Michelin, Gallaghers etc - lots of bad economic news!

motorguy

tara747 wrote: »

I asked a couple of colleagues, they both knew that road tax doesn't exist any more. Perhaps it's just you...

Nope.

Type in "uk car road tax" into google, and the following come up in order....

https://www.gov.uk
https://www.parkers.co.uk (big car valuation site)
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk
https://www.wikipedia.co.uk - "the term road tax in common use"

Also the aa reference it on their site.

Its not that whether on not "road tax" strictly exists, its that its a common term for vehicle excise duty.

Ask 20 people how much their road tax is, and 19 of them will know what you mean, the other will pretend not to to try to make a feeble point.

qwert_yuiop

motorguy wrote: »

WHY are you obsessed what may or may not have happened people based on decisions they made 10 years ago?

And where are you getting those figures from? According to HBOS, we're 40% down on the peak of 8 years ago, so a modest 2% growth per year will see their houses being worth what they agreed to pay for it in the first place?

From the figures quoted above, which do seem a bit extreme, although not impossible. I bought the farm last year so I've made my choice. I keep meeting people like the above who mostly seem to have accepted their mistake. One, in her thirties, blames her mammy. "She told me I had to get on the ladder."

Oh yeah - that little tax disc thing we used to get. Most people call it car tax in my experience.

tara747

motorguy wrote: »

Nope.

Type in "uk car road tax" into google, and the following come up in order....

www.gov.uk
www.parkers.co.uk (big car valuation site)
www.autoexpress.co.uk
www.wikipedia.co.uk - "the term road tax in common use"

Also the aa reference it on their site.

Its not that whether on not "road tax" strictly exists, its that its a common term for vehicle excise duty.

Ask 20 people how much their road tax is, and 19 of them will know what you mean, the other will pretend not to to try to make a feeble point.

It simply doesn't exist, and hasn't done so for 78 years. You, your mate and Uncle Tom Cobley not knowing that doesn't make any difference.

joefizz

motorguy wrote: »

WHY are you obsessed what may or may not have happened people based on decisions they made 10 years ago?

And where are you getting those figures from? According to HBOS, we're 40% down on the peak of 8 years ago, so a modest 2% growth per year will see their houses being worth what they agreed to pay for it in the first place?

Paul, you fundamentally miss the costs of home ownership in all your posts.
Yes in theory 2% growth per year over the 25 years of the mortgage will almost bring the house back to what they paid for it but heres some figures from someone who has been through it front to back.
I bought my house 20 years ago, its now paid for (well the mortgage is paid out).
Over the lifetime of the mortgage I paid twice the sale agreed price in terms of mortgage interest, repayments and fees (switching as soon as possible, daily interest, overpayments etc).
Over the lifetime of the mortgage I have probably paid at least half the sale agreed price in terms of maintenance and improvements. (new kitchen, bathroom, redecorated 3 times, double glazing, new loft insulation, new pvc eaves, carport, garden redone twice, driveway redone twice, new central heating system, replacement boiler x2, replacement pump x3, replacement 2 port valve x3, replacement fuse box etc etc etc), In fact it would probably scare me to say that over the lifetime of the mortgage that 1/2 the price in maintenance is probably the price in maintenance.
So today my house is "worth" a little bit less than 2.5 the original cost of the house and Im leaving rates out of it, just purely hard costs. What I have paid out works out about 50% more than what I would have paid in rent over the same period for the same house, probably another 10% less if you had long term discount and include rates.
Of course I am sitting with a house "worth" 2.5 times what I agreed to pay originally but not what I actually paid so effectively Ive live 'rent free' but Ive had to pay over 100 grand for the priviledge of it and I would only live 'rent free' If I sold up now and used the money I got to pay for rent for the next 20 years (of course that wouldnt happen with depreciation etc).
Over the last 20 years I would have been better off renting and could have moved more etc but I do have an "asset" but that asset would only be realised if I sold it and didnt buy anything else. To buy something bigger I would pretty much get what I had paid and then still have to get another mortgage (just about get a 20 year one to take me to 65) which over the same period would be twice what I actually agreed...
The only way I actually "save" money now is by cutting back on the maintenance and staying here for the next 20 years, its only when the mortgage is paid off or you sell up and dont buy anything else that any real money is realised, otherwise its all dead money which in my case up until last year I would have been better off renting.
Of course if Id sold at the peak Id have got 5 times what I originally 'sale agreed' and would only have paid about twice that figure, so making me 1.5 times profit. Again this would only have been realised if Id rented the same house off the new owner and then bought it back when it was repossessed at last years prices. Even then I would just be even again....
Swings and roundabouts.

qwert_yuiop

I know interest rates have been freakishly low for quite some time now, but there is the aspect that if the house is not going up in value by more than the rate you're paying on your mortgage, it's not really going up at all.

motorguy

joefizz wrote: »

Paul, you fundamentally miss the costs of home ownership in all your posts.
Yes in theory 2% growth per year over the 25 years of the mortgage will almost bring the house back to what they paid for it but heres some figures from someone who has been through it front to back.
I bought my house 20 years ago, its now paid for (well the mortgage is paid out).
Over the lifetime of the mortgage I paid twice the sale agreed price in terms of mortgage interest, repayments and fees (switching as soon as possible, daily interest, overpayments etc).
Over the lifetime of the mortgage I have probably paid at least half the sale agreed price in terms of maintenance and improvements. (new kitchen, bathroom, redecorated 3 times, double glazing, new loft insulation, new pvc eaves, carport, garden redone twice, driveway redone twice, new central heating system, replacement boiler x2, replacement pump x3, replacement 2 port valve x3, replacement fuse box etc etc etc), In fact it would probably scare me to say that over the lifetime of the mortgage that 1/2 the price in maintenance is probably the price in maintenance.
So today my house is "worth" a little bit less than 2.5 the original cost of the house and Im leaving rates out of it, just purely hard costs. What I have paid out works out about 50% more than what I would have paid in rent over the same period for the same house, probably another 10% less if you had long term discount and include rates.
Of course I am sitting with a house "worth" 2.5 times what I agreed to pay originally but not what I actually paid so effectively Ive live 'rent free' but Ive had to pay over 100 grand for the priviledge of it and I would only live 'rent free' If I sold up now and used the money I got to pay for rent for the next 20 years (of course that wouldnt happen with depreciation etc).
Over the last 20 years I would have been better off renting and could have moved more etc but I do have an "asset" but that asset would only be realised if I sold it and didnt buy anything else. To buy something bigger I would pretty much get what I had paid and then still have to get another mortgage (just about get a 20 year one to take me to 65) which over the same period would be twice what I actually agreed...
The only way I actually "save" money now is by cutting back on the maintenance and staying here for the next 20 years, its only when the mortgage is paid off or you sell up and dont buy anything else that any real money is realised, otherwise its all dead money which in my case up until last year I would have been better off renting.
Of course if Id sold at the peak Id have got 5 times what I originally 'sale agreed' and would only have paid about twice that figure, so making me 1.5 times profit. Again this would only have been realised if Id rented the same house off the new owner and then bought it back when it was repossessed at last years prices. Even then I would just be even again....
Swings and roundabouts.

Joe, i suspect you havent been around this forum long enough so i'll fill you in - there have been various individuals since the crash of 07 on this forum who have been allegedly wanting to buy however have declined to do so because the market was falling - which was correct at the time, however they're STILL denying a change in market conditions.

I also got needled at the time for holding on to our previous house at the time in a falling market. "cut your loses", "get out while you can before it drops even more" and "wouldnt like to be in your position" were common comments. However we stuck it out with renting and turned probably a £10K negative equity situation at its worst point into a £30,000 positive equity situation inside around 5 years, and also selling significantly above RV in 6 weeks and in craigavon which we were told was nigh on impossible by the doom and gloom merchants.

The market as you know bottomed out around three years ago, and has been rising steadily for the last two years here, however there seems to be some who are denying that and are now looking for other reasons not to buy - economic conditions, etc, etc.

There are of course many valid reasons to rent, however market conditions not being right is NOT one of them and hasnt been for several years

Oh, and finally, whilst your house may have cost you money to maintain, its now yours, mortgage free, rent free, and worry free.

motorguy

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

I know interest rates have been freakishly low for quite some time now, but there is the aspect that if the house is not going up in value by more than the rate you're paying on your mortgage, it's not really going up at all.

According to HBOS, we've seen 7% ish this past two years.

Besides, why does a house value need to go up? If it remains there or thereabouts then surely thats great?

There was never an expectation before around 15 years ago that you should or could double or triple your house value over the term of the mortgage - i dont see why that should be a prerequisite now?

motorguy

joefizz wrote: »

Paul, you fundamentally miss the costs of home ownership in all your posts.
Yes in theory 2% growth per year over the 25 years of the mortgage will almost bring the house back to what they paid for it but heres some figures from someone who has been through it front to back.
I bought my house 20 years ago, its now paid for (well the mortgage is paid out).
Over the lifetime of the mortgage I paid twice the sale agreed price in terms of mortgage interest, repayments and fees (switching as soon as possible, daily interest, overpayments etc).
Over the lifetime of the mortgage I have probably paid at least half the sale agreed price in terms of maintenance and improvements. (new kitchen, bathroom, redecorated 3 times, double glazing, new loft insulation, new pvc eaves, carport, garden redone twice, driveway redone twice, new central heating system, replacement boiler x2, replacement pump x3, replacement 2 port valve x3, replacement fuse box etc etc etc), In fact it would probably scare me to say that over the lifetime of the mortgage that 1/2 the price in maintenance is probably the price in maintenance.
So today my house is "worth" a little bit less than 2.5 the original cost of the house and Im leaving rates out of it, just purely hard costs. What I have paid out works out about 50% more than what I would have paid in rent over the same period for the same house, probably another 10% less if you had long term discount and include rates.
Of course I am sitting with a house "worth" 2.5 times what I agreed to pay originally but not what I actually paid so effectively Ive live 'rent free' but Ive had to pay over 100 grand for the priviledge of it and I would only live 'rent free' If I sold up now and used the money I got to pay for rent for the next 20 years (of course that wouldnt happen with depreciation etc).
Over the last 20 years I would have been better off renting and could have moved more etc but I do have an "asset" but that asset would only be realised if I sold it and didnt buy anything else. To buy something bigger I would pretty much get what I had paid and then still have to get another mortgage (just about get a 20 year one to take me to 65) which over the same period would be twice what I actually agreed...
The only way I actually "save" money now is by cutting back on the maintenance and staying here for the next 20 years, its only when the mortgage is paid off or you sell up and dont buy anything else that any real money is realised, otherwise its all dead money which in my case up until last year I would have been better off renting.
Of course if Id sold at the peak Id have got 5 times what I originally 'sale agreed' and would only have paid about twice that figure, so making me 1.5 times profit. Again this would only have been realised if Id rented the same house off the new owner and then bought it back when it was repossessed at last years prices. Even then I would just be even again....
Swings and roundabouts.

Just relative to your maintenance - there are loads of new houses being built that come with 10 warranties, etc, and pretty much all houses now come with double glazing, etc. Boilers every 10 years sounds a bit unlucky and most kitchens, bathrooms and fireplaces are capable of well beyond 10 years use.

We've been in ours 6 years, no big bill maintenance so far and the previous house was around 12 years old when we sold it and again no big bill maintenance.

qwert_yuiop

As I say, I've shot my bolt by spending my hard earned savings on the farm I've wanted since I was nine, but what impresses me is people's supposed ability to know what happens next. For all we know, there may be another boom or slump round the corner. My guess - either would have to be less extreme than the last pair. They were once a century events. Probably.

qwert_yuiop

motorguy wrote: »

According to HBOS, we've seen 7% ish this past two years.

Besides, why does a house value need to go up? If it remains there or thereabouts then surely thats great?

There was never an expectation before around 15 years ago that you should or could double or triple your house value over the term of the mortgage - i dont see why that should be a prerequisite now?

I agree, it doesn't. It's just less than optimal if its value collapses.