"Any sane person should worry about what will happen when IR's rise"

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

OMG Clapton.... I seriously thought I was reading one of my own posts! There must be something wrong for us to agree?!

hardly

your posts simply deny the need for private rented accommodation as if 100% of people want /can /need to own 100% of the time.


plus of course that landlords buying new builds is a major problem even thought you haven't a clue what percentage of new builds are actually bought by landlords (neither do I but I wouldn't want draw conclusions without some facts).


plus of course you think houses are for people to live in (unless they are renters who presumably don't matter).

BillJones

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What modern gadgets do you propose people get rid of that even comes close to replacing some of 33% of extra monthly income going on the mortgage?

iPad, iPhone, tumble dryer, car, camera, television, broadband, computer...

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What modern gadgets do you propose people get rid of that even comes close to replacing some of 33% of extra monthly income going on the mortgage?

People prioritise and cut their cloth accordingly. If needs be they can even cut down on (shock horror) essentials.

It's why despite all the evidence gathered by the usual suspects Armageddon never arrives.

I find it laughable that 2.3m people spending 33% of disposable income on a mortgage is something you find scary. After the last few years you must be a nervous wreck!

IveSeenTheLight

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Well, they wouldn't, would they?

Everybody thinks more houses should be built, at a national level. But nobody who already has a house wants more houses built at a local level.

I had a home, sold it and then built another home.

As a homeowner and property investor, I realise the need for more homes.

I actively encourage the building of more homes as it will mean that my children have a greater opportunity to be homeowners in the future themselves.

I believe the key thing with increased houses is to also ensure that there is the correct infrastructure put in place to cope with the additional residents

That said, part of my justification for investing in property is to cover the risk that homes may not be affordable for my children in the future.

I certainly can understand that with population increasing faster than properties being built, the nett effect will be more expensive properties.

I also consider that to compete in the global market, wages will not be able to compete with the rise in house prices.

What will be the long term future for house prices and affordability should the population continue to grow with the same current ratio of house building? In my opinion, owner occupancy will retract to be the privilege of the fewer wealthy property owners.

The information is all out there. The risks are clear.
Position yourselves accordingly to where you can be best placed to deal with the future.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Though if you feel 33% of disposable income going on increased mortgage payments

Does the report state that 33% of disposable income will directly go to mortgage payments?

I find that hard to believe.

I can understand that increased interest rates may affect ALL spending

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Disposable income pays the electric bill, the gas bill, the water bill, childcare...it pays for the fuel you put into your car to get to work and pretty much everything else.

Ahh, here you are showing that the disposable income will be used elsewhere

Graham_Devon

BillJones wrote: »

iPad, iPhone, tumble dryer, car, camera, television, broadband, computer...

OK.

So once the IPAD and Iphone are sold, raising a one off £250, what happens the months after?

And do you seriously expect in today's age people to be without a mobile, car, broadband and computer and still take part in modern life?

Removing these items from the home will "save" piddly amounts of money in comparison to an extra 33% of disposable income being eaten up by the mortgage and will actually increase costs going forward in terms of being unable to secure the best deals on utilities etc.

Gadgets seem to be something people cling on to as the solution to expensive homes. I'm not too sure why as the amounts saved by not having any of the items you list would be pretty negligible in the grand scheme of housing costs.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Does the report state that 33% of disposable income will directly go to mortgage payments?

I find that hard to believe.

33% EXTRA on tops of existing payments. Not 33% in total.

That's what my link states anyway.

Sky News were doing something on it last night too, showing how much extra a current 200k mortgage would cost at 5% interest rates. Basically the cost today was £1,100, rising to £1,450 at 3% and £1,700+ at 5% rates.

Just looking at those figures it would suggest an extra £350 - £600 a month could quite easily equate to 33% of disposable income.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK.

So once the IPAD and Iphone are sold, raising a one off £250, what happens the months after?

And do you seriously expect in today's age people to be without a mobile, car, broadband and computer and still take part in modern life?

Removing these items from the home will "save" piddly amounts of money in comparison to an extra 33% of disposable income being eaten up by the mortgage.

Gadgets seem to be something people cling on to as the solution to expensive homes. I'm not too sure why as the amounts saved by not having any of the items you list would be pretty negligible in the grand scheme of housing costs.

ok so you consider that there will be massive number of mortgage defaults

do you want to make a guess when they will start and how many?

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So are there no examples of gadgets you can provide? Only it was your solution, so thought you'd have something in mind?

As for talk of rates when they were 15%, you fail to mention wage inflation at the time.

Unlike yourself, I took Clapton's advice and read the DFW board. It seems that the gadgets to get rid of are always SKY+ boxes and mobile phones. Both of which are non essential items when compared with a roof over your head, that carry high monthly premium payments, especially when compared with monthly mortgage payments.

Lots of people also have insurance on their gadgets, which can go. Superfast broadband that can be changed to normal speed with one of the budget providers, or gotten rid of completely if it's not helping to make money (i.e. used for job hunting or used for a job).

Gadgets such as smart phones, laptops, imacs, ipads all can be sold on ebay to raise cash and perhaps pay off a debt, freeing up some money.

To be honest, all of this is not rocket science, I'm surprised (or am I?) that you need this explained to you?

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And do you seriously expect in today's age people to be without a mobile, car, broadband and computer and still take part in modern life?

We did without all this in the 80s, have things really changed so much?

A very basic mobile can be picked up for free, there are hundreds lying in people's drawers. A PAYG sim card sorts you out. Libraries have free internet access. Lots of families have second cars that aren't utilised (we got rid of ours as it was sat in the drive for days/weeks at a time, it's slightly inconvenient some times but we manage). Some families have kids with mobiles on contracts too. A family of four could easily be spending close to £100 per month on telecoms.

Are you really saying that having the above is more important that keeping a roof over your family's heads?