

What % of these people will actually default and why will they becasue I have been told is the 26% of 35-44 year olds could default if their incoe went down by £300.

Hehe, I love it when you start this.

1. Where have I suggested, said, or even hinted that I want to see people in trouble? Is it because I didn't agree with your seriously blind optimism on those figures?

I haven't been involved in this apart from your £300 stuff.

2. My point was, your £300 stuff was utter twaddle.

As for the rest of your questions, I have no idea, like I say, I haven't been involved in this thread. Just found your twisting of the £300 situation admirable and funny enough for me to respond.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

As the age range is 35 to 44 wouldn’t it be fair to assume that a reasonable percentage of the people who inflated their salary would have done it say 10 years ago and could now be earning in excess of what they claimed to be earning then.

Not really. The average first time buyer is 34. So based on that and averages, they won't have bought 10 years ago. Not as a whole group....the upper end of the group maybe.

treliac

lemonjelly wrote: »

In example, january always used to be a very quiet month up to the very last week when the credit card bills hit the doormat & people realised how much they'd spent over christmas & in january sales). Recently that has changed - people started coming in december time to book appointments for january as they knew they were about to overspend, & wanted to get in there quick!

We seem to have reached an all time low in personal responsibility if people intentionally overspend, whilst having it all planned out to be early in the queue, post-spend, for bail-out help. :eek:

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hehe, I love it when you start this.

1. Where have I suggested, said, or even hinted that I want to see people in trouble? Is it because I didn't agree with your seriously blind optimism on those figures?

I haven't been involved in this apart from your £300 stuff.

2. My point was, your £300 stuff was utter twaddle.

1) oh so your not talking about the tread.

2) It is not my point but the survey.

I posted

Really2 wrote: »

26% Of 35-44 year old home owners can save up to £300 per month.

74% can save more than £300 per month.

Based on the survey how is it factually incorrect based on today's data.
Remember this is based on the article.. What the thread is about.

Go on prove it wrong form the article, show me my error?

PS
I don't think the above is correct but it is correct if you only look at the data from the poll.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not really. The average first time buyer is 34. So based on that and averages, they won't have bought 10 years ago. Not as a whole group....the upper end of the group maybe.

No its currently under 30. I am mid 30's and purchase nearly 10 years ago.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2316293&highlight=

People buying their first home were aged 27 on average in the north of England and in Yorkshire and Humberside.
Those in the North paid an average deposit of 19%, the figures showed.
First-time buyers were oldest on average in Greater London at 30, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) said.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not really. The average first time buyer is 34. So based on that and averages, they won't have bought 10 years ago. Not as a whole group....the upper end of the group maybe.

Did I say whole group and even with wage inflation of 3% someone earning £25k 5 years ago would be earning nearly £29k now.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

No its currently under 30. I am mid 30's and purchase nearly 10 years ago.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2316293&highlight=

Sorry, just tried to find a link, but it was a news story from the CML and can't find it.

I think I used the age of first time buyers who have no help?

Last year the CML estimated that 80 per cent of all first-time buyers aged under 30 were receiving financial help from their parents for a mortgage deposit.
David Hollingworth, head of communications for London & Country Mortgages, said: "The age of first-time buyers is still increasing and for those who do not have parental help with a deposit, it is in the late 30s."