Life is so unfair!

brewerdave

When the rates went sky high ,I remember being VERY jealous of a work colleague who had a "council" mortgage from years before,which was fixed at 6 and 1/8%!!!!!

ajbell

fractions! How old are you?.

JezR

brewerdave wrote: »

When the rates went sky high ,I remember being VERY jealous of a work colleague who had a "council" mortgage from years before,which was fixed at 6 and 1/8%!!!!!

My aunt when she bought her house in 1968 was offered a variable mortgage at 6% or one at a fixed rate of 6.5% for the full 25 year term via an insurance company. She opted for the latter on the basis that she would know exactly what she was going to pay and of course this turned out very well for her. Someone doing the same 10 years ago if it were possible would have had a very different experience.

marlot

_CC_ wrote: »

...How long did people have to pay 15% for?
...
As interest rates fell, ...the value of their house increasing.

No!

I bought in 1989, for £60k on a 100% mortgage. When the rates went to 15% it took every penny of my takehome pay. Fortunately, my wife was working.

When I needed to sell (new job) in 1996, the house sold for £40k. I had to put in huge amounts of overtime to clear the debt.

We weren't unusual, though managed to time our buy at pretty well the peak of the market!

kidmugsy

marlot wrote: »

I bought in 1989, for £60k on a 100% mortgage. When the rates went to 15% it took every penny of my takehome pay. Fortunately, my wife was working.

When I needed to sell (new job) in 1996, the house sold for £40k.

That was the bust that ruined a member of my family. Bankruptcy averted, but scarcely a penny of capital left.

The Young take no heed of warnings; they just know that house prices always increase.

martinsurrey

Don't forget that average earnings in the 1980's went up by an average of 9% per year in nominal terms, so if you took out a mortgage at 3.6 times income in 1980, by 1990 it was 1.8 times (on average), even if you repaid no capital.

not saying it wasn't hard, but it got easier quicker.

Tromking

marlot wrote: »

Most civil servants have been moved to Alpha, which is much less generous (career average rather than final salary etc).

...and in some public sector roles the less generous remuneration 'package' on offer has resulted in real problems in recruitment and retention.
There`s not too who fancy being a Prison Officer on circa £23K a year with a retirement age of 68 for example.

Tromking

chucknorris wrote: »

If you think they are that good (they are good) then why not work in the public sector? .

Indeed so.
Jump on, plenty of room on the bus!

margaretclare

Arguments may rage about whether the married women's reduced NI contribution was explained, or not. It varies. Some understood the wider implications and some did not.

In my case, it wasn't explained. I was told 'you just did it'. I called into the local national pensions office on my way into town. No one said 'here's a leaflet, do you understand the implications'. Just a form to fill in.

Fortunately for me, my marriage broke down within weeks and I was on my way home. I needed to claim unemployment benefit! This was when I had it explained to me, by former colleagues in the office I'd worked in a few years earlier, and I changed back again PDQ. I had the luckiest, luckiest escape.

cbsexec

Also in 1973 it was hard to get a mortgage which took into account both salaries if you were married. It was still assumed you would give up work if you had children and were female. Cant remember exactly the maths but a womens wage counted for less.