You can not afford to buy a house if...

Smoked_Haddock

You can afford a house if:

poppysarah wrote: »

• You have a gifted deposit.
• You whinge about stamp duty but factor it in
• You can afford it on the fixed rate but not if it went up, so you choose a 10/25 year fixed rate
• you can't save a deposit yourself so your parents give it to you
• you are looking at interest only mortgages, because you would rather invest than repay the capital
• you can only afford to be a % of a property, and % is >90 or so

poppysarah

dorset_nurse wrote: »

However it seems that she is the only one making blanket statements about how others should live their financial lives.

The uk govt (and therefore the UK tax payers) are bailing out bad banks after irresponsible lending.

It's shocking that people think that lax lending is a good thing.

poppysarah

Humphrey10 wrote: »

I can save for a deposit, I just see no reason too when I can buy now with a gifted deposit. Why wait? How would I possibly gain from waiting?

You are financially ignorant if you can see no gain from having saved your own deposit.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

poppysarah wrote: »

The uk govt (and therefore the UK tax payers) are bailing out bad banks after irresponsible lending.

It's shocking that people think that lax lending is a good thing.

What a load of absolute nonsense.

Virtually none of the bailouts have gone to cover irresponsible UK residential mortgage lending.

The UK banks losses were primarily commercial lending and international exposure to dodgy American RMBS.

Even Northern Rocks "bad bank" made a £300,000,000 PROFIT last year for the taxpayer.

UK mortgage lending standards were, by and large, extremely responsible, as proven by the fact that our default rates are vanishingly small.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

poppysarah wrote: »

You are financially ignorant if you can see no gain from having saved your own deposit.

You are financially ignorant if you can't see that it's better to buy your own house rather than buying one for your landlord.

hazyjo

I've taken a 25 year mortgage out probably 4 or 5 times now (first at 21 and probably the last time in my mid-30s)... is that any worse than taking a 30-odd year mortgage to start with?

Also, as much as I shout 'save save save', I'm the world's worst and have always managed with house equity for a deposit (except this time as we had the dosh from the sale of hubby's flat).

And we're hardly first time buyers or spring chooks, and we have a pretty huge mortgage and spent a lot on our house. Neither of us are savers (I know, I know) and we just seem to manage accordingly (and spend a lot on going out and holidays!).

Each to their own I say. Okay to suggest things to others who ask for help or opinions, but a lot of people just get on with it and find their own way of managing. If people are given deposits (as I was at 21), or if they take a 35 year mortgage, that's up to them. If they came on here saying 'shall I take a 35 year mortgage?', most of us would probably say 'try and get it down to 25 years or so'. But for those who make that choice without asking for opinions, fine, let them do what's right for them if they made that decision.

Jx

Gwhiz

Now, now children - let's stop all this petty fighting.

There are many on here with quite extreme and biased views (you know who you are) which sometimes gets in the way of a decent discussion.

Can we try to keep this discussion factual so that it provides some value.

I like to think I'm level headed in all this and have no axe to grind (I have always been a homeowner but am renting at present while I look for my elusive plot of land - so you could say I can see both sides of this equation) so let me have a go.

Depending on your circumstances, your finances, your view on life etc. etc - it may be that at any particular point in time renting or house owning is right for you. It is not as simple as saying renting is bad, buying is good OR vice versa.

It also does make sense not to over extend yourself to such an extent that when we move to more "normal" (long term) levels of interest rates you find yourself no being able to service your mortgage.

However, if you are fortunate enough to be given a leg up in the market (via a gifted deposit from parents for example) then why not? If that means you can get on the ladder, because that stability of owning is important to you, and you can afford to service the debt, I do not see any issue.

So, circumstances and desire will dictate what is right for any individual. As long as that works within a financial framework that is not building up long term problems then let those that want to buy, buy and let those that don't rent.

Where's the harm in that?

Wickedkitten

dorset_nurse wrote: »

So what if she did; she wouldn't be the only one on this forum.
-Noone cares.
However it seems that she is the only one making blanket statements about how others should live their financial lives.
-Now a lot of people care!

I'm sure the people thinking she started the thread because out of some notion that she can't afford a house care.

Jonbvn

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Both house prices and rents for those flats in those areas have risen dramatically since early 2009.

I don't believe that is true, based on anecdotal evidence anyway.

Jimmy_31

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What a load of absolute nonsense.

Virtually none of the bailouts have gone to cover irresponsible UK residential mortgage lending.

The UK banks losses were primarily commercial lending and international exposure to dodgy American RMBS.

Even Northern Rocks "bad bank" made a £300,000,000 PROFIT last year for the taxpayer.

UK mortgage lending standards were, by and large, extremely responsible, as proven by the fact that our default rates are vanishingly small.

If uk mortgage lending was extremely responsible then why is it now so difficult for lots of people to get a mortgage.

If the lenders were acting responsibly during the boom then i see no reason for anything to change in regards to getting a mortgage now that the boom is over.

Things have changed though so something must not have been right.