First time buyers priced out...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Surely the main point is you don't get a 25-30 year car loan either.

Not to mention you still need to pay to house yourself if you get a loan for a Ferrari, whereas a mortgage is a direct substitute for rent.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And yes, I'm going on the dictionary definition. Why would I ignore the actual definition of "afford" and simply join in the mindset of suggesting we can all afford X Y and Z but are being stopped by nasty rationing? Products change.

Ahhh, go on, I'll have one last go with a stupid example...

We're in Bristol and, to the surprise of many, the average wage has become £100,000! Yay! And, to the dismay of Hamish, the average Bristol house has dropped to £50,000! Yay! But, what's this? It seems that every bank in Bristol has stated that to get a mortgage in Bristol you need a 70% deposit, own a parrot called Gerald and be born on the 13th November. Those pesky bankers!

So, are houses in Bristol now 'affordable'? Well, according to the dictionary definition, and Graham, no, they're not affordable. People can't 'afford' to buy them due to the stupid rationing by the Bristol banks. But I think most people would probably see that houses clearly are 'affordable' to the people of Bristol, but it's the banks being unreasonable in terms of their criteria that's stopping people buy, not the general affordability of houses.

So I agree with you that technically people in Bristol can't afford houses. But we all know that houses in Bristol are affordable, don't we? You see how's there's a grey area here?

Cleaver

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not to mention you still need to pay to house yourself if you get a loan for a Ferrari, whereas a mortgage is a direct substitute for rent.

Not if it's a house-shaped Ferrari with beds in it.

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

It's okay, you win. I agree with you. If we're going by a dictionary definition of afford, then you're quite correct. If a bank isn't offering any mortgage products then no house is affordable to anyone, no matter how much they earn. Let's just stop now.

It's not just this thread. This definition is used to state houses are perfectly affordable, and it's been stated several times.

It completely ignores the fact that the products don't exist to create this "perfectly affordable" illusion.

If I went round stating houses are not affordable because people can not afford to save £160,000 for the average priced house, many would jump on me, quite rightly, instantly, and state I'm ignoring the fact people buy with mortgages.

Yet it's perfectly ok to go round suggesting houses are "perfectly affordable" based on ignoring the fact that the products no longer exist, making it unaffordable....and you are called obtuse for pointing this fact out.

It's reasonable to suggest that if you can afford a 15% deposit, and the monthly payments, houses are affordable.

Its unreasonable to suggest that they are still affordable when you can't afford the deposit.

Your struggling with the bristol stuff. Buying houses are currently made up of a deposit and mortgage payments. We could ignore the deposit for a few years. We can't now. No matter how much people want to. If you want to disagree with this, feel free, but leave out the parrots.

BTW, I do realise I'm not making any friends here, pointing out the perfectly obvious, and ruining the "houses are perfectly affordable" illusion. I guess thats why I'm the only one getting called obtuse while you lot go round posting what you are now posting in response.

Jimmy_31

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not to mention you still need to pay to house yourself if you get a loan for a Ferrari, whereas a mortgage is a direct substitute for rent.

Rent is a never ending bill and a mortgage is a debt with a gain at the end of it in my eyes, im getting good at these methodologys i reckon.:)

Le_Chuck

Sibley wrote: »

As per article.

I don't agree an average FTB is £136,000. They should cut their cloth to suit their purse. I reckon you could pick up a decent flat in most areas for £100,000. Easy for 2 people working.

I really do not understand why the bears don't team up and buy a place on a 50/50 deal. Makes sense to me.

NEARLY a million first-time ­buyers have been prevented from getting on to the housing ladder because of the big deposits required by lenders.

The links no longer there, so have'nt read it, but it is in the express. Chances are (like the Daily Mail) it'll be seriously overexaggerating things.

chucky

v

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Rent is a never ending bill and a mortgage is a debt with a gain at the end of it in my eyes, im getting good at these methodologys i reckon.:)

very true.

maybe it's not important over a 20-30 year period but i'd also factor in if you buy at the wrong time in the economic cycle.

Jimmy_31

chucky wrote: »

v
very true.

maybe it's not important over a 20-30 year period but i'd also factor in if you buy at the wrong time in the economic cycle.

Correct on that point, thankfully im biding my time and waiting for the boom prices to go away on some properties and then buy one of them.

doire_2

Sibley wrote: »

As per article.

I don't agree an average FTB is £136,000. They should cut their cloth to suit their purse. I reckon you could pick up a decent flat in most areas for £100,000. Easy for 2 people working.

I really do not understand why the bears don't team up and buy a place on a 50/50 deal. Makes sense to me.

NEARLY a million first-time ­buyers have been prevented from getting on to the housing ladder because of the big deposits required by lenders.

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/2382291m-first-time-buyers-frozen-out-of-market#ixzz1IKOD6o9P

Dont tell me the property ramping express are acting as if they care about FTB?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

doire wrote: »

Dont tell me the property ramping express are acting as if they care about FTB?