The 3.5 x Salary ideal - ever realistic again?

lostinrates

ixwood wrote: »

It wasn't the term, it was the "I'm going to have". As in I'm going to have a cleaner, or I'm going to have a housekeeper etc. Probably just me!

Ah, ok, I see, but while I appreciate your sensitivity I thik there was something a bout 'to have and to hold' and DH 'has' me regularly, lol. I have a husband who I love dearly.....I think its a figure of speech rather than a suggestion of a slave owning dominatrix.

Could be wrong though :rotfl:

LillyJ

lostinrates wrote: »

I think its a figure of speech rather than a suggestion of a slave owning dominatrix.

Could be wrong though :rotfl:

I am not a dominatrix, although I am not sure OH would complain if I was!;)

IveSeenTheLight

wibble68 wrote: »

You're absolutely correct. The world has changed.

However, there's nothing to stop it changing again, and the result
of economic or social changes only allowing people to borrow
3.5 x salary. There's nothing stopping the world going through a
fuel or food crisis at some point in the future.

Which is why I said
"If the world reverted to one working parent families then maybe it would.

Until then I very much doubt it"

wibble68_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Which is why I said
"If the world reverted to one working parent families then maybe it would.

Until then I very much doubt it"

Are you saying that a return to one working parent families is the only
way that we would see a 3.5 x salary lending criteria?

Paul_N_4

wibble68 wrote: »

Are you saying that a return to one working parent families is the only
way that we would see a 3.5 x salary lending criteria?

I think the cost of living and higher mortgage rates have got more chance of pulling the average salary multiple back down to 3.5x, rather than anything to do with the number of workers in the household.

PasturesNew

Paul_N wrote: »

I think the cost of living and higher mortgage rates have got more chance of pulling the average salary multiple back down to 3.5x, rather than anything to do with the number of workers in the household.

3.5x a single person's salary still doesn't buy much (if anything) in many areas though.

I'd prefer to see 3x one salary and 1x a second to make it more affordable for singles.

Single people don't choose to be single ... we'd all like to be luffed! And homed!

Like kittens.

pollyanna24

jammie*dodger wrote: »

Speak for yourself that's exactly what me and my wife do. We had to realise that we would have to compromise on other things (like holidays and house?) but that's all part of being a parent IMO. If people don't want to look after kids they shouldn't have them.

Well that's a very kind and thoughtful thing for you to say. I'm currently 5 months pregnant and I have to go back to work. There's just no other way around it. But you think I shouldn't have kids, thanks mate, I need that in my current state!

I suppose I could just sell the house and go on benefits.

bryanb

I don't see anyone taking into account inheritances from the present (Baby boom) generation of house owners. Those who manage to die off without their property being sold to fund care will be passing to the next generation some valuable real estate. This will probably take a while to filter through the system, but may help to kick start the next boom in property prices. Any thoughts?

PasturesNew

bryanb wrote: »

I don't see anyone taking into account inheritances from the present (Baby boom) generation of house owners. Those who manage to die off without their property being sold to fund care will be passing to the next generation some valuable real estate. This will probably take a while to filter through the system, but may help to kick start the next boom in property prices. Any thoughts?

If my parents die without needing to go into care, then it's still got to be split 3 ways.... so I'd probably get about £50k.

Hardly the 'valuable real estate' you seem to indicate. And my parents have to die for me to get it. Which sucks.

MrDT

PasturesNew wrote: »

Single people don't choose to be single.

Less of the sweeping generalisations please young lady