UK Affordability still very good

chucknorris

economic wrote: »

exactly. they put all their eggs in one nice house but then are in so much debt have to work long, what sthe point?

I don't necessarily disagree with that strategy, but what I wouldn't do is hold back from buying an affordable flat, while staying out of the property market and waiting years to buy a house.

economic

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't necessarily disagree with that strategy, but what I wouldn't do is hold back from buying an affordable flat, while staying out of the property market and waiting years to buy a house.

agree. affordable being the key word here.

westernpromise

gycraig wrote: »

About 2200- 2800 a month between us after tax it was about 1900 a month till a couple of months ago. Living in Doncaster

Vast majority of people don't want or need 4 bedroom houses. Why would people want to buy a flat which after the leasehold cost is normally more a month than a small house.

So that sounds like about £18kpa each? In that case 4x joint salary would get you a loan of £144k. Natwest will do 90% LTV over 5 years at 3.68%, so if you had £15k to put down you could buy this

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-47813013.html

for £689 a month.

So the challenge is raising the necessary £15k between two people whose take home is £2500 a month. I may be missing something but surely that's less than 2 years at £600 a month? Is that truly not possible?

The thing is that whatever era you bought it there were obstacles. In the early 70s mortgages were rationed, and you had to save for years and have a nice clean bank account record for the manager to approve your loan of 3.5x the man's salary (wives were taxed as chattels so more or less ignored). By the 80s mortgage lending had been liberalised so prices duly doubled until we had 15% base rates and a huge bust. Now we have more people, no more houses, joint salary mortgages and base rates of roughly zero. It has always been difficult but just in different ways.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

Thanks. So yet again made up stuff from bagofwind.

Made up!? I've quoted you directly. Go check the links. This is my biggest issue with you. You want to come across as some sort of intellectual mastermind who just gets what others don't, but at the same time you can't even get your own story straight. In those three posts that YOU made we've had:

1) I earn the median wage
2) I am semi-retired
3) I am retired.

Go tell me where I am wrong / making things up? I bet you can't. It's there in black and white. It's a microcosm of your input here - change the story to suit your point. Want to make a point about how much of a financial genius you are - tell the savings and investments board you are retired at 34. Want to make a point about how houses are so affordable - say you are earning median wage. I'd put good money on the assumption that what you portray on here is very different to the reality you are staring at now sat in your pants in your bedroom.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

Made up!? I've quoted you directly. Go check the links. This is my biggest issue with you. You want to come across as some sort of intellectual mastermind who just gets what others don't, but at the same time you can't even get your own story straight. In those three posts that YOU made we've had:

1) I earn the median wage
2) I am semi-retired
3) I am retired.

Go tell me where I am wrong / making things up? I bet you can't. It's there in black and white. It's a microcosm of your input here - change the story to suit your point. Want to make a point about how much of a financial genius you are - tell the savings and investments board you are retired at 34. Want to make a point about how houses are so affordable - say you are earning median wage. I'd put good money on the assumption that what you portray on here is very different to the reality you are staring at now sat in your pants in your bedroom.

again when did i say i earn the median wage? please do point me where i did and if its true then i will stand corrected and apologies.

as for retired or semi-retured, tbh i dont know what to call myself but i do know i dont need to work (hence the retired) but i may still choose to work soon (hence the semi-retired). just pedantics really.

Windofchange

gycraig wrote: »

About 2200- 2800 a month between us after tax it was about 1900 a month till a couple of months ago. Living in Doncaster

Vast majority of people don't want or need 4 bedroom houses. Why would people want to buy a flat which after the leasehold cost is normally more a month than a small house.

Don't expect too much insight from the replies on here. Nothing wrong, everything is cheap other than London which is affordable etc etc.

Myself and many others agree with you. Housing is 'affordable' because of the vast number of props in place. The very term 'help to buy' suggests there is a problem doesn't it!? People are up to their eyeballs in debt. It'll go pop just like every other bubble in history. Just a question of when.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

again when did i say i earn the median wage? please do point me where i did and if its true then i will stand corrected and apologies.

as for retired or semi-retured, tbh i dont know what to call myself but i do know i dont need to work (hence the retired) but i may still choose to work soon (hence the semi-retired). just pedantics really.

economic wrote: »

that describes me but im not crash cheerleader.

it must be the entitlement culture where everyone deserves an iphone, takeout coffee, nice property in a nice area all whilst having a child or two.

Click on the arrow next to where it says "originally posted by Economic"

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

Click on the arrow next to where it says "originally posted by Economic"

so i replied to this from the GreatApe:

"Most likely the crash cheerleaders are mostly single men on less than the median full time male wage making little to no effort"

again how does this suggest i earn the median wage?

if you think the bit where it says "less then median full time male wage" which i then said describe me, well it does. i earn 0 at the moment and 0 is less then the median full time male wage (which you seem to think is 34k).

so again what are you actually accusing me off exactly? because i havent done anything misleading or wrong.

i have noticed your basic maths skills are not up to scratch (median, meaning of less than). instead of wasting your time failing to put me down, why dont you work on these skills?

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

so i replied to this from the GreatApe:

"Most likely the crash cheerleaders are mostly single men on less than the median full time male wage making little to no effort"

again how does this suggest i earn the median wage?

if you think the bit where it says "less then median full time male wage" which i then said describe me, well it does. i earn 0 at the moment and 0 is less then the median full time male wage (which you seem to think is 34k).

so again what are you actually accusing me off exactly? because i havent done anything misleading or wrong.

i have noticed your basic maths skills are not up to scratch (median, meaning of less than). instead of wasting your time failing to put me down, why dont you work on these skills?

Well there we go. Clear as mud. So now you could be retired, but also not really, oh and house prices only ever go up or stagnate of course. Best put your trousers on as mummy will be calling you down for tea shortly.

GreatApe

GreatApe wrote: »

More reasonable FTB property purchases 25th percentile property prices.

So getting back on topic, houses are so cheap in 8 regions of the uk that it costs less to buy a house on a repayment mortgage than it does to rent the council poor stock. Only 2 regions are expensive yet still affordable