Millions give up on owning property

Conrad

jamespmg44 wrote: »

No, didn't get a penny from my folks - I had worked when I was at university rather than disappearing for long summer holidays and then took every single hour of overtime going for a year to get as big a deposit as possible for a house.

No going out for meals, no going out clubbing, no new clothes and no holidays then we put down a 20% deposit for our house entirely funded by our own hard work and sacrifices. (our being me and my fiance (now wife))

Surely not James, some tell me it's impossible to do what you achieved, it can't be true, hard work and a bit of abstinence never works:D

I gave lots of examples of perfectly nice and affordable property up and down the land but the mind made up brigade simply ared unable to even consider such evidence.

Most FTB I see are couples, meaning property is affordable for the majority. There are some shocking examples, such as Colchester where 2 ned new appartments were selling for £90k, and joint ave incomes are about £49k.

Even if you are in an expensive patch, commute !!!!!!, it really isn;t difficult. I've driven 50 miles each way to jobs in the past. I have clients who travel around 90 miles by road each way.

My wife's grandad rode a bike some 35 miles each way every day for decades and yes, before some clown says it, he got a lump of coal for breakfast and a clip round the ear as a bonus.

jamespmg44

Conrad wrote: »

Surely not James, some tell me it's impossible to do what you achieved, it can't be true, hard work and a bit of abstinence never works:D

I gave lots of examples of perfectly nice and affordable property up and down the land but the mind made up brigade simply ared unable to even consider such evidence.

Most FTB I see are couples, meaning property is affordable for the majority. There are some shocking examples, such as Colchester where 2 ned new appartments were selling for £90k, and joint ave incomes are about £49k.

Even if you are in an expensive patch, commute !!!!!!, it really isn;t difficult. I've driven 50 miles each way to jobs in the past. I have clients who travel around 90 miles by road each way.

My wife's grandad rode a bike some 35 miles each way every day for decades and yes, before some clown says it, he got a lump of coal for breakfast and a clip round the ear as a bonus.

I think there is an entitlement sense amongst a sizeable swathe of society who feel they should be able to buy a giant house filled with the latest mod cons because they see celebs (and I really mean no marks) who have the same.

I bet if you asked these FTB who are giving up on home ownership because they can't afford it how much they spend on their fancy mobile phones, going out for dinners, going out drinking, buying fancy clothes you'd be able to see a sizeable amount that could be going towards a house deposit.

If they can't live without that stuff for as long as it takes them to save up a deposit - fine, but don't come crying about it!

ViolaLass

debtistheft wrote: »

How many pensioners are in receipt of benefits because they piled so much money into their houses instead of personal pensions that they cannot support themselves? How many live in delapidated houses that they might well own outright but cannot afford to maintain?

Why do you people think that the alternative to buying a house is to spend all your money and be penniless when you are older?

Can you not see that over 30 or 40 years of working life you ca either pay your money into the capital of your house or save that same money in an investment. Your equity pays for a roof over your head or your investments pay for a roof over your head. There is no difference.

Its not rocket science.

That doesn't add up. If you're not paying into a mortgage, then you're paying rent so you can't save the money. Your landlord could but you can't.

[Deleted User]

ViolaLass wrote: »

That doesn't add up. If you're not paying into a mortgage, then you're paying rent so you can't save the money. Your landlord could but you can't.

To me, you invest in the proerty so when your older you dont have to pay rent, at least that way the investment stays in the family... rather than saving throught your working life to pay when your older and make some BTL invester richer.

To me it is a no brainer, i would perfer to not pay a mortgage or rent when im older and help my family out when i die.

ukcarper

debtistheft wrote: »

How many pensioners are in receipt of benefits because they piled so much money into their houses instead of personal pensions that they cannot support themselves? How many live in delapidated houses that they might well own outright but cannot afford to maintain?

Why do you people think that the alternative to buying a house is to spend all your money and be penniless when you are older?

Can you not see that over 30 or 40 years of working life you ca either pay your money into the capital of your house or save that same money in an investment. Your equity pays for a roof over your head or your investments pay for a roof over your head. There is no difference.

Its not rocket science.

Your off again tell me where the money is going to come from as over a 40 year period you will pay more in rent than mortgage payments.

debtistheft

ukcarper wrote: »

Your off again tell me where the money is going to come from as over a 40 year period you will pay more in rent than mortgage payments.

Are you saying that people will spend 40 years in their mortgage free housing?

Where do you get 40 years from?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/property/no-place-like-home-the-generation-who-cant-afford-to-buy-1921781.html

"The average age of the first-time buyer is now 38 - and the typical deposit on a property is more than half the average income. Tim Walker finds out how his generation got priced out of the market"

While we are at it. Prove to me that buying is cheaper than renting for the average UK citizen. Not just single shut-ins who bought a house in 1993 and have lived there alone ever since, but the average UK person with 2.x kids, etc. Put up or shut up.

debtistheft

ViolaLass wrote: »

That doesn't add up. If you're not paying into a mortgage, then you're paying rent so you can't save the money. Your landlord could but you can't.

Do you really believe that rental costs as much as you pay for your mortgage, including deposit, and both interest and capital repayments?

ukcarper

debtistheft wrote: »

Are you saying that people will spend 40 years in their mortgage free housing?

Where do you get 40 years from?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/property/no-place-like-home-the-generation-who-cant-afford-to-buy-1921781.html

"The average age of the first-time buyer is now 38 - and the typical deposit on a property is more than half the average income. Tim Walker finds out how his generation got priced out of the market"

While we are at it. Prove to me that buying is cheaper than renting for the average UK citizen. Not just single shut-ins who bought a house in 1993 and have lived there alone ever since, but the average UK person with 2.x kids, etc. Put up or shut up.

What I am saying is the only time rent will be less than a mortgage is the initial period and I used 40 years as you said 30 to 40 years.

I thought I did that on the other thread.

I first bought in 1972 and had a mortgage until last year and the mortgage has been less than rent since at least 1976 probably earlier. When I moved into my present house it was cheaper from the start as I had a 60% mortgage.

ViolaLass

debtistheft wrote: »

Do you really believe that rental costs as much as you pay for your mortgage, including deposit, and both interest and capital repayments?

You're saying it costs less to rent? If that were true, BTL-ers wouldn't exist.

You said that if people didn't buy, they could invest that money instead. My counter argument is that that is nonsense as the money they don't spend on a mortgage, they will spend on rent.

ukcarper

ViolaLass wrote: »

You're saying it costs less to rent? If that were true, BTL-ers wouldn't exist.

You said that if people didn't buy, they could invest that money instead. My counter argument is that that is nonsense as the money they don't spend on a mortgage, they will spend on rent.

The problem is he doesn’t seem to realise that even if the rent is cheaper initially inflation soon reverses that.