£194,400 minimum wage

ukcarper

Windofchange wrote: »

This is exactly my point. You are trying to say that housing is affordable for a minimum wage earning couple yes? So, look at an average minimum wage earning couple. Don't look at what you did and what the morals of it all are, whether you should save in your 20's etc etc. Look at the average couple today.

At one of the scale you have Mr and Mrs I have saved everything I have ever earned and have a 20k deposit with no children at the age of 30. At the other end of the scale you have I've blown the lot and live off payday loans to support my six children. Then look to the middle where the majority of people sit. They will have done a bit of both.

I'm not disagreeing with you. A couple on minimum wage with no children, saving everything they earn can afford a house. My parents brought a house off just my father's accountant wage back in the 70's - 3 bed semi with a 200ft garden. Plenty of photos of them on the tiles, fancy dress parties, rugby tours, xmas parties.

I'll leave it here with you and let you no doubt have the final word.

I hear this from people like you all the time I bought my first house in the 70s. I spent a year saving every spare penny I had my only entertainment was a quite drink with my girl friend at the weekend. I only just managed to buy and had to move 20 miles to be able to. This is why I get fed up with people telling me that is impossible to save, I don't think it is unreasonable to do what I did for a year or two if you want to buy. If you are not a high earner that is what you have to do.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Hey baby. Let me see your bank account. Oh yeah, that is a lovely pair of balances. Ooooh yeah, let me see that will.

Or more realistically you would ask what they do for a living. If they said I'm a struggling artist living in my mums loft with no education and £15k in credit card debts then you'd not go on a second date. If they said they were a doctor and had a good relationship with their parents then you would go on a second date. This is how the world works or certainly how any sane young woman should and does think.

You've moved away from blaming Bulgarians

Don't name !!!!! up

at least, but now your solution to affordable housing is to give every school leaver in the UK £50k to spend on either education pension or property

Yes I think its fair to give children the choice to take the education money and spend it on a house or pension rather than be forced to go by circumstances and ignorance where 50% end up serving coffees or working at checkouts

Or go on the pull in your local nursing home.

Not many people with good jobs and wealthy parents at nursing homes so you'll be wasting your time there Mr bag of wind.

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

Or more realistically you would ask what they do for a living. If they said I'm a struggling artist living in my mums loft with no education and £15k in credit card debts then you'd not go on a second date. If they said they were a doctor and had a good relationship with their parents then you would go on a second date. This is how the world works or certainly how any sane young woman should and does think.

Thank god you are around to tell us how young women think.

GreatApe wrote: »

Don't name !!!!! up

Bleurgh yerrerrrere hammy hammy bahwagdoahhhh.

GreatApe wrote: »

Yes I think its fair to give children the choice to take the education money and spend it on a house or pension rather than be forced to go by circumstances and ignorance where 50% end up serving coffees or working at checkouts.

You do know uni isn't free anymore? Nobody is giving anyone £50k to go to uni - you have to borrow it through student loans unless you have rich parents. Who will pay the however many billion pounds a year bill to do this? You've spent a lot of time here protesting that nobody should be given a house and now you want to do just that? To refer to an old thread, can the nurses be given £50k too for a deposit?

GreatApe wrote: »

Not many people with good jobs and wealthy parents at nursing homes so you'll be wasting your time there Mr bag of wind.

From the world according to RushRoad on HPC:

"For the avoidance of doubt I'm not saying 20 year olds should marry 80 year olds for their money (if they want to its upto them but I would not recommend it)."

You sound like you speak from experience!

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

You sound like you speak from experience!

:mad: She took half of what I had :mad:

:rotfl:
I wouldn't be that stupid or I hope not
Plus I would divest virtually all my wealth well before age 80!

anyway stop trolling this thread and stick to the topic which is that two people on minimum wage can afford to buy a median house in 7-8 regions of this country

Windofchange

I think the tumbleweed blowing through here denotes that fact that you have well and truly lost everyone. Even Economic hasn't popped in to give a thumbs up to your give everyone 50k idea.

I'm sure somewhere out there two people on minimum wage have brought a house in Birmingham or wherever you want to point at. Do myself and a good number of others think that this is the norm? No. Even Corbyn gets it!


https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/856492925076643842

ukcarper

Windofchange wrote: »

I think the tumbleweed blowing through here denotes that fact that you have well and truly lost everyone. Even Economic hasn't popped in to give a thumbs up to your give everyone 50k idea.

I'm sure somewhere out there two people on minimum wage have brought a house in Birmingham or wherever you want to point at. Do myself and a good number of others think that this is the norm? No. Even Corbyn gets it!


https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/856492925076643842

IT probably not the norm but that doesn't mean it can't be done relatively easily. As I've said saving the deposit is not the problem it's wether you earn enough to get mortgage.
Just because many of GreatApes post don't stand up to scrutiny I think to some extent this one does. By continually arguing that property is unaffordable every where you detract from the real problem which is that in some areas it is.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

I think the tumbleweed blowing through here denotes that fact that you have well and truly lost everyone. Even Economic hasn't popped in to give a thumbs up to your give everyone 50k idea.

I'm sure somewhere out there two people on minimum wage have brought a house in Birmingham or wherever you want to point at. Do myself and a good number of others think that this is the norm? No. Even Corbyn gets it!


https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/856492925076643842

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call the idea a policy or something I would campaign for. The general idea is that the kids should have more options than currently exist.

I do like the general idea of some sort of welcome to adulthood payout at age 20 part of which could be funded by fewer going to university. Something significant like £20k+ to be used as a deposit or in a pension.

westernpromise

Windofchange wrote: »

You have a house worth £200k. Your house crashes by 100%. It is worth nothing. You have a house worth £200k. Your house crashes by 130%. It is now worth £-60k. Seems pretty simple maths to me.

Hi Wind

No, that's precisely what they've not understood. Muddlehead - and others - believes that it's impossible to need to buy at -£60k to break even. As we have established here many times, it is entirely possible to need a negative price. You aren't going to get one, but you need one.

Briefly it goes like this.

Billy Buyer bought a house (say) 5 years ago for (say) £300k. He had 10% to put down so he spent £30k on the deposit and took out a £270k mortgage over 25 years with an initial 5% fix at 3%.

Over the last 5 years Billy Buyer has spent £77k on mortgage repayments. So he's now spent £107k but he's paid off 15% of the mortgage and now owes £230k on it. To own the house outright at this point, that's the sum he'd need to find, so the total cost to live in it for five years and to own it now would be £337k.

Tommy Tenant rented an identical house at say 4% yield. Over the same 5 years he's spent £75k in rent (4% of the average value, over the 5 years, of £375k), which saves £2k versus buying. He's also stashed his £30k deposit and has made a fabulous compound return on it of 7% a year, 40% in total, and now has £42k. So to buy the house for the same total cost to date as Billy Buyer, he'd need it to cost £220k because 42 + 75 + 220 = 337.

In fact its market value is £450k, not £220k, so Tommy Tenant now needs a price crash of 51%. If that happened, the cost of living in it for 5 years and owning it now would be the same as Billy's.

Do you follow? The point is that at current low interest rates, buyers fix the price in perpetuity then erode the mortgage very fast. In the above case you'd need a price crash of 51% just to break even. For renting to work out better it would need to be more than 51%. As it is, Tommy's error has cost him £230k.

It is then arithmetically inevitable that some people will, after long enough, eventually need a price crash of more than 100% to break even versus renting.

For example, suppose you did the above calculation over 20 years instead of 5. Billy's cost would now be £30k plus £307k plus £71k = £408k. Over the last 20 years house prices have quadrupled so Tommy's cost would be £116k + £450k* minus £158k = £408k. That -£158k is the required house price. So after 20 years, Tommy needs the house's price to be a negative in order for renting to be breakeven with buying. The house now worth £1.2 million needs to crash by 113%. Crashy's number appears to be as high as 130%, which explains him completely.

That this is economically impossible doesn't mean it's mathematically incorrect. There are people on HPC such as Muddlehead holding out for a price crash with no inkling of how big that crash needs to be, and hence nor do they know that it is impossible, either. When somebody points it out they jeer and titter, not realising who the joke - if any - is actually on.

* I've dropped the yield from 4% to 3% to reflect that in a rising house price market rents weaken. From £330k to £1200k gives an average value of £750k and average annual rent of £22.5k for 20 years

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Windofchange wrote: »

solution to affordable housing

Is still the same as it always was.

Build more of them....

westernpromise

"Muddlehead" over there is fast turning into my favourite HPC poster. Not content with not understanding that he can need a crash of more than 100% he's now added this gem:

Do you think lending rules should be determined by a government department?

He hasn't noticed that they are!

There was someone else on there a while ago who was complaining that the banks are unregulated. The ignorance is literally breathtaking.