The 3 bed property for 120K thread.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think the answer to my question was, no, you can't find a post, and yes, you did indeed make things up to have a go.

Cheers.

No!

You're getting a bit confused. Yes, he couldn't find the post, mainly because the history is not available for very long.

It was me who made it up.

Here's what I made up. A total figment of my imagination. You never really said it. I am lying. I am simply imagining what you might have said but you never actually said this in this way:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Buy a house? Cor! What a stupid idea.

So you buy a house for £200K. At 6.5% mortgage rate that's £13K a year. Chap I know rents a house worth £200K and pays £150 a month rent. So that's only £1,800, plus he's got £50K invested in some super ISA investment paying 80% interest. That's £40K a year, so he's actually over £51K a year better off.......

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think the answer to my question was, no, you can't find a post, and yes, you did indeed make things up to have a go.

Cheers.

Here's one from the ministry of muddle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3237492


It's got all the classic ingredients - ignoring the capital value of the asset as the mortgage is paid off (cus you can't spend it innit?), lots and lots of arguments demanding that the renter be allocated interest on a deposit (that they can't afford to save). Even that the rate of savers interest be increased in line with inflation.

...and to finally confirm what I said we've got uncarper going to the nth degree to do the calculations for you and you then not understanding the results.

Loughton Monkey's made up version of events wasn't too far from the mark.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The figures concluded it would takeapproximately 39 years for the buyer to come out on top of the renter. Thisobviously didn't include equity, as it was concluded that the equity is notphysical money that can be spent, unless the house is given up.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Unfair comparison really. Straight away, youhave knocked 20% off the total mortgage figures and given absolutely nothing tothe renter. (interest for instance on that 20%).

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Compounded interest. Put 40k in a savingsaccount paying a meagre 3% and you end up after 40 years with £132,600. 96.2kof that is interest. 92.6k / 40 / 12 = £192. We still haven't spent theoriginal 40k on housing yet (the mortgagegee has). Just the interest.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But basis of it is, your working out only leftthe renter 17k disadvantaged. However, they (the intrepid renter)still have 40k in the bank....

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Here's one from the ministry of muddle

Nah, that's you becoming ever more desperate. That was discussing calculations whereby the renter HAD a deposit and people were, as usual, working out the pros and cons of buying, therefore to do that, you have to assume the renter has a deposit to buy... That wasn't me saying renters are sitting on deposits.

Got any more? Keep trying hunny. I know how much it means to you to knock a character on the internet, so more than happy to play along.

Isolating the sentence from the paragraph is good...but a little old skool!

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

......Got any more? Keep trying hunny. I know how much it means to you to knock a character on the internet, so more than happy to play along.......

All getting quite muddled and complicated isn't it?

So why not, Graham, nail your colours to the mast once and for all. Set the record straight. Tell us like it really is like. First hand.....

I present to you a 'random' couple. Mr & Mrs Hamish. Say in their mid 30's. They live in York, or Edinburgh, where perfectly acceptable 3-bed houses (with use of a garden) are available for £150K. Coincidentally, they are currently living in a house of similar value, paying the 'standard' rent for such a place of, say, £700 a month.

While depositing the last £100 in their deposit account, they noticed the balance finally reached £30K, and the little girl in the bank actually told them that on their joint salaries of £50K, a mortgage of £120K would be absolutely no problem.

So what would you advise them financially? Go for it and buy? Or continue renting?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

As much as I would welcome Hamish living in Loughton, I'm afraid he wouldn't be able to afford it.

Now that made me curious about Loughton. Have to say I'd never heard of it before.

So I had a look and saw this 3 bed semi in Loughton......

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-24133857.html

Which seemed similar in both size and price to this 3 bed semi in Aberdeen.....

http://www-k.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/302662?ID=FMADPBJF#picture

And this 3 bed terrace in Loughton.....

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-35376184.html?premiumA=true

Which seemed similar to this 3 bed terrace in Aberdeen....

http://www-k.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/302639?ID=FMADPBJF#picture

And then there's this in Loughton.....

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-22967805.html?premiumA=true

But of course you do seem to get a bit more (taste) for your money in Aberdeen.....

http://www-k.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/301105?ID=FMADPBJF#picture


As much as I do like you Monkey, I'm afraid I won't be moving to Loughton any time soon. Your houses seem very reasonably priced, so that's not the problem.

But I'm afraid I just can't see past the fact that it's in..... well..... how can I put this delicately........ Essex.

Shallow of me, I know, but there you go.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Anyway back on topic.....

What this thread has established is that there are a range of houses, suitable to a range of buyers, in most parts of the UK.

Not everyone can afford a 3 bed semi for 300K. And that's just fine.

Because somewhere within commuting range you'll find a 3 bed for 120K. (Or even 60K, "oop north".)

I would quite like to live in this house, in this area.

http://www-k.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/301541?ID=FMADPBJF#picture

But at 1.2 million pounds, I can't afford to.

I could however, afford to live in a house like this, an hours drive away, for a third of the price.....

http://www-k.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/298397?ID=FMADPBJF#picture

And so on, right down the housing ladder until you get back to the 60K , 80K or 100K houses that people on the lower end of the income spectrum can afford.

Loughton_Monkey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Now that made me curious about Loughton. .........

As much as I do like you Monkey, I'm afraid I won't be moving to Loughton any time soon. Your houses seem very reasonably priced, so that's not the problem.

But I'm afraid I just can't see past the fact that it's in..... well..... how can I put this delicately........ Essex.

Shallow of me, I know, but there you go.

Well our loss is your gain [have I got that the right way round?]. If, as you admit, you are 'shallow', then I'd have thought you would fit in rather well - and they might put you into an episode of "The Only Way is Essex".

Know what I mean [sniff]? (.. he says in best cockney accent).

I will not try to sell it to you too hard. I was not born in Essex, and (hopefully) will not die here. I have no desire to leave such value as a house in my estate and so will eventually downsize to release cash. Should I rent or buy? [oops. Sorry. Graham is the best one to ask for that, isn't he?]

Will probably end up in bijou residence in Norfolk, where houses cost 2p. The locals can all count the seven deadly sins on one hand, but just think of all the cash I can unlock.

Large gin & tonics all round.....

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Nah, that's you becoming ever more desperate. That was discussing calculations whereby the renter HAD a deposit and people were, as usual, working out the pros and cons of buying, therefore to do that, you have to assume the renter has a deposit to buy... That wasn't me saying renters are sitting on deposits.

Sorry Graham I should have run through the anti-forumonics filter. When I said that you insist that all renters are sat on deposit sized savings at a reasonable rate of interest you've taken this literally. We both know this isn't true as clearly you'd never make a statement implying that anyone exists with two halfpennies to rub together.

Glad we cleared this up. Let's keep [STRIKE]assuming/[/STRIKE]pretending though when the need arises i.e. when you want to add £30k compounded for 25 years (or 40!) to a homeowners housing costs to prove renting's cheaper.

paulmapp8306

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Following on from a conversation elsewhere.....

120K-ish 3 bed properties with access to a garden, within a 1 hour drive of:

York, Chester, Solihull, Shrewsbury, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Oxford or anywhere in the South.

Possible or not?

Yes.

I have just bought a 4 bed, with garden and garage, in Nottingham for £112k which is an hours travel from Solihull. Shrewsbury is a little out at 1 hr 30 ish, as is York.

michaels

And Nottingham isn't the gun crime capital of England :-)