Is there an exit strategy?

Graham_Devon

GhIFA wrote: »

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?

So what would you prefer to look at?

You've taken issue with me looking at a totally normal person doing a job, and stating their portion of the salary used for the mortgage would be eaten up solely by the mortgage.

So who or what income should we look at that you wouldn't take issue with?

A couple BOTH earning the average 26K? Would that be OK with you? Do let me know, as otherwise all you are doing is moaning, but offering no indication of what you sort of job you think couples should be doing or what they should be earning.

But if were going to suggest all those working as part of a couple, or even on their own, doing normal admin jobs should not have a mortgage, what have you got left? Who are you going to INCREASE lending to?

My point is, and the bit you are struggling with...if you INCREASE lending, you HAVE to start lending to people earning lower incomes....otherwise who are you going to lend to in order to increase lending?

GhIFA

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So what would you prefer to look at?

You've taken issue with me looking at a totally normal person doing a job, and stating their portion of the salary used for the mortgage would be eaten up solely by the mortgage.

So who or what income should we look at that you wouldn't take issue with?

A couple BOTH earning the average 26K? Would that be OK with you?

Nice attempt to turn it around. They may be a "totally normal person doing a job" but you have stated their salary against an unachievable level of of borrowing for it, solely for the purposes of "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?

Graham_Devon

GhIFA wrote: »

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?

Of course - but this is about increasing lending, as I have said.

If you increase lending, how do you do it? You have to start lending to those outside of these levels. Those people will be earning less. Those people will be made up of couples where one of the couple earns the type of wages I talked of. Not everyone, ESPECIALLY all those with young families will have the idillic life of both earning average incomes with little in the way of outgoings.

Otherwise, as I asked, how do you lend more to more people, but not start lending to higher risk, lower income people?

GhIFA

A couple BOTH earning the average 26K? Would that be OK with you? Do let me know, as otherwise all you are doing is moaning, but offering no indication of what you sort of job you think couples should be doing or what they should be
earning.

Eh? You're the one who introduced the job and the salary into the discussion. People can do whatever job they like.

But if were going to suggest all those working as part of a couple, or even on their own, doing normal admin jobs should not have a mortgage, what have you got left? Who are you going to INCREASE lending to?

Seriously, stop muddling - where I have said that people doing admin jobs should not have a mortgage, whether single or in a couple. I haven't.

My point is, and the bit you are struggling with...if you INCREASE lending, you HAVE to start lending to people earning lower incomes....otherwise who are you going to lend to in order to increase lending?

I am not struggling with anything. You can lend to anyone, but you can only lend in accordance with the affordability criteria. So, at a lower income, the level of borrowing will be lower, and therefore the repayments lower.

The amount of mortgage in your example would not be available to a person on the salary you stated, the point of which was to state that the repayments would take up their entire salary. They can't borrow that much, therefore the repayments wouldn't be as much, which therefore renders your "pointless".

How you've managed to translate that into me saying that people in admin jobs shouldn't be able to have mortgages I do not know.

Graham_Devon

This is rather pointless.

Why you have made so much of it I'll never know.

I keep saying as part of a couple, someone on 14k would have their total wage taken up by the mortgage, leaving the other person with very little.

You keep going back to the 14k and suggesting that's not affordable. We know. It was just an example. Wish I'd never bothered.

GhIFA

Not everyone, ESPECIALLY all those with young families will have the idillic life of both earning average incomes with little in the way of outgoings.

But that is no different to how it has always been. You have to make sacrifices to save in the first place, and then make sacrifices when you first move in, it gets easier over time as your earning potential increases.

Otherwise, as I asked, how do you lend more to more people, but not start lending to higher risk, lower income people

And again, I haven't said you shouldn't.

GhIFA

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is rather pointless.

Why you have made so much of it I'll never know.

I keep saying as part of a couple, someone on 14k would have their total wage taken up by the mortgage, leaving the other person with very little.

You keep going back to the 14k and suggesting that's not affordable. We know. It was just an example. Wish I'd never bothered.

Because it was a totally made up scenario to try and prove a point which only works through making up an unrealistic situation. Now you are bringing them being a part of a couple into it, in which case the outgoing becomes a lower proportion of total income. The fact that things are tight for first time buyers is the way it's been for generations.

ILW

GhIFA wrote: »

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

Quite a lot did it between 2000 and 2007, and tended to make quite a lot of money in the process.

ess0two

ILW wrote: »

Quite a lot did it between 2000 and 2007, and tended to make quite a lot of money in the process.

Fair play to them,fortune favours the brave.

GhIFA

ILW wrote: »

Quite a lot did it between 2000 and 2007, and tended to make quite a lot of money in the process.

But you can't anymore, which is what made it a pointless example.