Getting on the ladder: It's not impossible

tiger_eyes

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

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.

I understand you, and I've also worked hard to build a career that (although not yet as lucrative as yours) gives me a comfortable lifestyle and good savings, but it's simply unattainable for most people. You ask why people think it's unaffordable to buy property. You've saved more in a single year than the entire annual income of a person on minimum wage. The gulf is huge.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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.

Wow. That's sad.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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.

... er... so you're saying "The d**kheads could do it, by I can't..."

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

What are we talking about here? The OP is telling us all about how easy it is to buy a house despite the fact that all they have is a deposit in the bank. Pride comes before a fall and the OP might learn that by losing their job between gloating about their money on here (but apparent lack of house) and getting approved for a mortgage. Also i wonder if their OH agrees with their attitude to kids. Reckon it'll end in tears.

[Deleted User]

If you can't save and buy a home on a £50k+ salary, you're doing it wrong. It's worth remembering that most people only dream of an income like that. It's about £3k a month income so you shouldn't be struggling.

Having kids at 31 isn't unusual either

ash28

Callie22 wrote: »

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.

Generally I would say that before, you lived at home, bought just before you got married and then had children.......certainly where we lived that was the norm.....I'm in my 50s and the only people who lived together were separated or divorced couples....singles usually lived at home. .

Also private rented places were like rocking horse sh*t...tenancies were secure and people stayed in them, some times most of their lives. A bit like council houses. There were no ASTs.

My sister bought in 1978 just before she got married, had to have a 20% deposit which was £1000.....each lived at home, saved the deposit, bought, and a month later got married. She was 23 and he was 29. Wallsend, Tyne and Wear.

My daughter bought with her partner in 2007....each lived at home, we encouraged them to rent first but they wouldn't....they wanted to buy a house and said if they rented they wouldn't be able to save the deposit....that is how most of her friends bought too. Lived at home, saved the deposit, bought, lived together, got married. She was 24 and he was 28....Lower Earley near Reading.

The one friend who did move into rented is still in rented with her now husband.

Unless you are on really good money and I mean really good, it's very difficult, at least in the south east to pay the rent and bills, on a family sized home, bring up children and save a deposit at the same time....we moved to the south east from Scotland in the mid 1980s and a smaller house was just over double the cost of the one we were leaving - so it's not a new thing there. And rents were expensive too. If we hadn't already had a deposit, we probably wouldn't have been able to buy as I really don't think we could have paid rent and bills, brought up 3 children (which we already had) and saved a deposit....at least not in just a few years.

We would have had to wait for 100%+ mortgages to be freely available........like so many others.

MacMickster

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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

And yet so many ordinary hard-working families somehow manage to buy houses.

You wonder where all of these available properties are. Let us know the area where you work, how many bedrooms you need to accommodate your family and your budget and I'm sure that you will get some suggestions within an hour or so travelling time.

Of course, some people simply don't have the budget to allow them to buy a property. That has always been the case.

wotsthat

ringo_24601 wrote: »

If you can't save and buy a home on a £50k+ salary, you're doing it wrong. It's worth remembering that most people only dream of an income like that. It's about £3k a month income so you shouldn't be struggling.

Having kids at 31 isn't unusual either

People don't just wake up from dreams and find they're earning a decent income.

There's very little I can do about house prices but improving income is pretty much under my own control.

SkyeKnight

So, the way that will allow every person in the UK to buy their own house is for them all to: work over 60 hours a week, have no holidays or any other pleasures in life and save up for decades (until they feel they are too old to have children - though that doesn't matter since they won't be able to afford them anyway with their whopping great mortgage).

But, hey, just a minute - how is this going to create more housing? There are only a certain number of houses being vacated or built and put up for sale. If everyone worked harder and longer and saved more - there would still be the exactly number of people able to afford a house, but we would all be a heck of a lot more miserable. Your solution only works for the individual, not for society.

The only way more people would be able to afford a house is if we had more houses to sell.

CLAPTON

SkyeKnight wrote: »

So, the way that will allow every person in the UK to buy their own house is for them all to: work over 60 hours a week, have no holidays or any other pleasures in life and save up for decades (until they feel they are too old to have children - though that doesn't matter since they won't be able to afford them anyway with their whopping great mortgage).

But, hey, just a minute - how is this going to create more housing? There are only a certain number of houses being vacated or built and put up for sale. If everyone worked harder and longer and saved more - there would still be the exactly number of people able to afford a house, but we would all be a heck of a lot more miserable. Your solution only works for the individual, not for society.

The only way more people would be able to afford a house is if we had more houses to sell.

more houses could be owned by owner occupiers and fewer by landlords

we could build more houses

StevieJ

MacMickster wrote: »

And yet so many ordinary hard-working families somehow manage to buy houses.

You wonder where all of these available properties are. Let us know the area where you work, how many bedrooms you need to accommodate your family and your budget and I'm sure that you will get some suggestions within an hour or so travelling time.

Of course, some people simply don't have the budget to allow them to buy a property. That has always been the case.

I was under the impression that he/she already had a property, just not as sumptuous as his/her parents (I think they may be boomers:)) I may be wrong though?