The 3 bed property for 120K thread.

DervProf

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

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

I don't think the people who decided it wasn't a good idea stopped 100%+ mortgages, I think it was something to do with the credit crunch.

But I might be wrong.

DpchMd

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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



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

Sorry Graham, I assumed that your income multiples comment implied unaffordabilty. Clearly this is not what you meant.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Funny you forgot that. Whenever there's a renting cost vs buying cost thread you always remember that our happy renter must be sat on a deposit sized lump of cash earning a reasonable rate of interest.

Loughton_Monkey

DervProf wrote: »

I don't think the people who decided it wasn't a good idea stopped 100%+ mortgages, I think it was something to do with the credit crunch.

But I might be wrong.

Yeah.

Sorry about that. I suffer from Litotes.

[If you need to look it up, you'll find it in the dictionary between 'irony' and 'metaphore']

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Funny you forgot that. Whenever there's a renting cost vs buying cost thread you always remember that our happy renter must be sat on a deposit sized lump of cash earning a reasonable rate of interest.

I'd ask you to find a post which suggests that from me.

But I'd be wasting my breath...wouldn't I? As again, I've never said or implied that. Infact, I've spoke at length about how hard it would be for renters to save deposits.

So, fancy finding me saying anything of the sort? Theres 43k odd posts, you should be able to find something, surely?! Or prefer to make things up to suit so that you can create something to argue about? I'll assume it's the later.

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

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

true, but i don't really think that the fact there are a tiny handful of horrible flats in horrible areas in london (plus one property to be auctioned in plumstead) which have three bedrooms and are on rightmove for <£125,000 demonstrates that you can realistically get a three bedroom property in london for that sort of price. plus, if you had kids to bring up, you really wouldn't want to do it there...

there is a difference between unfashionable and downright unacceptable.

ILW

chewmylegoff wrote: »

true, but i don't really think that the fact there are a tiny handful of horrible flats in horrible areas in london (plus one property to be auctioned in plumstead) which have three bedrooms and are on rightmove for <£125,000 demonstrates that you can realistically get a three bedroom property in london for that sort of price. plus, if you had kids to bring up, you really wouldn't want to do it there...

there is a difference between unfashionable and downright unacceptable.

It was a bit of an exception, bearing in mind that London is one of the most expensive places in the world to buy property.

Still think there is a lot worse than Plumstead around though.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

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

It's not just unfashionable though is it? Firstly that would be unmortgageable.

Secondly, unfashionable isn't a way I'd describe some of the areas with the lowest cost housing. Undesirable, yes, due to the crime and social problems surrounding it. That's one of the major reasons these places are so cheap (comparitively).

When most people suggest they can't afford a house, what they mean (and what's understood, I think, by the majority) is that they can't afford a house that suits. That's not to say they are greedy and just want a 5 bed. Suitable includes social surroundings, schools, access to work, state of repair, costs to run, ammenities, and so much more.

Theres no point for example in myself buying a house simply because I can afford it, and then lying awake at night fearing for my families safety....Theres more to life.

None of us would buy it.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.......So, fancy finding me saying anything of the sort? Theres 43k odd posts, you should be able to find something, surely?! Or prefer to make things up to suit so that you can create something to argue about? I'll assume it's the later.

I believe you Graham.

But think of poor whotsthat having to pour through 43,000+ posts...... Surely that's unreasonable?

I much prefer your suggestion that we make something up. So I've had a go and came up with this, which is 100% purely the figment of my own imagination. Totally 'fiddled' by a simple cut and paste job. But it may provide literally minutes of fun and discussion....

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: »

But I'd be wasting my breath...wouldn't I? As again, I've never said or implied that. Infact, I've spoke at length about how hard it would be for renters to save deposits.

I think we'll see many future occasions when you've got people like ukcarper running around calculating £30k compounded over 25 years with bank A, B or C as that, to keep it like for like, needs to be subtracted from our homeowners 'profit'. The same calculations where you argue that it's 'sensible' to disregard the capital value of the buyers house at the end of the term.

Like for like has it's place but the real world should encroach your little bubble occasionally.