Over on hpc.co.uk they are weakening, they are buying!

wotsthat

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Thanks Sibley, just wish Wots(heavy in debt)that and Johny(I have a made up profitable potfolio)Bravo could do the same.

How's things Foxy? Worried about this? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4249279

Clocks ticking mate - that imaginary £100k deposit isn't going to do you much good if you can't get a mortgage at your time of life.

homelessskilledworker

wotsthat wrote: »

How's things Foxy? Worried about this? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4249279

Clocks ticking mate - that imaginary £100k deposit isn't going to do you much good if you can't get a mortgage at your time of life.

Just short of £70k actually:), not that it is relevant to anything to do with the general state of the housing market which WILL deflate further.
You have another good full day on MSE worrying about it:)

IveSeenTheLight

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The government needs to get building in response to a housing shortage, like happens in every other country in the world.

We already are running a deficit.
How much do you propose is needed and where is that funds coming from.

Firstly, the government need to live within their means.
That means cutting absolutely all non essential spending.
I'd go as far as putting projects on hold until the defecit / debt is in order.

I understand that there would be an impact by reducing the spending, but seriously, if any of us were in so much debt, do you think we would be able to secure further lending?

ruggedtoast

Sibley wrote: »

Can't believe how naive you are.

Every person I know with a mortgage lied when applying.
Every company I deal with lies and falsifies figures when applying for loans or wishes to sell the business.

When I was about 22 and bought my first house. I think I was on 10k a year and needed to borrow 50k.

The bosses always knew the score and would lie about your earnings for you. Once you had the mortgage they knew you would stay put.

It has worked out that the more you borrowed at that time, the more money you have made now on your house.

Wish I lied more.

Try it. You might actually own one day.

I wouldn't recommend lying on a mortgage application, partly because affordability criteria are there for a reason, and partly because of the risks associated with being found out; bad enough if you end up blacklisted but pretty life ruining if they pull the offer and you're left with your !!!! hanging out between exchange and completion.

But nor do I really have a lot of time for people who treat people lying about their income or concealing an extra kid so they can buy a home, like they are f3ckless monsters conning our angelic and innocent banks.

I suspect they are the kind of people who ran to tell at other children at school, if anyone was seen climbing on the no climb fence; and have never grown out of it.

How many people take out a mortgage on a family home and say there are no major changes coming to their circumstances, with every intention of changing job or reducing their hours to have a kid?

IveSeenTheLight

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

The 2008 one was more of a readjustment, not a crash. The last proper crash came in the early 1990s. I wish I had bought in 1994 - you could get some amazing bargains back then.

Statistically, the 2008 "readjustment" lowered more in value and percentage than the 90's.

In hindsight, people might be suggesting that there were good bargains at the moment when looking back in 20 years.

ruggedtoast

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

We already are running a deficit.
How much do you propose is needed and where is that funds coming from.

Firstly, the government need to live within their means.
That means cutting absolutely all non essential spending.
I'd go as far as putting projects on hold until the defecit / debt is in order.

I understand that there would be an impact by reducing the spending, but seriously, if any of us were in so much debt, do you think we would be able to secure further lending?

Apparently there is enough money to commit hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayer's money to spend on private banks, so I'm sure we can spare some money for capital investment projects that will actually create jobs, wealth, physical infrastructure, and also reduce homelessness, benefit costs and raise people's disposable income.

IveSeenTheLight

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Apparently there is enough money to commit hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayer's money to spend on private banks, so I'm sure we can spare some money for capital investment projects that will actually create jobs, wealth, physical infrastructure, and also reduce homelessness, benefit costs and raise people's disposable income.

I do understand and agree with the items you stated.
I mentioned non-essential.

Surely there must be a number of non-essential costs that could be cut / trimmed.

Cut out the luxuries is what I'm saying.

My local council got fresh flowers delivered everyday.
Is that essential?
Ok cutting it back fully or even partially may have an effect on the businesses supplying those flowers, but as I said. we need to cut our cloth accordingly.

quantic

For me its a pretty ridiculous argument, even if there was any credibility to it. I do think prices are too high but I don't think they are going to come down, well not in a drastic way, maybe stagnation.

To be honest though, I would rather my house halved in value over the next 10 years then have a landlord.

StevieJ

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

We already are running a deficit.
How much do you propose is needed and where is that funds coming from.

Firstly, the government need to live within their means.
That means cutting absolutely all non essential spending.
I'd go as far as putting projects on hold until the defecit / debt is in order.

I understand that there would be an impact by reducing the spending, but seriously, if any of us were in so much debt, do you think we would be able to secure further lending?

I think we were relatively in far more debt post WW2 and they managed a whole welfare state along with slum clearance and much social housing. What was it Super-Mac said at the end of the 50's.

IveSeenTheLight

StevieJ wrote: »

I think we were relatively in far more debt post WW2 and they managed a whole welfare state along with slum clearance and much social housing. What was it Super-Mac said at the end of the 50's.

What do you think are the differences today from then?

In terms of home ownership, the percentages were far lower and I presume the expectations to be homeowners was also lower.

Would you advocate a return to those times / partial return?