For those who think we had it easy...

two_sheds_2

Poppy9 wrote: »

The demand is driven by buyers, buyers who want it now and don't care what it costs. A house is only worth what someone will pay and we have raised a generation who don't care what it costs, they want it.

People have to live somewhere though. Our rent is £500 pcm, a mortgage wouldn't be very much more. If renting was cheaper, more people would rent. Buy-to-let has forced rents sky-high, and landlords are prepared to leave properties empty rather than reduce their rents. Even rat-holes like mine are expensive. I have no washing machine, no central heating, no double-glazing, no bath just a tiny tiny shower, my windows have been painted shut to save on maintenance, there's damp patches on the walls ... My accom may sound bad, but it is the best I have rented, some 20 places in 4 towns over 20 years.I resent having to pay rent to someone whose only interest is profit. The landlord has no incentive to improve the property, because there's a shortage of decent rented accom.
People think tenants are scum and deserve the cr*ppy accommodation they end up in.
People are desperate for a decent home, with security (not always being fearful of getting kicked out every 6 months) and the luxury of being allowed to put their own pictures on the walls.

santashelper_2

i have mixed feelings on this.

Many years ago when we brought our first house for £19,000 we were told it was going to mean lots of sacrafices and we have made many our first home we had all second hand furniture and both had two jobs.

It is hard now but expectations are higher we did not go out much, did not drink, did not smoke, and worked hard admittedly there was interest relief on home improvements which was taken away so that has also had an impact.

Our children are both coming up to home owner age and we are now having to consider sacrafices to help them i.e. going guarantor, help with a deposit, which we did not anticipate when we had them the most a parent had to worry about was paying for a wedding.

I think the trouble is that where credit has been introduced many people are living in a false economy which eventually has to catch up with everyone.

We need a goverment who sets good standards how can they promote issues about not having more than one car, not having more than one home when they are doing the opposite.

Many of our friends say you are lucky to have ended up in a four bed house when we started in a flat but it has not come without paying the price we have both had health issues to deal with probably from overworking and under partying and until we find a balance that suits everyone we will never win the battle, the trouble is the carrot is dangled then the goal post is moved to much changes to fast nowadays and instead of living in the present we are all to worried about the future.

Hopefully one day we will all be in a position to be winners but i think that everyone is suffering one way or another ok some people have got through the net and been lucky and thats what it appears to boil down to luck and timing and unfortunately even the time you are born comes into play which is sad that the purpose of life is being eroded away because of greed

lieutenant_dan

The key question to this whole debate is, can it be done?

In the 70s and 80s (countless examples available in this thread and others) average earners could still do it, with plenty of sacrifices and hard work (and without the cushion - if you can call it that, as it can become an additional burden soon enough - of widely accessible credit/credit cards)

The point I and several others are making is that at current levels, whatever part of the country you live in, it just can not be done now, the figures don't add up for so many people no matter how hard you save. It really is frustrating repeating this point ad nauseum.

Yes there are cultural changes, and as zebedee said one set of problems are replaced by a different set as time moves on. The question is on balance, who is better off? We definitely benefit now from competitively priced consumer goods, cheap travel/gadgets etc, but on house prices, which at the end of the day is the most important thing, we are so much worse off it's untrue.

santashelper_2

also many people have been caught out by the endowment mortages where they thought they were paying off their mortgage it appeared they were not and others were caught in negative equity so i suppose there has always been some for of problem in one way or another i do understand why many of my sons friends want to rent and they go out and have a good time when i talk to them they say why do we want to be tied down with a mortgage and worry about interest rate rises etc etc when we have some where to live that someone else can worry about repairs and upkeep and we can spend our spare money on having fun when many homeowners seem miserable about the state of the housing market so they have opted out to alieviate that problem

Turnbull2000

A somewhat smug attitude has been quite prevalent on MSE lately, with numerous posters whom despite buying under much more favourable conditions, arrogantly insist that youngsters aren't willing to make the "sacrifices" that they did.

On the other hand, there are certain individuals who have managed to buy recently, but then stubbornly insist that because they managed it, so can everyone else. This is a pretty foolish basis for argument.

Facts and figures you throw at them go in one ear and out the other. They seem incapable or unwilling to comprehend the economic climate we're experiencing and the difficulties that lie ahead.

titewad_2

Poppy9 wrote: »

Milllions were unemployed. Redundancy was common. My OH was made redundant in 1987, less than a year after us buying our first home. We had a £17k mortgage and both earned £5k per year. He had to get a job, any job to pay the mortgage and pay for refurbishment of the house. How many youngsters would today live in a house that had no CH, no kitchen, an ancient bathroom, damp walls and furnished with hand-me down furniture?

A house costing less than twice joint annual wage!!!!!!!!!!
My god I wish we had to suffer like that.

Poppy9

I've never been called a smug oldie before.:p Is 42 old? Yes according to my DD! People who have been on the property market for years and has high equity are not smug. Hell what's the point of the equity? I can't sell my house as I will be homeless. If I want to buy another house all my equity will go on buying that house. The only thing I can do with my equity is borrow against and unless you are the sort of person who wants more debt, why would you?

I have the dreaded endowment mortgages, two of them. I still have the original offer letter circa 1985 setting out the cost of a repayment mortgage versus an endowment mortgage. The endowment mortgage was more expensive but it was 'guaranteed' to pay off my mortgage after 25 years and provide an additional lump sum equivalent to the amount of the mortgage. We believed the hype, we thought financial advisors were honest:eek: . We can't claim for miselling as we bought a few years too early and there is no protection for us so we've had to make alternative arrangements to pay off the mortgage. We couldn't afford to switch to repayment as by then we had a child, I was working part-time and OH self-employed so we have had to make other arrangements. I don't feel hard done-by, there are plenty worse off than us.


ps Zebedee69, thanks for reminding me about the mouse. OH assured me at the time it was only one mouse (a field mouse but there were no fields for miles) but I had nightmares about it for months. I won't blooming sleep tonight remembering it now.:o

To all those who feel patronised by generalisations, why? I don't feel patronised etc when men refer to 'women drivers' as I know I'm a good driver and not one of the ones they are talking about!

Ps - you can buy a house here for under £50k, it could be the next property hotspot!

Poppy9

titewad wrote: »

A house costing less than twice joint annual wage!!!!!!!!!!
My god I wish we had to suffer like that.

Interest rates were high and you could only borrow 2.5 times the main earner wage as women were expected to give up work to raise their families. We wanted a house in a nicer area that needed little work but it cost £23k and we couldn't borrow it, no lender would give us a mortgage even with our 10% deposit. I think back and think we should have held out for the better house by getting more cash together as we were completely broke paying for damp courses, replastering, rewiring, central heating, new roof etc. It was a real money pit.

Zebedee69

Running_Horse wrote: »

Just re-read your first post, and it is obvious now:
You are indeed the victim. You should demand an aplogy from me for your words, and perhaps put in a claim for compensation.

How dare I hold a different opinion from such a helpless victim?:rotfl:

Thanks, I thought I was the victim too. Il ring no win no fee on Monday for advice;)

Zebedee69

Poppy9 wrote: »

Is 42 old?

Okay grandad! Enough of the flirting:D