Interest-only mortgages expiring

leveller2911

G_M wrote: »

Yeah but just look how many people voted Brexit basically as a protest/to kick the goverment and didn't understand it might lead to us leaving the EU....

Oh dear, another Remainiac who thinks anyone who voted to leave is a moron........

I wonder how many people voted to remain in the EU after being frightened to death by the threats of what would happen straight after?. You know, the immediate budget where taxes would rise, NHS funding leading to the death of the NHS, famine,plague etc etc etc..;)

Miss_Samantha

leveller2911 wrote: »

Oh dear, another Remainiac who thinks anyone who voted to leave is a moron....

You make a good job at proving him right with this sort of comment.

Miss_Samantha

leveller2911 wrote: »

If we had the land mass of Canada or even France we wouldn't have quite such a problem. .

We don't have a landmass problem. There are huge space available.

leveller2911

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

We don't have a landmass problem. There are huge space available.

Space doesn't equal building land as I'm sure you know.

Trying to build on many areas of the UK would be cost prohibitive due to the type of ground, ie mountains,rivers,hills and even building on flood plains is not a great idea and even when they do it costs a premium to do so and I haven't mentioned infrastructure required to service these areas.

So no, sorry there isn't a huge amount of building land available. If there was and we built on it where would be grow the food to feed the people of the UK?. Are you suggesting we import 100% of our food?. If so thats a very,very dangerous proposition.

Think we are both going way off topic now..:)

AdrianC

leveller2911 wrote: »

Space doesn't equal building land as I'm sure you know.

Trying to build on many areas of the UK would be cost prohibitive due to the type of ground, ie mountains,rivers,hills and even building on flood plains is not a great idea and even when they do it costs a premium to do so and I haven't mentioned infrastructure required to service these areas.

So no, sorry there isn't a huge amount of building land available.

When people complain about population density, they mean England, not the UK. And they usually mean the South East.

But let's actually have some real live facts, shall we?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/511627/Land_use_change_statistics_England_2014-15.pdf
p13 - 89% of all land in England is not developed.
p13 - 40% of land in England is legally protected against further development.
p1 - of new residential addresses in England between 2014 and 2015, 58% was on previously developed land.
p1 - of new residential addresses in England, 23% was previously residential land. 17% was previously undeveloped land in urban areas. 81% was not on previously agricultural land.
p6 - 92% of new residential addresses in England were not on high flood risk land.

slowpoke_rodriguez

leveller2911 wrote: »

What we actually need is a massive Social house building programme where we build cheap,affordable ,well constructed houses but what we currently have is a limited number of poorly constructed ,over priced rabbit hutches.

Fat chance of that. We don't have enough skilled tradesmen to build half of the projected homes needed, and many of those we do have will soon be told to eff off 'ome.
(Politicians would seem not to include the building trades as "skilled"...)

FBaby

I still think many people (correctly) look at buying a house as a home rather than an investment.......... Personally I see a house as a home ,not a way to make money..

In that case, pay for it! Honestly, I cannot believe that anyone can be financially uneducated to the point of believing that if you pay interest only forever and never actually pay for the walls that make up your house, it will always remain your home. Surely it is not hard to understand that this would be no different to renting, but much cheaper with none of the disadvantages. Who, but those who are choosing to bury their heads in the sand, genuinely believe it?

leveller2911

FBaby wrote: »

In that case, pay for it! Honestly, I cannot believe that anyone can be financially uneducated to the point of believing that if you pay interest only forever and never actually pay for the walls that make up your house, it will always remain your home. Surely it is not hard to understand that this would be no different to renting, but much cheaper with none of the disadvantages. Who, but those who are choosing to bury their heads in the sand, genuinely believe it?

I agree with you.

No sense in renting a house for a lifetime IO mortgage with all the added costs involved. That said it does show the imbalance with UK housing when the only way many people can afford to buy is by having a 40yr mortage. Sadly with each new Govt we elect there isn't the will to address the problem. All we see are Govt schemes to assist people in buying houses they can't actually afford.

AdrianC

leveller2911 wrote: »

Sadly with each new Govt we elect there isn't the will to address the problem.

Blame the electorate's short-term thinking and NIMBYism for that.

How many places have you been to or through with loads of signs up saying things like "NO TO 1,000 NEW HOUSES!", "NO TO DEVELOPERS RUINING OUR TOWN!"?

FBaby

hat said it does show the imbalance with UK housing when the only way many people can afford to buy is by having a 40yr mortage

I think there is a mix of people who genuinely have no choice but to get a 40yo mortgage to just get on the ladder, but it can't be denied that there are also many families who want their dream house beyond their need, ie. a room for each child even when close in age/same sex, and are choosing to take on a 40y mortgage to be able to pay for it.