The 3 bed property for 120K thread.

Graham_Devon

DpchMd wrote: »

Nice muddling of the figures there Graham. What's your agenda?

- £120k house with a 20% deposit = £96k mortgage.

- 2 full time workers earning £26k = £52k household income.

= 1.8x income mortgage

I think we can both agree that this will meet most lenders' affordability requirements.

Let's assume a 5% mortgage rate, this means the mortgage will cost them £560 per month, easily manageable on their combined net income of £3,300pcm, even incuding your travel costs.

In fact, they even have enough money to start a family and live off one salary.

So, what's your agenda?

Sorry, I forgot these conversations go like this.

I forgot every house buyer consists of a couple, no kids, both working full time and earning average wage, with around 30k sloshing around as a deposit.

Indeed, this is my bad. Though your figures make me wonder why on earth they have to move out of the area they work in in the first place if it's all so easy?

vivatifosi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is what I tried to touch on earlier. I'm not sure where this discussion stems from, and therefore I'm not sure of the context, but seems silly to just say "move 30 miles as the crow flies and you can afford a place".

The further out you go, the further you have to drive each day. It's not quite as simple as "your money will get you more", as you'll also have less money thanks to the combined costs of the higher mileage you are doing. Suddenly you find your cost to earn shoots up dramtically leaving you less and less the further you go for living costs.

I've had this conversations about fuel and commuting costs before with Hamish, and his solution was to either get public transport or to move closer to work to save money on fuel. Seems that's now been turned on it's head to prove a simple house price convo.

For sure there's a trade off, but sometimes towns are so much more expensive than another that just by moving to one of them it makes a huge difference. Take for example commuting into London. If you commute from Stevenage, one of the towns where you can get a 3 bed home (albeit a flat) for £120k, the season ticket is £3,200pa to Kings Cross, about the same as the corresponding season ticket from Harpenden, where you can expect to pay at least double for a flat to commute into St Pancras (next door to Kings Cross). Given a choice, would people choose to live in Harpenden, of course they would. However Stevenage (or for that matter next stop on the St Pancras line Luton) gives cheaper options.

If you can get a reasonably priced place near you work, then that's going to be the winning solution all day every day. However if you have to pick between town x and town y and the commuting costs are relatively similar, then the savings can be significant, if you are willing to live there. I don't know if Hamish has a different agenda, but to me that's all this thread's about, ie what's possible on limited funds.

DpchMd

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry, I forgot these conversations go like this.

I forgot every house buyer consists of a couple, no kids, both working full time and earning average wage, with around 30k sloshing around as a deposit.

Indeed, this is my bad. Though your figures make me wonder why on earth they have to move out of the area they work in in the first place if it's all so easy?

Graham, you complete sausage. Even a single person on the average salary figures that YOU quoted could afford a 96k mortgage. There will always be people who can't afford to buy - they're called poor people.

I'm sorry but my comments paint a far more realistic and accurate representation of the topic at hand compared to your typical negative BS.

I could sit here and endlessly argue with you but I don't need to, you lost all credibility (in the context of this thread) when you tried to show an average earner couldn't afford a 120k house.

And you know it.

So why do you do it?

Graham_Devon

DpchMd wrote: »

Graham, you complete sausage. Even a single person on the average salary figures that YOU quoted could afford a 96k mortgage. There will always be people who can't afford to buy - they're called poor people.

I'm sorry but my comments paint a far more realistic and accurate representation of the topic at hand compared to your typical negative BS.

I could sit here and endlessly argue with you but I don't need to, you lost all credibility (in the context of this thread) when you tried to show an average earner couldn't afford a 120k house.

And you know it.

So why do you do it?

Right....well heres what I actually said:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well it is really.

The average wage across all workers is 18-22k for 30 miles out of York. 21k for York itself. 26k full time.

So were talking 5-6x income houses here.

And if you are living 30 miles out, you can count on paying £200-250 in fuel per month to get to work in the first place.

You then invented a 20% deposit. You then decide to state that I claimed it's unaffordable, when those words were not stated. House prices vs wages have always been based on one wage, based on the price of the house.

You are getting yourself a little animated

ukcarper

I do wonder sometimes in the 70s I had to moved 20 miles from where I worked to find a house I could afford.

Where I live now is 1 hour by train to central London and about 40 miles by road and the roads and trains are full with commuters and have been since the 70s.

DervProf

DpchMd wrote: »

Graham, you complete sausage.

:rotfl:

Not just a bit of a sausage, but a complete one !

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Right, that does it, I shall go and cut the [STRIKE]lawn[/STRIKE] field.

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

not really. i've just spent time living in places like elephant and castle, oval and eltham and, knowing what it is like, i'd rather not go back now that i can afford to live somewhere better which doesn't have the same problems.

on the same vein, i would much rather rent in a better place than own a property in one of those worse places (as i have previously done).

i doubt you would want to, out of choice, live in the 3 bedder you posted up, at any stage in your life. if it was the only place i could afford to live in in the world, i would live there; however, i would never even think about buying it and i suspect the only person who would is someone who was planning to rent it out and not live there.

Oddly enough, 40 or 50 years ago, the better off turned their noses up at downmarket areas such as Islington and Notting Hill.

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

Oddly enough, 40 or 50 years ago, the better off turned their noses up at downmarket areas such as Islington and Notting Hill.

Yeah, of course. But what's your point? People should buy in abbey wood on the off chance it might become gentrified in 50 years time?

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Yeah, of course. But what's your point? People should buy in abbey wood on the off chance it might become gentrified in 50 years time?

My point is that people should not say they cannot afford to buy, whilst turning their noses up at unfashionable areas.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....You then invented a 20% deposit......

..er... without wishing to come to DpchMd's defense, I think it was the banks who invented that. Not DpchMd.

Apparently, around 2007/8, it transpired that the banks were not requiring a deposit for a house. Instead, they lent you the whole purchase price, plus another 20% for 'luck'.

A few people decided this was not a good idea. So they stopped doing it.

Strange, but true!