HTB - Have you lost/made money?

AdrianC

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

You miss his point. He's asking if a 30 year old earning close to £50K a year can't afford to have children, then who can? Only a very small proportion of people.

He/she can. Very easily.

Whether they can afford to have children AND buy a spacious new house in a nice area AND have life's little luxuries - that's a different question.

audigex

AdrianC wrote: »

So who should be paying for your reproductive choices?

She should, clearly.

But the fact is that ANY couple both working full time should be able to afford to own a home and raise a couple of children. And I'm talking full time minimum wage, not higher rate taxpayers.

If that isn't a basic tenet of the aims of our society, what are we even trying to achieve here?

I mean, if that pretty modest goal is out of reach of most people after 10-15 years of working, what's the point? Nobody's asking for BMW X5's and 5 bedroom detached houses and three holidays a year, just the security of your own home and enough space to have a family.

The fact that you're complaining about "subsidising" someone who is themselves a higher rate taxpayer kind of proves the point, surely? When society is in enough of a mess that someone who's "wealthy" enough to be being hit by the luxury "you're doing well" tax is still struggling to buy a home, something is clearly pretty damn wrong. And the entitlement of the few who've fallen into a nice little situation is most of the problem.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

HouseBuyer77 wrote: »

It may have started off over-priced then. The builder may have intentionally overpriced it as it gives them a lot of room to look generous in negoiations or if they get lucky end up selling it for far more than it was worth.

Alternatively demand may be low and the builder may have been looking to get rid of it with few options, hence the discount. However if the builder has trouble selling it, so would you. It may be that whatever factor is causing low demand will disappear within a few years in which case this works well for you.

Indeed. The truth of course is that whenever you buy a house, you were prepared to pay more for that house than anybody else. No matter what you "knocked off the price" or how well you feel you negotiated, there was nobody in the world prepared to pay a pound more for that house than you were, despite it being widely advertised.

AdrianC

audigex wrote: »

But the fact is that ANY couple both working full time should be able to afford to own a home and raise a couple of children. And I'm talking full time minimum wage, not higher rate taxpayers.

Really? Has that EVER been achievable?

Minimum wage is currently £6.50/hr. 40hr wk, 52wks/year - £13,500. £27,000 for a couple, before tax. It's going up to £7.20/hr next month - £15k or £30k/couple.

If one of that couple is giving up work to look after the kids, then obviously that halves.
If they're both continuing to work, then childcare needs considering.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

AdrianC wrote: »

He/she can. Very easily.

Whether they can afford to have children AND buy a spacious new house in a nice area AND have life's little luxuries - that's a different question.

All they are asking for is a house big enough to raise a family in. No mention of area, no mention of wanting "life's little luxuries".

I don't know whether they can or not. They might be talking rubbish. But if you think the basic premise is the problem ("I can't afford to have children despite being comparatively wealthy") then address that rather than disputing the conclusion, because if the premise IS true, we DO have a screwed up society.

Pixie5740

AdrianC wrote: »

Really? Has that EVER been achievable?

Minimum wage is currently £6.50/hr. 40hr wk, 52wks/year - £13,500. £27,000 for a couple, before tax. It's going up to £7.20/hr next month - £15k or £30k/couple.

If one of that couple is giving up work to look after the kids, then obviously that halves.
If they're both continuing to work, then childcare needs considering.

There's tax credit, child benefit and possible local housing allowance too to bulk up the income.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

AdrianC wrote: »

Really? Has that EVER been achievable?

Minimum wage is currently £6.50/hr. 40hr wk, 52wks/year - £13,500. £27,000 for a couple, before tax. It's going up to £7.20/hr next month - £15k or £30k/couple.

If one of that couple is giving up work to look after the kids, then obviously that halves.
If they're both continuing to work, then childcare needs considering.

The "buy a house" part, generally not. The "raise 2 children" part, certainly. Lack of decent social housing/affordable privately rented housing would play a large part in why the latter used not depend on the former.

Pixie5740

You don't need to be a home owner in order to have children. Mortgages aren't part of the reproductive process. We have an obsession in the UK with buying our homes and seeing rent as "dead money" which it isn't. Perhaps when some people accept that buying is out of their reach or requires too much of a sacrifice then maybe they'll feel liberated and start to focus on the important things in life. Although I suppose it would help if a long term let was more in-line with long term lets on the continent rather than 6 to 12 months, and if our social housing stock wasn't being sold off.

AdrianC

audigex wrote: »

When society is in enough of a mess that someone who's "wealthy" enough to be being hit by the luxury "you're doing well" tax is still struggling to buy a home, something is clearly pretty damn wrong.

You're right, it would be.

But somebody earning £50k/year never NEEDS to struggle to buy a home. They might not be able to buy their dream home straight off, but that is plenty of income to purchase a property, even in London.

Somebody earning that much should be getting take-home pay of around £3,000 per month, excluding any taxable benefits or other deductions. Let's assume they've saved £20,000 - shouldn't be difficult, should it?

Those sorts of figures will get a mortgage of up to about £200,000. With that 10% deposit, how about...?
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33394374.html
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-57807656.html

Pixie5740

In answer to the OP's question about whether or not anyone has made or lost any money using HTB I suppose it depends on how you look at it. Firstly until you actually sell you won't have made or lost anything. If you sell the property for more than you bought it for then there's a good chance that the next property you buy will also have gone up in price. For example, you pay £200k for your house now and 5 years down the line sell it for £220k, an increase of 10%. Woo hoo. The house you to upsize to is worth £300k now and in 5 years will cost you 10% more so £330k. You might have made £20k but the next house you want to buy will cost you £30k more so you've not actually made anything at all.

It could of course go the other way but actually that would work out better for you as 1) your HTB loan is based on how much you sell it for, and 2) the house you are upsizing too will cost less.

So it all depends on your view point as to whether you've lost or made money. It's easier just to think of the property as your home.