I'm having housing a moan . . . . .

Maxwell007

ssparks2003 wrote: »

Why not look further a field? Wellingbrough (northants) is 53 mins to St Pancras for instance and well within your budget.

Now why can't i buy a mansion house in Chelsea for 97p? that is more or a sensible question

1 Months travel ticket is £662.40 lool
NO THANKS ssparks

Maxwell007

SuboJvR wrote: »

Not sure the travel cost would meet his criteria though on the high speed! May be wrong!

slow train is an hour and cheaper lool

ThePants999

martinsurrey wrote: »

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5568/housing/uk-house-price-affordability/

Mortgage payments as a percentage of income are at a 30 year low, deposit requirements are high I accept .

Interesting link, thanks!

However, the problem with looking at mortgage payments as a percentage of income is that you're by definition only looking at people who already have mortgages - and the issue here is the number of people who don't. Mortgage affordability is somewhat self-limiting these days, now the banks are more stringent about it, so the effect of higher house prices isn't unaffordable mortgages, it's people not able to buy at all. In 1991, 36% of under-24s and 67% of 25-34s were homeowners; by 2014 those percentages were 9% and 36% respectively, and likely even lower by now.
(source)

martinsurrey wrote: »

Household income has also risen much quicker than inflation (more women in the workplace means comparing 1970 single income households to 2017 duel income households isn't fair)

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160107030736/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_341133.pdf

I'm not comparing 1970 to 2017, though, I'm comparing 1997 to 2017. And I don't understand why those facts undermine my point - they seem to support it! If household incomes are significantly higher now, compared to the cost of living, than they were however many years ago, then it's even MORE of an issue that house prices are a much higher multiple of those incomes.

Even if we ensured we compared apples to apples, e.g. by comparing the median disposable income of the average white male of whatever age, or however you wanted to do it, I'll bet significant money that you'll still see a highly significant difference.

martinsurrey wrote: »

so you are suggesting that governments prioritized keeping mortgage rates high, and keeping women out of the workplace (along with other things)?

Come on, there's no need for a straw man.

parkrunner

Maxwell007 wrote: »

Is it just me but are the house prices in London and Kent still way over priced,

Me and the wife have £325 to spend tops,

all we want is a good 2 & a half / 3bed with garden with parking space, and walking distance to train station . . . .

no more the 1hour door to door to city and back, travel cost under £300 per month,

Maybe i'm asking for too much hahaah

When is this CRASH GONNA HAPPEN . . .

Technically if they are selling then they aren't overpriced.

maisie_cat

There is nothing new about the compromise of property versus commute time.
I made the decision to live with a longer commute in order to get a house in 1983! Wanting a commute of under an hour is pushing it anywhere , even in London
Within a couple of years and a few train strikes I got a job closer to home as many people do.

Cheeseface

Maxwell007 wrote: »

1 Months travel ticket is £662.40 lool
NO THANKS ssparks

But your house would be £150k cheaper.

Cakeguts

ThePants999 wrote: »

Interesting link, thanks!

However, the problem with looking at mortgage payments as a percentage of income is that you're by definition only looking at people who already have mortgages - and the issue here is the number of people who don't. Mortgage affordability is somewhat self-limiting these days, now the banks are more stringent about it, so the effect of higher house prices isn't unaffordable mortgages, it's people not able to buy at all. In 1991, 36% of under-24s and 67% of 25-34s were homeowners; by 2014 those percentages were 9% and 36% respectively, and likely even lower by now.
(source)



I'm not comparing 1970 to 2017, though, I'm comparing 1997 to 2017. And I don't understand why those facts undermine my point - they seem to support it! If household incomes are significantly higher now, compared to the cost of living, than they were however many years ago, then it's even MORE of an issue that house prices are a much higher multiple of those incomes.

Even if we ensured we compared apples to apples, e.g. by comparing the median disposable income of the average white male of whatever age, or however you wanted to do it, I'll bet significant money that you'll still see a highly significant difference.


Come on, there's no need for a straw man.

There was a time in the 1997s where houses in London were much cheaper than at any other time. This was unusual not the norm.

Crashy_Time

Cakeguts wrote: »

There was a time in the 1997s where houses in London were much cheaper than at any other time. This was unusual not the norm.

The measures taken to drive them up from that price level, and the measures taken to keep them there after the bubble burst are also unusual and not the norm, interest rates for example stand out as VERY unusual and not the norm!

hazyjo

Southend may be an option. C2C line isn't so expensive as others. Leigh/Chalkwell and possibly even Westcliff are out of budget (might be lucky with the latter). I reckon there's a bit of money to be made buying in Southend. Loads more improvements planned. Already noticing smarter restaurants, etc popping up. Careful research needed though as it won't all improve!

ThePants999

Cakeguts wrote: »

There was a time in the 1997s where houses in London were much cheaper than at any other time. This was unusual not the norm.

Just London? FWIW, my source separated South East and London, and it was specifically the South East numbers I quoted.