The dissapearing property ladder

makeitstop

ukcarper wrote: »

I have never disputed I had it better as far as job prospects and I agree house prices are high but if people had better job prospects they would be able to buy. We faced different problems to the young of today but I think the obsession with house prices is diverting the attention from the real problems.

This is just not fair or realistic. I know people who are in good solid professional positions, who yes, while they can afford a lovely house in a nice area, are paying sigificantly more to do so than those I knew in similar positions twenty five years ago.

Things are just not the same, not by a long way are they. Suggesting that they are, or that it's purely due to the fact that they are not getting the sort of employment which affords it is misleading to say the least.

People who are doctors, accountants or other well qualified career postions "should" be able to buy a decent home in a decent area, and still afford a resonable standard of living while doing so. that was far more manageable years ago, whereas now it is quite challenging for some in such positions.

lisyloo

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.

Thrugelmir

makeitstop wrote: »

and still afford a resonable standard of living while doing so.

That's where attitudes have changed over the years. Now many people think that they have rights to things. Whereas people used to accept the fact that hard work and sacrifice was required to achieve ones dream. I started the ladder with a 95% mortgage on a 2 bed flat, with items I raided from my mothers kitchen and furniture I found listed in the local paper. There was no spend on credit. If one didn't have the money one waited. Over time it became financially easier.

ukcarper

makeitstop wrote: »

This is just not fair or realistic. I know people who are in good solid professional positions, who yes, while they can afford a lovely house in a nice area, are paying sigificantly more to do so than those I knew in similar positions twenty five years ago.

Things are just not the same, not by a long way are they. Suggesting that they are, or that it's purely due to the fact that they are not getting the sort of employment which affords it is misleading to say the least.

People who are doctors, accountants or other well qualified career postions "should" be able to buy a decent home in a decent area, and still afford a resonable standard of living while doing so. that was far more manageable years ago, whereas now it is quite challenging for some in such positions.

I would say in most parts of the country doctors accountants can have a decent home and standard of living.

Physics

ukcarper wrote: »

I would say in most parts of the country doctors accountants can have a decent home and standard of living.

That's possibly true, but it's a bit more questionable as to whether the same is true for most doctors and accountants.

Loughton_Monkey

makeitstop wrote: »

This is just not fair or realistic. I know people who are in good solid professional positions, who yes, while they can afford a lovely house in a nice area, are paying sigificantly more to do so than those I knew in similar positions twenty five years ago.

Things are just not the same, not by a long way are they......

Being 'fair' implies that someone 'up there' is doling out the 'fairness'. This can only be the government. Maybe you could audit trail the last 25 years and allocate a proportion of blame to the 3,752 decisions of governments over this period that may have had an impact on the UK economy regarding house prices and incomes?

As to the 'things are not the same' comment, I am in two minds as to what the reason might be. I'm torn between....

(a) Osbournes cut of 1% in the beer duty at the last budget....

or

(b) The fact that we have just been through one of the worst crashes and recessions in living memory!

I come down marginally in favour of (b) as having something to do with it.

ukcarper

Physics wrote: »

That's possibly true, but it's a bit more questionable as to whether the same is true for most doctors and accountants.

how much do you think you need to be earning to afford a reasonable house.

ukcarper

If someone bought a £100k house in the south east in 1990 they would have to pay £350k for it now.


If they were earning £20k a 4x mortgage would be £80k interest rates at time were 14% so repayment would be £969 a month. Take home using todays allowances and rates would be £1391.


Pay has increased 2.27x since then so earnings would be £45.4k an 80% mortgage would now be £280k giving a mortgage payment at 5% of £1655. Take home pay now £2805.

Physics

ukcarper wrote: »

how much do you think you need to be earning to afford a reasonable house.

This massively depends where you are working and what you consider 'reasonable'. In parts of the North, a single earner on 30k is very well positioned. In the south east, single earner on 40k would struggle. In London, I'm not sure 60k would be enough.

It also depends on how financially secure they feel (do they have wealthy parents or some other wealth to fall back on if something bad happens?), and other outgoings (car, children, student loans, etc.).

Conrad

danothy wrote: »

Borrowing 5 x £26k at 2.85% (unarguably quite a low rate) means you'd already be paying 28% of your gross income on your mortgage payments, which supposedly is the most common rule of thumb for a reasonable upper limit. You'd be up at almost 40% of your net income there too. Is that reasonable/affordable? What about if the rate goes up?

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?