The dissapearing property ladder

Conrad

danothy wrote: »

And, seemingly, not be adverse to the risk that they will have to commit more in the future if their cost of borrowing increases?

Y'know, for the sake of clarity like ...

All of life is a story of risk, do you not watch nature documentaries?
We are part of life and nature, not outside of it, risk is as normal as breathing.

Conrad

danothy wrote: »

I don't think my friend disputes the long term benefits of buying over renting, but his question is more along the lines of "If £600 a month is what is considered a high proportion of income to spend on a mortgage at a sub 3% interest rate that will inevitably rise, then how can borrowing that much be considered reasonable?".

It seems he may have little choice to borrow that much however, due to property prices (assuming he can get a rate that low). I wonder if he'll face criticism for taking on an unmanageable mortgage if rates rise and it becomes unaffordable though ...

Well contrast him to several immigrant clients of mine lately. They just get on with it, if needbe sublet a room, take a job as a mini cab driver at the weekend to supplement their incomes. They see everything as a grand opportunity as opposed to a fearful set of imponderables.


Had a woman in today, about £5k pm coming in from all over the place, pays no tax at all - (her risk and I don't condone it), but at least she's got the balls to just get on and literally build a life all by herself from nothing. She's even on bennies! This kind of reality is far more common than people could possibly realise.

danothy

Conrad wrote: »

When I first bought in 1991 all of my contemporaries and myself bought as couples, what is this weird expectation a single earner ought to be entitled to owning their own home at an affordability rate you consider to be acceptable?

I haven't set this criteria, I asked what a single person on £26k should be able to afford. Apparently, if you take the maximum someone will loan you and spend all your income on the mortgage payments you apparently can (and should) buy a house and be glad so.

Conrad wrote: »

All of life is a story of risk, do you not watch nature documentaries?
We are part of life and nature, not outside of it, risk is as normal as breathing.

I don't watch nature documentaries. But that is hardly the point.

On this thread there's effectively been assertions that it's reasonable for someone on £26k to buy with five times income loaned to them, it's been implied that it's reasonable that the payments on a mortgage to be about 50% of their net income, and it's been said that it is inevitable that rates will rise.

Strikingly though, all those things have been said somewhat in isolation from one another. The problem my friend is facing is having to take the maximum he can be loaned due to the prices he faces, probably requiring about 50% of income each month, and rates will apparently inevitably rise. Is that reasonable? If it isn't then I suggest you direct your diatribe about "weird expectation" towards the people advocating such unreasonable action.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

I haven't set this criteria, I asked what a single person on £26k should be able to afford. Apparently, if you take the maximum someone will loan you and spend all your income on the mortgage payments you apparently can (and should) buy a house and be glad so.



I don't watch nature documentaries. But that is hardly the point.

On this thread there's effectively been assertions that it's reasonable for someone on £26k to buy with five times income loaned to them, it's been implied that it's reasonable that the payments on a mortgage to be about 50% of their net income, and it's been said that it is inevitable that rates will rise.

Strikingly though, all those things have been said somewhat in isolation from one another. The problem my friend is facing is having to take the maximum he can be loaned due to the prices he faces, probably requiring about 50% of income each month, and rates will apparently inevitably rise. Is that reasonable? If it isn't then I suggest you direct your diatribe about "weird expectation" towards the people advocating such unreasonable action.

Where does that person live who earns £26k is he single or part of a couple. Prices vary greatly around the country where I am he would struggle but then I would have struggled with the equivalent of that when I first bought.

posh*spice

Conrad wrote: »

When I first bought in 1991 all of my contemporaries and myself bought as couples, what is this weird expectation a single earner ought to be entitled to owning their own home at an affordability rate you consider to be acceptable?

I concur. Singles have always had a hard time buying. All my friends bought with friends in the 80s and 90s.

posh*spice

Conrad wrote: »

Well contrast him to several immigrant clients of mine lately. They just get on with it, if needbe sublet a room, take a job as a mini cab driver at the weekend to supplement their incomes. They see everything as a grand opportunity as opposed to a fearful set of imponderables.


Had a woman in today, about £5k pm coming in from all over the place, pays no tax at all - (her risk and I don't condone it), but at least she's got the balls to just get on and literally build a life all by herself from nothing. She's even on bennies! This kind of reality is far more common than people could possibly realise.

Personally. I think she's a f****** disgrace.:mad:

padington

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

this is completely anecdotal, but houses near where I live (north london) have absolutely rocketed in the last two months. And I mean rocketed. Houses that were struggling to get £550k are now on for £750k and being snapped up.

Dunno why or how, but that is what is happening.

TBH

Where abouts in North London ? Hornsey way or Tottenham way ?

makeitstop

lisyloo wrote: »

Why "should" they?
Do you think it's a right to own?
If there isn't enough housing to go round and you want doctors and accountants to have it then who do you think should make the sacrifices so they can have a nice time?

The fact is the population has increased, households have got smaller and we've not built enough and the old are hanging around.
Who do you think should make sacrifices so the affluent can have the Easy time they are entitled to?
The old? Euthanasia perhaps?

Some things are not as good, many (education, healthcare, equality) are much much better.

I would not argue for a second that many things about today's society are better than 20 or 30 years ago. I fully agree that's true.

I am not advocating euthanasia or the like either, or in fact that any one particular group of society needs to make sacrifices of any kind. I'm not sure why you are spouting that sort of garbage.

My point was nothing to do with having any "right" to own property, but, was more to do with the position many well qualified people find themselves in, AFTER a number of years of working in what could be considered a fairly well paid career.

The point I was trying to make (although maybe I didn't make it too well) was that 25..ish years ago, buying a decent property was more attainable for those who many in society would consider as being in more privilaged career positions, earning what is arguably more than many do, or ever will. I'm not for one moment suggesting anyone deserves more than the next person on the basis of their job title, not for one moment am I.

It's just that it's clear that the increase in property value is outrageously disproportionate to the increase in salaries during that spell of time. In fact, in far less than that spell of time.

Without getting into the why's and wherefore's of how we got here, my view of it is that it's no good thing.

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

Had a woman in today, about £5k pm coming in from all over the place, pays no tax at all - (her risk and I don't condone it), but at least she's got the balls to just get on and literally build a life all by herself from nothing. She's even on bennies! This kind of reality is far more common than people could possibly realise.

Then you have a legal duty to report her.

Helping her along and not acting on benefit fraud doesn't really help you.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Then you have a [STRIKE]legal[/STRIKE] moral duty to report her......

I think that might be a trifle more in line with what you meant to say.

Surely you've heard that Jeremy Clarkson has possibly assaulted a BBC producer. Imagine the concept of us all having a legal duty to report him! How many police would we require to accept about 50 million 'reports'?