Average Deposit now 66K !

Graham_Devon

JonnyBravo wrote: »

And your lack of recognition that if the average deposit were to go from 20% to 10% it would also halve the deposit needed is blinkered on a grand scale too.
You're both so busy arguing for back or white that neither is prepared to admit any shade of grey.
But of course, it's always the other bloke who's wrong.

I've never argued the above though. ?

doire_2

Another day and another steady flow of crocodile tears from hamish and co.

geneer

JonnyBravo wrote: »

And here's another arguing black or white

But on a serious point, you too, busily tie yourself up in knots, just like Hamish, desperate to keep to the "party line" of your side.
No data is EVER allowed to be both accurate and not of your VI.

Incorrect. Actually I spend most of my time Deconstructing Hamish (and similar posters) arguments thus demonstrating the false nature of the same.

This is inevitable of course. See theres no need to defend the existence of the house price crash when its blindingly clear to every rational person that it actually happened.

Of course I could spend my days firing off pointless one liners from the sidelines Bravo style, but where's the fun in that.

Jimmy_31

JonnyBravo wrote: »

And your lack of recognition that if the average deposit were to go from 20% to 10% it would also halve the deposit needed is blinkered on a grand scale too.
You're both so busy arguing for back or white that neither is prepared to admit any shade of grey.
But of course, it's always the other bloke who's wrong.

I can understand what you are saying but none of anything that has been said so far in this thread is going to help me pay the leccy bill when i move into my new overpriced house so im staying put for now.


Which part of the forum will i find people discussing cheap candles just in case i change my mind and buy a house:)

Cleaver

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I know plenty of first time buyers who have got 20 to 30k deposits for a house.

They can have a mortgage if they want one.

They cant earn enough money to pay a mortgage plus actually live in the house.

Over what period have these first time buyers saved their deposits? And what do they earn? Because your statement doesn't seem to make sense.

You're in the North West right Jimmy? So an average FTBer is probably looking at around £100,000 for their first place. So your friends have roughly £20k to £30 saved up so presumably have about a 20% or 30% deposit. You've got to presume that if they are buying a place for £100,000 then they are looking to borrow about £80k, maximum. The cost of borrowing £80,000 on a 5% repayment mortgage is £473 a month.

If they are borrowing £80,000 then you assume that they are earning at least £30,000 between them to borrow that type of money. So if they earn about £2,500 a month then a £473 mortgage shouldn't be too much of an issue. Their take home pay will be around £1,875 so their mortgage would be around 25% of their net income. Sounds great for a FTBer.

Obviously let me know if I have any of my assumptions wrong, but I would have thought that anyone who has the financial discipline and income to save £30,000 can afford a typical FTBer place in most areas. £30,000 is a massive amount to save.

Jimmy_31

Cleaver wrote: »

Over what period have these first time buyers saved their deposits? And what do they earn? Because your statement doesn't seem to make sense.

You're in the North West right Jimmy? So an average FTBer is probably looking at around £100,000 for their first place. So your friends have roughly £20k to £30 saved up so presumably have about a 20% or 30% deposit. You've got to presume that if they are buying a place for £100,000 then they are looking to borrow about £80k, maximum. The cost of borrowing £80,000 on a 5% repayment mortgage is £473 a month.

If they are borrowing £80,000 then you assume that they are earning at least £30,000 between them to borrow that type of money. So if they earn about £2,500 a month then a £473 mortgage shouldn't be too much of an issue. Their take home pay will be around £1,875 so their mortgage would be around 25% of their net income. Sounds great for a FTBer.

Obviously let me know if I have any of my assumptions wrong, but I would have thought that anyone who has the financial discipline and income to save £30,000 can afford a typical FTBer place in most areas. £30,000 is a massive amount to save.

Yes they were on track for buying a house no problem, then everything associated with running a home shot up in price at more or less the same time prices dropped on site.

Technically you are correct about a few of the lads because a few can buy if they wanted to but as soon as they lose one days work or a household bill increases then thats it they would then be living beyond their means.

Remember when people used to split their wage into pots, one for the bills and mortgage, one for a bit of entertainment and one for the piggy bank, well those days have gone for most of us. now its just one big pot to pay the household bills and the mortgage and theres nothing left for anything else.

Cleaver

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Yes they were on track for buying a house no problem, then everything associated with running a home shot up in price at more or less the same time prices dropped on site.

What time period are we looking at? The cost of running a house, if we're talking bills and mortgage, is probably as low at the moment as it has been for quite a while. I'm not aware of things 'shooting up', what specifically are you talking about?

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Technically you are correct about a few of the lads because a few can buy if they wanted to but as soon as they lose one days work or a household bill increases then thats it they would then be living beyond their means.

Well, it sounds as though they can't afford a house if one day's work or one bill means they can't afford it any longer. I'd always budget to have a cash fund of around 6 month's wages to cover any unexpected periods of unemployment.

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Remember when people used to split their wage into pots, one for the bills and mortgage, one for a bit of entertainment and one for the piggy bank, well those days have gone for most of us. now its just one big pot to pay the household bills and the mortgage and theres nothing left for anything else.

It's like that for some and it's not like that for some others. Is there that much evidence of massively rising living costs and decreases in wages? Most people have kept their jobs, but aren't getting massive payrises. I think the bad thing at the moment is the uncertainty of the future rather than actual financial hardship. As discussed before though, your view seems to be formed through a lot of your tradesmen friends who seem to earn around minimum wage.

Just in terms of the people we were discussing originally, how much do they earn as a couple and how much are the houses they are looking at buying and in what location?

JonnyBravo

geneer wrote: »

Incorrect. Actually I spend most of my time Deconstructing Hamish (and similar posters) arguments thus demonstrating the false nature of the same.

This is inevitable of course. See theres no need to defend the existence of the house price crash when its blindingly clear to every rational person that it actually happened.

Of course I could spend my days firing off pointless one liners from the sidelines Bravo style, but where's the fun in that.

Despite your claims that there is no need to "defend the existence of the house price crash " that's what you spend a large amount of time doing. BTW, for the avoidance of doubt, yes I agree prices crashed. I bet on it, so it would be silly to argue otherwise.
I'm not really sure I've ever seen you successfully "Deconstruct arguments".
You're so desperate that everyone must see it exactly as you see it that you simply bat back technicalities and semantics to and fro.
Consequently I'd suggest it's probably a better bet for you to stick to "firing off pointless one liners". It's good deal safer than your "strengths" of say.... erm.... maths?

IveSeenTheLight

jonnybravo wrote: »

despite your claims that there is no need to "defend the existence of the house price crash " that's what you spend a large amount of time doing. Btw, for the avoidance of doubt, yes i agree prices crashed. I bet on it, so it would be silly to argue otherwise.
I'm not really sure i've ever seen you successfully "deconstruct arguments".
You're so desperate that everyone must see it exactly as you see it that you simply bat back technicalities and semantics to and fro.
Consequently i'd suggest it's probably a better bet for you to stick to "firing off pointless one liners". It's good deal safer than your "strengths" of say.... Erm.... Maths?

Well said JB

wymondham

66k! thats twice as much as my whole mortgage was, and that was only 15 years ago! It's all gone crazy....