Getting on the ladder: It's not impossible

the_flying_pig

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

House prices are high. In my opinion they're unfairly high compared to what previous generations saw, and huge deposits are needed for a decent place in a pleasant area. Which is why, over the last decade-and-a-bit, I went to uni (thank you student loan), got a job, made it in to a career and now I'm ready to buy. It wasn't easy - I've just finished a 60-hour week, I've been knocked back for promotions, I've not had luxury holidays, I gave up booze for a year, quit smoking, I rarely buy new clothes and my budget is tighter than a duck's you-know-what. Most meals out with the other half are paid for by Tesco vouchers - it's a good job she appreciates gestures that are both romantic and thrifty!

My current situation:
31 years old
£35k in the banks for a deposit (£28k of that was saved in the last two years)
Income ~ £51k
Looking to put 15% down on a £230k place.

I think I'm far from a shining beacon of sensibility when it comes to spending/saving money - I've spent far too much on cars and guitars for that! If I'd been more sensible, I'd own my own place outright by now.

So why do people think it's not possible to afford to buy?

Is what I've done unachievable by most?

I'm happy to post my budget, saving history etc if anyone would like to see them.

:rotfl:

[i'm only adding more to that smiley because of minimum post requirements]

Callie22

MacMickster wrote: »

One of the big problems now is that people seem to expect to be able to buy a decent place in a pleasant area as their first home, rather than a bit of a dump (do-er up-er) in an "up and coming" area.

Everyone wants to bypass the traditional first rung of the ladder.

I don't disagree (although I think it's something of a generalisation), but surely a big part of that is that now because the average first time buyer is a lot older than they traditionally were - and whereas before you rented, then got married, then bought relatively early, and then had kids (generally) now people don't/can't do that in that order. The kind of house you 'need' when you're child-free first time buyer at 21 is totally different from what you 'need' when you're a thirty-five year old first time buyer with one or more kids. A doer-upper is a lot less appealing then - and probably is a lot less affordable.

Carl31

Blatant troll thread

Look at me!

chewmylegoff

Carl31 wrote: »

Blatant troll thread

Look at me!

Whether it is or not, who cares. It demonstrates that if you earn twice the national average income you can buy a house. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.

Loughton_Monkey

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

My current situation:
31 years old
£35k in the banks for a deposit (£28k of that was saved in the last two years)
Income ~ £51k
Looking to put 15% down on a £230k place.

Yes, deposit fine. Purchase price ambitious, but proceed if you can get it. If not, best to buy now on a cheaper house rather than wait another year to save up more....

Your mortgage cost will be well within 'normal' bounds. But prepare for interest rate rises later. Most of us had temporary periods where the mortgage cost 50% of income! It's possible. But less likely as time (and salary) moves on....

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

So why do people think it's not possible to afford to buy?

A lot of them don't have your salary. But having said that, the main reason (in my opinion) is today's fixation with buying a first house that's 'almost perfect'. My own generation knew the secret - that you must get on the ladder asap and buy as reasonable a sh!tehole as possible. Then trade up when the mortgage repayments are 'pocket money'.

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

Is what I've done unachievable by most?

I'm happy to post my budget, saving history etc if anyone would like to see them.

Difficult to say, because most people don't have that income. It is, however, 'average' for two people. So very common for couples. Can't say whether this would be 'majority' or not. But you'll find that most of them behave as though buying a house is not a priority. Saving hard and buying a 'cheap' house asap is the secret. No doubt about it. Both aspects tend to be 'alien' to an awful lot of 20+'s. They will all regret it in later life. When they get 30+ and older, you'll find them on these boards - universally whinging about unaffordability, being 'priced out', and bemoaning being [as they see it] 'ripped off' by their landlord - not for one minute understanding that their landlord was once far poorer than them, but 10 times better at saving and recognising when to get into property...

Eskimo12345

tiger_eyes wrote: »

I can't imagine why people on a quarter of your income would find it more challenging than you to buy a house.

My point is, I was on a 3% of my current income once, and I couldn't afford to buy a house. So instead of staying in my easy job and following my dream of becoming a rock star (seriously), I cut off my long hair and focussed on my career which enable me to increase my salary, a process which took a number of years.

Someone mentioned children which is interesting - I always assumed I'd have kids, but I was waiting until I was financially secure. If we had kids now I'd end up 50 years old with a stroppy teenager in the house... no thanks. I'm no longer planning on having children. Can I afford to buy because I've prioritised this over having children? Is the alternative that we started a family years ago and let the taxpayer pay for them?

MacMickster wrote:

Everyone wants to bypass the traditional first rung of the ladder.

Me included! Which is why I waited until my salary and deposit was appropriate to do that. Hopefully this will be a good bargaining chip when competing against second steppers to secure a purchase.

So, if it's so hard to buy a house, why can I now afford one, when I couldn't a few years ago, and what's stopping the folks that are younger than me doing the same?

Loughton_Monkey

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

......

Someone mentioned children which is interesting - I always assumed I'd have kids, but I was waiting until I was financially secure. If we had kids now I'd end up 50 years old with a stroppy teenager in the house... no thanks. I'm no longer planning on having children........

The two most expensive things in the world are (a) children, and (b) a divorce.

Avoid both like the plague!

grizzly1911

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

If we had kids now I'd end up 50 years old with a stroppy teenager in the house... no thanks. I'm no longer planning on having children.

Children or smart house and lifestyle. I know which brings more happiness.

CLAPTON

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

Someone mentioned children which is interesting - I always assumed I'd have kids, but I was waiting until I was financially secure. If we had kids now I'd end up 50 years old with a stroppy teenager in the house... no thanks. I'm no longer planning on having children. Can I afford to buy because I've prioritised this over having children? Is the alternative that we started a family years ago and let the taxpayer pay for them?

idiot...........................

ruggedtoast

MacMickster wrote: »

One of the big problems now is that people seem to expect to be able to buy a decent place in a pleasant area as their first home, rather than a bit of a dump (do-er up-er) in an "up and coming" area.

Everyone wants to bypass the traditional first rung of the ladder.

I would love to know where all these cut price DIY bargains in up and coming areas are to be found, because in a year or so of house hunting I never found one.

I did see a lot of overpriced dives in streets full of people who hang England flags out of their windows who wanted a quarter of a million pounds for houses they had paid £70k for in the 90s.

Very occasionally a cheapish probate sale appears but these are snapped up by developers and landlords for cash usually as soon as they go on sale.

An ordinary hard working family who needs a mortgage doesnt have a chance.