'Are you an financial optimist for 2012?' poll 16 January 2012 at 1:32PM in MoneySaving polls 49 replies 6.3K views

Catden_2

What about the interest rates in the 70's I remember the day it went up to 15%, I walked to the paper shop to cancel my 2 magazines. Couldn't think of what else to do every other non necessity had gone. We got through it + a couple of other hikes, now retired it was a long battle but worth it.

jenniewb

Am taking into account my ever growing student loan (apparently at the rate of inflation or have they increased it further?) If I get to retirement age they wipe it off...until they change the goal posts again.

XRAT

coupleuk wrote: »

Dont you think that is what people are doing now?

The difference - which was stated by Sepa74 is that the people doing it now dont have the "luck" of 10%-30% annual house price increases to bump up their "wealth".

Ah, the good old days 10%-30% annual house price rises.., and I believe 17% interest rates!!!
How many of todays unfortunates would make those repayments? In comparison the overpayments which could be made today would more than offset the difference.

XRAT

Out of interest, I have just done a little research;
I bought my first house in 1984 (about 5 years before the interest rates went stratospheric.) It cost £40,000, my salary was just under £12,000, an identical house is on the market today for £250,000.

John_Gray

Who are all the people (110 at the current count) owing more than £1M?

gpj_2

What is all this baby boomer bollox?
Amongst my 'baby boomer' acquaintances of the same age (60ish) none of us have inherited much, if anything, from our parents. We were all born in the East End (of London) and we lived in rented or council houses. As far as I am aware, none of us went to University, just started work at 15 - 18. Most of us have kids that we have put through Uni, bought, and finally paid for, our own homes and worked consistently until, in my case, I got made redundant at 59.5 years with little or no chance of further employment and no access to any benefits of any kind. I thank God that we were bought up firstly, to realize that no-one owed us a living, secondly, not to buy anything that we couldn't afford to pay for, and thirdly, to save whatever we could as even regular small amounts mount up eventually. Rant over.

Engeroosi

Ok people are going on about how todays people wouldnt afford 17% mortgage rates, That is true but only because to buy they had to take out mortgages 10 x what the people paying 17% on.

I would rather pay 17% of 40k than 5% of 200k.

XRAT

Engeroosi wrote: »

Ok people are going on about how todays people wouldnt afford 17% mortgage rates, That is true but only because to buy they had to take out mortgages 10 x what the people paying 17% on.

I would rather pay 17% of 40k than 5% of 200k.

17% of £40k being £6.8k
5% of £200k being £10k for those who were wondering!

Clearly Engeroosi is correct, it is preferable to be paying £6.8k.., if ones earnings are the same. But of course earnings were half or even a quarter of todays equivalent, making yester-years repayments more akin to £13-£27k in real terms.

relaxtwotribes

John_Gray wrote: »

Who are all the people (110 at the current count) owing more than £1M?

And with this simple post you have demonstrated just how easy it is for people to get it totally wrong with such polls.
There are not (now) 115 people owing more than £1m. There could be people in that category who have £1m in assets and £2m in debt, but I strongly suspect that a goodly number of those 115 have misread the poll, like you seem to have done. And there is your answer.
In fact, it might be the case that all the 24,096 who voted have more than £1m debt. Which goes to show how poorly worded the poll is.