UK Affordability still very good

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

GreatApe - if you were in your early 30s and could do whatever you wanted to do, what would you do?

I dont know Mr Economic,

I am in a similar position to you with respect to age and wealth and am also thinking of what the next steps might be. I am considering selling my business this year and taking a few months off then after that looking to potentially teach myself programming for fun to start with and see if it can lead to any business opportunities. However I've been saying this to myself for about a year now but never seem to be decisive enough to take the steps to sell up and effectively stop working and jump into the unknown. Its less of a concern about the outcome (as I have enough to last me a few decades) and perhaps more of a concern about how I would be viewed by others.

I started reading a book that is relevant to this topic but haven't had the time to go past the first chapter. If it is of any help to me when I finally get around to reading it, I will let you know.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

I dont know Mr Economic,

I am in a similar position to you with respect to age and wealth and am also thinking of what the next steps might be. I am considering selling my business this year and taking a few months off then after that looking to potentially teach myself programming for fun to start with and see if it can lead to any business opportunities. However I've been saying this to myself for about a year now but never seem to be decisive enough to take the steps to sell up and effectively stop working and jump into the unknown. Its less of a concern about the outcome (as I have enough to last me a few decades) and perhaps more of a concern about how I would be viewed by others.

I started reading a book that is relevant to this topic but haven't had the time to go past the first chapter. If it is of any help to me when I finally get around to reading it, I will let you know.

What business are you in? I was also thinking of learning g programming and started with python however I just didn't have the motivation to be consistent so I gave up. Now I am looking at stocks to invest in and thinking if business ideas but have got nothing yet.

WengerIn

Meanwhile, back in the real world.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/01/smaller-deposits-raise-hopes-for-uk-first-time-homebuyers

“It still takes an average single buyer nearly 12 years to save a 15% deposit for their first home.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

Some portion will go to FTBs directly or indirectly

Also 78% of the estates left by women and 56% by men on that table were widows or people who never married so it is not as you suggested passing assets from wife/husband to wife/husband

Yes some might but your idea of affordablity seems to be that if you are in the top 50% of full time earners and are lucky enough to be in the minority who get a gift or inheritanc property is affordable. I and I would think the majoririty of others would say that is rubbish.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

why wont you accept the table I posted it is from the government own tax department they dont make !!!! up

Your link is probably right but your conclusion is crap

If I leave an estate of £1 million and give £900,000 to my kids and then leave 100 people £1k each like friends and distant relatives you would cry oh look everyone recieves nothing only a few rich get the bulk.

Look at the table for the actual data it shows more than 200,000 estates each year worth over £100,000 each. Estates can be split and often probably are between 2+ inheritors. So you can say 400,000 people receive £50,000

Do I need to post another video of a toad explaining statistics to you?

Show me some figures showing how much of that gets to people who are buying thier first house. You cannot assume that all or a significant part of it does.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

So there we have it. We can all agree house prices are not in a bubble and outside of London they are cheap or affordable. And in London they are expensive but affordable. It comes down to luck/inheritances as well whilst some can afford London property on their own wage.

I don't agree that it's only London that is unaffordable and I certainly wouldn't say property is affordable if it comes down to luck or inheritance.

Some people can afford to buy a Ferrari and I could if I won the lottery does that make them affordable. I don't think you realise how silly you are making yourself look.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

I think it is correct but your reading and conclusion is !!!!



If you split estates into 2.5 pots of gold then estates worth £300,000+ will only count as inheritences of £125,000 or more and it shows about 85,000 such estates for 2013 worth £300,000+

your post says 1 in 10 inherited £125,000 or more so 1.6 million 10% of that is 160,000 people over 2 years = 80,000 people per year

So the two match. no f surprise there

Whats wrong is that you conclude only 10% receiving inheritances as insignificant when what the data actually is suggesting is that people leave large lump sums to their kids and lots of little bits for friends and family

Like I keep saying you likely failed your GCSE math paper and your talking to someone who scored 100% pass marks on some university mathematics papers and yet you seem to think you know better



I assume if you read the full paper it will highlight what I just said, that people leave the bulk to kids and a lot of small bits to friends and more distant family. So if you take a snapshot of 2 years you will see what that report says. Look on a 30 year timeframe and you will find what I have said. That about half the population recieve significant sums, and probably a larger number of insignificant sums.

10% is not insignificant but if you have to be in that 10% of the 50% of people who receive an inheritance of any kind to be able to buy, property is not affordable.

What you are saying is property is affordable to 5% of people hardly a good definition of affordablity.

ukcarper

WengerIn wrote: »

Meanwhile, back in the real world.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/01/smaller-deposits-raise-hopes-for-uk-first-time-homebuyers

That type of report is meaningless it just shows what people are doing now not what they could do if they really put thier mind to it.

Average house price £220k so 15% deposit is £33k leaving £187k to get a mortgage of that size you would need a joint income of about £45k or £2k a month if you are not renting a complete flat or house you should be able to save £1000 a month it would take less than 3 years and thier are 90% mortgages available meaning you could save deposit in less than 2 years.

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

why wont you accept the table I posted it is from the government own tax department they dont make !!!! up

Your link is probably right but your conclusion is crap

If I leave an estate of £1 million and give £900,000 to my kids and then leave 100 people £1k each like friends and distant relatives you would cry oh look everyone recieves nothing only a few rich get the bulk.

Look at the table for the actual data it shows more than 200,000 estates each year worth over £100,000 each. Estates can be split and often probably are between 2+ inheritors. So you can say 400,000 people receive £50,000

Do I need to post another video of a toad explaining statistics to you?

Lol you've basically just explained my point.

You are looking at estates. Estates can be split up and we have done this to death on your last pointless thread. Your table that you are basing your argument off has nothing to do with what people actually inherit as you have just pointed out.

This is what the ONS data is saying. Actually, in reality, only 1 in 10 people inherit over £125k once any large estate has been split between siblings, friends, the local cats home etc.

I accept your table for what it is - it is missing over half the people who die each year, it is missing the data saying exactly who receives what money. It is as has been explained to you by myself and others here incomplete.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

That type of report is meaningless it just shows what people are doing now not what they could do if they really put thier mind to it.

Average house price £220k so 15% deposit is £33k leaving £187k to get a mortgage of that size you would need a joint income of about £45k or £2k a month if you are not renting a complete flat or house you should be able to save £1000 a month it would take less than 3 years and thier are 90% mortgages available meaning you could save deposit in less than 2 years.

I'd have to disagree with this, well, the "save "£1,000 a month" part.

Again, this sort of savings level requires you to have very small outgoings, and I doubt that's the case for a couple bringing in £45,000 per year.

To earn that sort of money, unless you are very fortunate as part of a couple you'd need two cars at the very least.

So we could assume car loan debt (unless they have paid out of their savings, in which case, car's need replacing, they don't just go on forever). Car repairs, servicing, fuel etc.

Needless to say they need somewhere to live and I don't think it's reasonable to suggest a couple of 45k would be house sharing as per your argument. Life just doesn't work that way. Just insuring 2 cars will likely cost them £100 a month.

With 2 cars, £150 per month on fuel, servicing, repairs, household bills, rent and everything else life brings you are looking at around £1,600 per month, and that's before any real living starts. Already we are only left with £900 per month before we have started on any discretionary spending or any unknown bills like the washing machine breaking.

We haven't allowed this couple any debts (bar car loans) and haven't allowed them any pension. We also haven't allowed them any children (which I realise is standard in all of these discussions).

£500 a month, yes.... but £1,000 a month? It's not real world living ...not on those wages when you are talking about them being a duel income and all the extra expense that brings.

Looking in my area you are spending £830 per month on renting a 2 bed house and paying council tax each month before you have even started with anything else. Hence why I look at your figures and just dispair at the lack of reality in anything stated.

I don't see the point in these calculations which rely on distorting the norm (i.e. pretending normality is couples of 45k flat sharing, within walking distance of work and never suffering any unknown spending requirement). It makes a mockery of this place and cocoons you into this sense that it's everyone else that's wrong based purely on your mythical sums.

There are plenty of SOA's on this forum on the debt board showing real life living costs. Why pretend all these SOA's aren't the norm and normality is the stuff that can't be found anywhere?