Is there an exit strategy?

Conrad

Generali wrote: »

the disastrous failure that is the Green Belt in and around London.

The green belt confers considerable benefit in terms of quality of life.
I'd hate to live around Tokyo with it's unending Human pest imprint in very crevice.

Building more will simply lead to more roads, more congestion, more noise, more pressure on nature and will not in the end solve anything. More infrastructure leads to even more people wanting to occupy it. In the end there has to be a cut-off.

As to another bubble, we will have to get used the idea that bubbles will be a permanent feature of life in Britain. Bubbles produce winners as well as losers, ho hum.

grizzly1911

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Would this be a significant number? Or would it just include that sector of society who tend to be in financial difficulties regardless of the underlying economic situation?

On the basis that the majority of people don't have much in the way of savings then (average <4Kfrom memory and only about 25% do) then I would be surprised if it was just a small number. Do the ones that struggle financially own homes?

Graham_Devon

GhIFA wrote: »

I'd be interested to know where someone on around £12,500pa would be able to borrow £140,000

That's the very point. You can increase lending as much as you like, but it doesn't mean people can afford it.

The 12.5k was after tax btw.

Conrad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You can increase ledning as much as you like, but this doesn't solve the ability to pay problem.

Yet I meet Sri Lankan petrol station workers on this salary that with their partner and sometimes other family members work hard, save and do manage to make a fist of home ownership. No one has a God given right to be handed an affordable home.

Your whole world view is somehow predicated on this idea people need to have their problems solved by external agents.

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

Yet I meet Sri Lankan petrol station workers on this salary that with their partner and sometimes other family members work hard, save and do manage to make a fist of home ownership. No one has a God given right to be handed an affordable home.

Your whole world view is somehow predicated on this idea people need to have their problems solved by external agents.

This answer was summed up in my post above.

Your view on this is they shouldn't have a mortgage or two people should take on a mortgage, which is fine, so the other person is paying for everything else. Still doesn't leave much money. Hence you won't increase FTB's by large numbers just by increasing lending.

If you are moving on to say several people should join to take out a mortgage then that's a whole different argument.

GhIFA

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's the very point. You can increase lending as much as you like, but it doesn't mean people can afford it.

The 12.5k was after tax btw.

Sorry, what is the "very point"? I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The availability of lending makes no difference to the example you have given, as they cannot borrow that amount on that level of salary (which is still only around £15k gross).

I'm not entirely sure how the "point" you are trying to make is demonstrated by making up fantasy scenarios?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The 12.5k was after tax btw.

It's also barely above minimum wage.

So, well, what an absolute shocker.....

The lowest paid 30% will struggle to buy houses on their own, just like has always been the case.

I'm amazed Graham.:(

Graham_Devon

GhIFA wrote: »

Sorry, what is the "very point"? I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The availability of lending makes no difference to the example you have given, as they cannot borrow that amount on that level of salary (which is still only around £15k gross).

I'm not entirely sure how the "point" you are trying to make is demonstrated by making up fantasy scenarios?

The point is...

And even if you do, the majority of first time buyers simply won't be able to afford such massive monthly payments.

It's not some fantasy scenario. It's what happened in the US.

The usuals have seized in on the 14k administrator, but that was used solely used to put the size of these monthly payments into perspective. I said that even 2 people on these wages (which included people right up and down the country) things would still be incredibly tight as one wage is entirely swallowed by the mortgage and council tax.

shortchanged_2

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Would this be a significant number? Or would it just include that sector of society who tend to be in financial difficulties regardless of the underlying economic situation?

Bear in mind the huge increase in the number of IO mortgages during the previous decade were a clear indicator of affordability issues.

GhIFA

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The point is...

It's not some fantasy scenario. It's what happened in the US.

The usuals have seized in on the 14k administrator, but that was used solely used to put the size of these monthly payments into perspective. I said that even 2 people on these wages (which included people right up and down the country) things would still be incredibly tight as one wage is entirely swallowed by the mortgage and council tax.

It is a fantasy scenario - you are trying to make a "point" by making up a situation that cannot be achieved in the UK mortgage market.

Of course things will be incredibly tight - they will be in any circumstance where you use a level of borrowing that is unrealistic and unachievable.

The fact that you are using a scenario that wouldn't occur renders your "point" pointless

You claim you have "solely" used the scenario to put the level of payments into "perspective" - Would the perspective be different if you used either a level of borrowing that would be commensurate with the salary you have used, or a level of salary that would support the level of borrowing you have used?