Average family will have to save for more than 30 years to raise first deposit

RenovationMan

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Or, marriage isn't that important.

OH and I had a baby (he's now 6) then bought a house (last year) and are going to get married at some point in the future. We don't lack commitment to each other or our son.

Out of interest, whose surname do your kids have, yours or your OH?

suburbanwifey

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Or, marriage isn't that important.

OH and I had a baby (he's now 6) then bought a house (last year) and are going to get married at some point in the future. We don't lack commitment to each other or our son.

May I ask why you didn't get married before you had a child then? (I find it odd that a child would either have to have a surname different to the father or if he/she is given fathers surname, different name to the mother?) Don't mean to offend, just wonder why marriage isn't important when you have a child together and a mortgage? is not a child and a mortgage big commitments? like I said, it seems odd to me when people do it this 'wrong way around' (wrong way around to me at least, I appreciate it isn't to you, respect to your choices)

suburbanwifey

RenovationMan wrote: »

Out of interest, whose surname do your kids have, yours or your OH?

That was my first thought! I have some friends who did this, she got pregnant, they bought a house and the man argued that the child should have his 'name' yet the mother said, I don't want my child having a name different to me. The man doesn't believe in marriage (apparently!) and yet he expected her to give her child (his as well, I know, but he has no more right to use his name than her!) his name! She did :cool: and now her boyfriend and her child have the same name and hers is different :cool:

They have a 30 yr mortgage, a 6 yr old, yet marriage is too much of a commitment? Bizarre!

manchesterred

The prosperity of the naughties was largely built on the relentless surge in property prices, it was all so obvious that it would come crashing down, what no one knew was when ... All these "Experts" who said property would continue to go up & up ... And now our younger people are left with the bill ..

suburbanwifey

manchesterred wrote: »

The prosperity of the naughties was largely built on the relentless surge in property prices, it was all so obvious that it would come crashing down, what no one knew was when ... All these "Experts" who said property would continue to go up & up ... And now our younger people are left with the bill ..

Property will *overall* always continue to go up. It remains and will always be a good investment. In twenty years from now, all our houses WILL be worth a lot more than now, even taking into account dips due to temporary situations (current situation) these things have happened before and people who bought 30 yrs ago their properties are worth so much more now. That will be the same for all that own today, even if prices do drop for a while in the short-term future. Come back to this thread in 20 yrs time and I bet I am right.

Percy1983

Well if house prices only move with inflation, then yes they will go up but not actually be worth more, to which other investments would pay more.

So yes house prices will always go up, but will they always be worth more.

Graham_Devon

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Property will *overall* always continue to go up. It remains and will always be a good investment. In twenty years from now, all our houses WILL be worth a lot more than now, even taking into account dips due to temporary situations (current situation) these things have happened before and people who bought 30 yrs ago their properties are worth so much more now. That will be the same for all that own today, even if prices do drop for a while in the short-term future. Come back to this thread in 20 yrs time and I bet I am right.

You are describing a pyramid scheme.

Houses will very likely be worth more than now, nominally.

But you can't ignore inflation.

dtsazza

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are describing a pyramid scheme.

I don't know about that.

If you assume that supply is essentially static (we can't manufacture more land), and that demand will keep rising (population growth), then in the long term prices (real prices) will have to go up.

Granted, supply will probably gradually increase as zoning laws are relaxed and/or high-rise blocks become more prevalent. However I suspect that this isn't going to happen at anywhere near the rate of population growth; and that also it will lead to an increase in the number of (smaller) dwellings, making an existing 3-bedroom semi relatively more desirable.

Of course population levels could decrease too - probably not across the country as a whole, but certainly in a given town that falls out of fashion (something like Detroit).


On the whole though, the fundamentals seem to suggest that property will become more and more valuable as the decades tick by. Not that I'm trying to ramp here - I don't think the returns will be anything special, and will likely be below the yield of the stock markets - but I don't see property's real value falling in the long term.

yertiz_2

But what will happen when old people die or go in to homes and can't sell their houses/bungalows and FTB can't get a mortgage due to saving for 'more than 30 years to raise first deposit' and banks not lending?

Thrugelmir

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Property will *overall* always continue to go up. It remains and will always be a good investment.

Property never used to be viewed as an investment. The past boom years created an illusion it was. Over a prolonged period prices will now readjust to the correct market level again.