We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
BOE to get more responsibilities.
Comments
-
shortchanged wrote: »Highlighting future inheritance definately not in my opinion because it is not guaranteed. A relative can quite easily change their mind about inheritance and leave your repayment vehicle to Battersea dogs home.
If that was the case or indeed anyway, the repayment vehicle could be the property itself
I'm not advocating it, but is there anything inherantly wrong with getting an I/O mortgage and then repay at a later time when you can afford it i.e. after a succession of pay rises / promotions?
This way, there could be an option to become an owner much younger than current stats suggest and pay off the capital at a later date.
There are many discussion in here as to the rights and freedom of owners as opposed to renters.shortchanged wrote: »
With regards to IO is simply renting, in which case what's the point?
Having an I/O mortgage gives you the benefits of home ownership, even if in effect your only renting.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
shortchanged wrote: »But you have to draw the line somewhere. I think this has been part of the problem in the past. Maybe this should be combined WITH affordability criteria. Therefore with your example you keep the 4 times maximum but the person with more affordability issues gets lent less.
Totally agree.
There is a correlation between gross and disposable in the the majority of mortgages for average borrower. Yes you will have high earners, high disposable income but that could be factored in for the exception.
I know family, is choice, but it is surprising what a leveler kids are to higher incomes as well.
I have seen many cases where "professionals " with quick career progression have skidded to a halt , due to overcommitment, as their salary plateaus (used to be between40 -50).
I also think pushing multiplies too high adds to the speculative affect because you are often over committing and taking risks.
With the advent of tuition fee repayment this is only going to get worse."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »
I know family, is choice, but it is surprising what a leveler kids are to higher incomes as well.
It is a choice.
My wife and I decided very early to live off one salary and pay down the mortgage with the other.
Years later when we decided to have children, we were in a position to still live off one salary as the mortgage had been reduced to such an affordable level.
It's all about choices in life:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
shortchanged wrote: »Highlighting future inheritance definately not in my opinion because it is not guaranteed. A relative can quite easily change their mind about inheritance and leave your repayment vehicle to Battersea dogs home.
With regards to IO is simply renting, in which case what's the point?
Agree again.
It is adding to speculation.
There should be a proven repayment path, if that is by building up investment then that should be monitored too.
Principles of good lending are that the property(prime security) itself shouldn't be relied upon for repayment. There will be specialist needs I appreciate.
If you can't afford the repayment of capital then it is questionable whether you can really afford the property IMO.
We are talking residential property for owner occupation here.
Speculative property should be dealt with as such and separate affordability tests, tax, pricing needs to be applied."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Why not just build more homes?
Simple really, isn't it.
Trouble is, the ones (majority of, at least) that can give the go ahead are perfectly happy with asset prices increasing, thankyou very much. Therefore, planning permission is immensly hard to achieve.
Building more homes is always the answer. But it's the answer that won't happen....not while there is so much vested interest from several angles. It's like asking shareholders if they would mind a dilution on their shares so that other people can buy them a bit cheaper.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »If you can't afford the repayment of capital then it is questionable whether you can really afford the property IMO.
What's your views on shared / part ownership where the buyer owns 50% or 75% of the property?:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »It is a choice.
My wife and I decided very early to live off one salary and pay down the mortgage with the other.
Years later when we decided to have children, we were in a position to still live off one salary as the mortgage had been reduced to such an affordable level.
It's all about choices in life
Totally agree but you planned and managed your ability to repay. Again I would suggest WE are the in the minority."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »The thing is, how do you manage that?
If you artificially restrict lending to curb demand, because lack of supply is driving prices up, all that you do is restrict lending to the wealthier and Mr average gets squeezed out.
There is a solution to this. And it's really really simple.
Restricted lending to those with more than one home. I.e. restricted BTL lending.
Sensible lending, at whatever level (3x, 4x, 5x salary) to those buying HOMES.
The wealthier don't win that way.
Now, as its so simple, it won't actually happen. And they can meddle all they like, and talk all they like, but until they actually implement a solution which is geared towards people buying HOMES and not investments, the problem will continue.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »There is a solution to this. And it's really really simple.
Restricted lending to those with more than one home. I.e. restricted BTL lending.
Sensible lending, at whatever level (3x, 4x, 5x salary) to those buying HOMES.
The wealthier don't win that way.
Now, as its so simple, it won't actually happen. And they can meddle all they like, and talk all they like, but until they actually implement a solution which is geared towards people buying HOMES and not investments, the problem will continue.
Is it a solution?
BTL didn's replace the social housing when it was sold off.
Where would people rent without BTL giving them that option?:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Simple really, isn't it.
Trouble is, the ones (majority of, at least) that can give the go ahead are perfectly happy with asset prices increasing, thankyou very much. Therefore, planning permission is immensly hard to achieve.
Building more homes is always the answer. But it's the answer that won't happen....not while there is so much vested interest from several angles. It's like asking shareholders if they would mind a dilution on their shares so that other people can buy them a bit cheaper.
I agree that those with the land bank will always want to control supply. I am sure that more would be released if planning permission was more easily available. The cost of construction would go up though no doubt! Government control planning don't they so yep there is a problem."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards