Harder now for 1st time buyers?

southoftheriver

always_sunny wrote: »

I must be really thick - would you give an example of what kinda place you're looking for in Surrey? Understand that area is key. On RM searching the whole of Surrey there are thousands of 2+ properties under £350k (affordable on £100k).

Without specifics it's all very subjective!

They're affordable now on my current wage. But once I take childcare into account and possible interest rises it becomes harder.

Until recently my husband wasn't making a good wage, and I was at uni for 7 years and spent the first 4 years of my career working in London, where it wasn't possible to save a large deposit. We're working towards it now, but I haven't had years and years to save and until very recently my husband was earning around the average UK wage.

We can cover the mortgage but the deposit is what we're working towards at the moment.

Oh and I'm not very good with numbers (not that it makes any difference!) I'm 31. Graduated aged nearly 27. Worked/Lived in London for four years.

always_sunny

ringo_24601 wrote: »

It's only affordable if you've saved £30k+ ... but at 32/35 they've had the time to do this.

The real trick was to attempt to get on the house market 10 years prior to now...

£100k is what? £65k net a year? Almost £5.5k net a month. Saving £30k should not be a problem unless there are additional circumstances and fair enuff then though looking for a 2 bed house is not realistic in an expensive area.

Unless there're actual examples of what people are attempting to buy that they find it difficult it is all very je ne sais quoi.

10 years ago just before the crisis?

southoftheriver

always_sunny wrote: »

£100k is what? £65k net a year? Almost £5.5k net a month. Saving £30k should not be a problem unless there are additional circumstances and fair enuff then though looking for a 2 bed house is not realistic in an expensive area.

Unless there're actual examples of what people are attempting to buy that they find it difficult it is all very je ne sais quoi.

10 years ago just before the crisis?

I'm sharing my experience in the thread, not presenting a case to court. I don't need to justify what I'm telling you, it is what it is. This thread is about whether it's harder to buy in London than before. Where I grew up in Central London no-one wanted to live there and it was relatively cheap to buy a started flat. Now a 2 bedroom flat costs over £500,000.

30 years ago you could buy in the area I grew up in (and similar areas) on one professional wage. That is not the case anymore.

Do with the information what you will, I don't need you to agree with me.

[Deleted User]

always_sunny wrote: »

£100k is what? £65k net a year? Almost £5.5k net a month. Saving £30k should not be a problem unless there are additional circumstances and fair enuff then though looking for a 2 bed house is not realistic in an expensive area.

Unless there're actual examples of what people are attempting to buy that they find it difficult it is all very je ne sais quoi.

10 years ago just before the crisis?

And then you need to factor in the cost of exams (continual training is normal for doctors) and insurance, student loan repayments, travel costs (they could easily be paying out £8-10k in transport costs a year), high rent costs.. Not to mention they'll want to live somewhere between central london and surrey, near to transport links - which will be rather expensive. It's a shame that 0 and 5% mortgages are like finding hens teeth now.

They *should* be able to save a decent amount as long as their lifestyle isn't matching their salaries. However, 10-20 years ago they'd have been in a far better situation.

greensalad

always_sunny wrote: »

Almost £5.5k net a month

Rent is a really big problem for those who don't own houses and don't live with family. Your rent in some areas can account for about 30% of that amount depending on whether you've already started a family.

It's all a vicious cycle. You need to be close to London to work but you can't afford to live in London. You move out of London and now you're spending the different on your train fare to get back into London. Your rent is still extortionate. Now you're trying to pay for rent, all your normal bills, and your travel AND save £30-£40k for a deposit. But every year you save, prices just go up. Not to mention that there are hardly any houses on the market anyway because BTL landlords, just like the one you rent from, have bought up all the houses you are trying to afford.

My FIL just bought two new houses in the SE to add to his collection. He's very smug with himself of course. I don't think he got why I wasn't totally happy for him...

always_sunny

greensalad wrote: »

Rent is a really big problem for those who don't own houses and don't live with family. Your rent in some areas can account for about 30% of that amount depending on whether you've already started a family.

It's all a vicious cycle. You need to be close to London to work but you can't afford to live in London. You move out of London and now you're spending the different on your train fare to get back into London. Your rent is still extortionate. Now you're trying to pay for rent, all your normal bills, and your travel AND save £30-£40k for a deposit. But every year you save, prices just go up. Not to mention that there are hardly any houses on the market anyway because BTL landlords, just like the one you rent from, have bought up all the houses you are trying to afford.

My FIL just bought two new houses in the SE to add to his collection. He's very smug with himself of course. I don't think he got why I wasn't totally happy for him...

So like someone else asked before, why stay in London if it is so difficult?

southoftheriver

ringo_24601 wrote: »

And then you need to factor in the cost of exams (continual training is normal for doctors) and insurance, student loan repayments, travel costs (they could easily be paying out £8-10k in transport costs a year), high rent costs.. Not to mention they'll want to live somewhere between central london and surrey, near to transport links - which will be rather expensive. It's a shame that 0 and 5% mortgages are like finding hens teeth now.

They *should* be able to save a decent amount as long as their lifestyle isn't matching their salaries. However, 10-20 years ago they'd have been in a far better situation.

Thank you for articulating those things better than I seem able to do!

You're right, I do have exams and courses which are compulsory and which I have to self fund. We currently rent in a lovely but not cheap area so are moving within the next few months so that we can save more.

My husband buys a season ticket and I drive to work, but we can't cut down costs there. I try not to live more than an hour away because I do shifts (starting nights this weekend) and it isn't practical to drive safely at all hours.

We definitely are working towards a decent deposit, our lifestyle isn't extravagant at all, but it definitely would have been much easier if we were a bit older.

littlegreenfrog_2

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

I disagree. It shows that there is easily a 100x price differential within a 170 mile radius and that there aren't many careers that are worth persisting in London for.

Or maybe it proves a point; if London is so much more expensive on even a 50x scale (let's take out the non-dom penthouses here), where is the argument to stay in a London based career?

If you want a better quality life, get out of London. Don't argue, whinge and demand a right to live there, move.

But that was a particularly poor example because South Wales is an exceptionally deprived area of the country which has been in an economic slump since the mines were closed. There are hardly any employment opportunities, particularly for graduates. There is a reason why you can buy a dilapidated house in Port Talbot in need of total refurbishment for £35k.

I went to university at a time when it was much more highly subsidised by the taxpayer than it is now. I have a bachelor's degree, two professional postgraduate qualifications and will soon have a master's degree on top of that (currently studying part-time whilst working). I am currently using my education and ability in a job which is appropriate to my skills and experience, paying off my student loan, paying my taxes and generally putting more into the economy than I am taking out.

I could buy that house in Port Talbot almost mortgage free and get a job in Tesco. I could earn the minimum wage and pay next to no tax for the rest of my life. I would also be depriving someone else in Port Talbot of an employment opportunity.

Do you think that would be a good use of my life? Do you think that would be an economically sensible outcome, either for me or for the taxpayer?

greensalad

always_sunny wrote: »

So like someone else asked before, why stay in London if it is so difficult?

Because some of us have jobs, elderly parents and roots down here.

I'm not completely against the idea of moving up north, and will do at some point I suppose. But I have in no way the same earning power as I do down here. I can't afford a cheap house in Wales if I don't have a job to go to in Wales.

Also family is a big thing. I'm a Southerner, my family all are, and apart from a year in Manchester I've lived in the SE all my life.

My mother is single and I am her only child. When she gets a little older I want to be close to her. I want to be close to her now. I live about 50 minutes away and I still wish I could see her more. If she gets to a point that she needs more assistance I can't do that from the opposite end of the country. She would also have to move out of her house, away from her family, her roots, just so she could be close by to me. All because someone decided they needed to pile more gold on their already plentiful pile.

I think a big differing opinion between younger generations and older is that older see property as a way to get more money, young people just see it as a place to live.

When I talk to my Dad about buying a house he says that property is all about investment, gotta get yourself on the ladder so you can enjoy that financial gain! No Dad, I just want to live somewhere where I can put pictures up on the walls without asking another's permission. I just want a home.

makeyourdaddyproud

littlegreenfrog wrote: »

Do you think that would be a good use of my life? Do you think that would be an economically sensible outcome, either for me or for the taxpayer?

That depends on what your outlook is. For me, being mortgage free affords me the ability to do what I want and when I want - all without the continual worry of redundancy forcing me into bankruptcy. I did have the £120k/year job in banking back in 1997 for 4 years and knew even then I did not want to keep that up, so I saved feverishy, sold my house in Berkshire, and downsized to the coast.

I do not have any issue with taking on a NMW job now - no mortgage, anything I earn I put towards my passion as a musician - no other distractions.

But if what motivates you is continual learning and wage improvement just to maintain a high value mortgaged home in an area where descent in bankruptcy is swift when redundancy crystallises then good luck. I just do not see any advantage in staying in a town where house prices are crippling and one is staying afloat - just.

And in an altruistic swipe to suggest that you justify this by paying more tax than Tesco workers and also that it isn't a good use of your time smacks of snobbery at its finest.