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!

Mortgage rates going up

1131415161719»

Comments

  • Timm
    Timm Posts: 17 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Sibley wrote: »
    Anyone cheering the rate rises is a scumbag.

    (...)
    To a certain extent, I agree.

    Laughing at people who can't afford to keep their home is nasty. But then you like to laugh at people who can't afford to buy a home in the first place. What does that make you?

    But anyway, this has rather little to do with individuals and more to do with financial institutions trying to look solvent so that they don't experience a run / takeover by the state.
    Man #1 on £65k - @3.5x = £227,500 @5% = £1345 pm mortgage.
    Man #2 on £25k - @3.5x = £87,500 @ 5% = £517 pm mortgage.

    Food bill is £300pm for both, utility bills are £200pm for both, travel costs to and from work are £70pm for both.

    Man #1 after tax = £4083 pm. After outgoings = £2168 left over.
    Man #2 after tax = £1824 pm. After outgoings = £737 left over.

    Man #1 proportion of income spent on Living costs: 47%
    Man #2 proportion of income spent on Living costs: 60%

    Conclusion: That food, utilities, travel expenses do not increase proportionally with income and so someone on a higher salary has a much higher proportion of disposible income left at the end of the month than someone on a lower salary.

    The 3.5x salary mortgage multiple results in someone on a lower salary taking on much more financial risk than someone with a higher salary. Fundamentally this seems wrong to me. I'd suggest a calculation that based the maximum salary as a PROPORTION of income rather than as a MULTIPLE of income, which woud be much fairer and much safer all around.
    Isn't that what they call the affordability matrix these days?
    DervProf wrote: »
    Fine.

    However, I seem to remember a lot of problems around the time that this "creative" bank hit the buffers. Did the taxpayer not have to come to the rescue ? Would it not have been better to not allow this bank to be so creative with their lending, which would almost certainly have resulted in it not requiring drastic intervention from the government ?
    Yes it would.

    Still, we can hope and pray that the snotgobbler left the aristocrat with a golden opportunity to sell the nuts and bolts to the beardy one and keep the gold for the proles. :shocked:





    Pre-edit: Hmm. I hope that makes sense...
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.