Paying the mortgage

[Deleted User]

I wasn't old enough to vote when Thatcher was in selling off all the social housing and making sure no more got built. The baby boomers were all raking it in, watching their property value rocket. Now it's impossible for anyone younger to even get on the property ladder.

Don't pretend that high property prices were just something that happened due to circumstance. It was government policy, policy voted for by the boomers who did incredibly well out of it. In the process they screwed future generations.

ess0two

DELETED USER wrote:

I wasn't old enough to vote when Thatcher was in selling off all the social housing and making sure no more got built. The baby boomers were all raking it in, watching their property value rocket. Now it's impossible for anyone younger to even get on the property ladder.

Don't pretend that high property prices were just something that happened due to circumstance. It was government policy, policy voted for by the boomers who did incredibly well out of it. In the process they screwed future generations.

Yawn,its never been easy to buy.

rabbit_burrow

DELETED USER wrote:

I wasn't old enough to vote when Thatcher was in selling off all the social housing and making sure no more got built. The baby boomers were all raking it in, watching their property value rocket. Now it's impossible for anyone younger to even get on the property ladder.

Don't pretend that high property prices were just something that happened due to circumstance. It was government policy, policy voted for by the boomers who did incredibly well out of it. In the process they screwed future generations.

Difficult, but not impossible. If someone wants to buy, they can cut down on a lot of things, I think you would be surprised just how much can be saved. They could live in a shared house for a couple of years (saving over £300pcm when all bills are included) instead of renting a flat. They could cut out take-aways & buy store's own cheapest. They could have a night out once a month instead of every week/fortnight. Walk more instead of taking the bus/driving. Car sharing to work.

As we wanted to buy a 3-bed house (we wanted a home where I could start a family without having to move about) we decided to buy a part rent part buy from one advertised in the estate agents (private seller, rent part is a housing association). But we could've chosen to buy a 1-bed flat if we had wanted to, or a 2-bed flat/house if we had wanted a larger mortgage.

I was 22 when we put the offer in, 23 when completed. I would call that young. House prices aren't that much different to what they were 8 years ago.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

Let me say it again.

The facts are that at the moment there is no general shortage of workers in the Capital.



Obviously the public sector inertia will slow done any necessary corrections so some pain can't be ruled out.

The picture in London is not as you describe it. I work in London in the Public Sector and there are shortages of Probation Officers, Social Workers, Police and Nurses. These shortages are covered by agency staff who get paid more up front but don't of course get holiday pay etc. I also wouldn't call £3k London weighting a great incentive to work in the capital!

OffGridLiving

wymondham wrote: »

Hi All

Just had a good read about and the price of houses is sinking in with me. There is a newbie who is quite casually talking about getting a 300k property for their very FIRST home (it's a 50% scheme, but never the less)!

How on earth are these people:

a. Going to pay for it
b. Hope to pay it off without going into their pension years?
c. Cope when rates rise, as they will.....

a. Out of their income, that would have been checked by the mortgage lender to make sure that they could afford the repayments, the rental portion and other outgoings. Lending has changed, we're not in the wild west days pre-2007 anymore, Toto.

b. If their mortgage went beyond their state retirement age, then the lender will have asked the FTB to provide proof of a retirement income sufficient to cover the mortgage repayments, the rental portion and other outgoings. Lending has changed, we're not in the wild west days pre-2007 anymore.

c. Perhaps they will get a fixed rate mortgage? Perhaps they haven't stretched themselves as far as you think (seemingly based on zero information or on your own salary).

Sorry, I just don't understand the point you're making here, except that perhaps you're saying you can't afford this yourself and you can't imagine that anyone else could? Incomes vary.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

The picture in London is not as you describe it. I work in London in the Public Sector and there are shortages of Probation Officers, Social Workers, Police and Nurses. These shortages are covered by agency staff who get paid more up front but don't of course get holiday pay etc. I also wouldn't call £3k London weighting a great incentive to work in the capital!

From what you say there is no shortage of workers in London.

Just because they are agency staff they are still human beings and employed to do these jobs.

My point is simply that the high cost of housing in London has not resulted in a significant shortfall of workers.

There of course may be shortages due to cutbacks and refusal to fill posts but that is NOT because of high housing costs.

ukcarper

DELETED USER wrote:

I wasn't old enough to vote when Thatcher was in selling off all the social housing and making sure no more got built. The baby boomers were all raking it in, watching their property value rocket. Now it's impossible for anyone younger to even get on the property ladder.

Don't pretend that high property prices were just something that happened due to circumstance. It was government policy, policy voted for by the boomers who did incredibly well out of it. In the process they screwed future generations.

In real terms house prices fell in the early years of Thatcher and were about the same in 1997 as they were in 1979.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

let the market correct the situation

if there are acute shortgage of nurses / police / teachers / clearners / shop workers / utility workers etc that can afford London prices then the wages (or equivalents ) of those workers will rise and/or rich people will flock out of London because of the lack of basic security or facilities.

Aren't we paying the extra wages through our taxes in the form of housing benefit.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Aren't we paying the extra wages through our taxes in the form of housing benefit.

My posting refer to a sub thread that argues the point that London will implode due to low wages and high rents : thus

Very true, but London (and G London) also has people on very average to low incomes too. The discrepancy between those on high incomes and low is not reflected in the cost of housing. Of course, there will be those that say if you can't afford it move elsewhere and London should only be for the wealthy high earners, but then who is going to supply the essential services where salaries are not high?

My argument is that is won't as, if a shortage of essential workers started to develop then the market will automatically sort the problem (if it is allowed to).


To what extent WTC is a employers' subsidy is an different but interest point. Government intervention always has unintended side effects.

[Deleted User]

ukcarper wrote: »

In real terms house prices fell in the early years of Thatcher and were about the same in 1997 as they were in 1979.

You carefully selected 1997 to make your point. Here is the complete story:



Prices have rocketed to unaffordable multiples of the average salary, making it extremely difficult to save up for a deposit and afford a mortgage.