If you wait for the price crash...

dannyboycey

mitchaa wrote: »

Why should they pay for them to go to school? The point of the matter is, if there are 2 working parents, then someone else wouldn't be paying for your childs childcare. Your own taxation contributions would do so. Its not a freebie, like the taxpayer pays for those on JSA/Housing etc, its not in the same league. In reality you would be paying your own childcare costs.

If not that, then please tell me why people are caught in the trap of ''There's no point in working due to childcare costs'' There are millions of mums out there caught in this trap.

Surely this is not a good thing, what is your solution? Either make childcare free or double the minimum wage?

Did you not read my double whammy effect above?

I understand your point, but having a child is a choice. To expect the state to pay for childcare is wrong IMO. My mother took on an evening job when she had me, my father started working weekends. We got by just fine and never once moaned that someone else should be paying for childcare. You just need to make sacrifices - nobody said having a child is easy (far from it).

mitchaa

I too see your point Danny, but its the only solution i can think of that would get long term unemployed back to work.

That's maybe why im not a politician:rotfl:

My wife is going back to work in the next 6 wks and we will need to fork out 100% childcare costs. It boils my blood that some get it for nothing and that i have to work hard and pay for mine but then thats life, the whole benefit system is a shambles.

Work hard get shafted, dont work so hard, get every benefit under the sun to make you better off than those that work hard. Nice one:rotfl:

PasturesNew

I would be too worried to take on a mortgage because of the long-term obligations it means. If you have a change of circumstances it can really tie you down/bog you down and get you down. Been there, done that. Got trapped. No thanks! Also, any mortgage I could get would either be so small it's not worth bothering with, or so large I wouldn't sleep at night.

Therefore, at the bottom of the market, I don't expect to put down my entire cash pot and mortgage on top of that to buy some super-mansion... I plan to spend 60% of my cash pot and invest the remaining 40%. I will then be financially independent at a subsistence level. This will then allow me to be free to work/not work at whatever salary I choose to. I will be able to resign if I have a rubbish manager or save and holiday if I have a good one.

I will no longer be owned by "The Man".

mr.broderick

There aint gonna be a crash....

dannyboycey

mitchaa wrote: »

I too see your point Danny, but its the only solution i can think of that would get long term unemployed back to work.

That's maybe why im not a politician:rotfl:

My wife is going back to work in the next 6 wks and we will need to fork out 100% childcare costs. It boils my blood that some get it for nothing and that i have to work hard and pay for mine but then thats life, the whole benefit system is a shambles.

I completely agree that the system is a shambles. There are millions of people who are simply too lazy to work and the level of benefits they receive do not give any incentive for them to get a job that would pay minimum wage.

The whole benefits system needs restructuring and millions should simply have their benefits stopped altogether. The trouble is, no government has the balls to do it because it's hardly an election winner. I pay a lot of tax and it really riles me that the government take MY hard earned money and give it to lazy people to keep them stocked up on fags and booze! The way this country is currently run favours the irresponsible and the downright lazy. I have a family member with severe mental health problems who is unable to take care of themselves, let alone work and we literally have to fight to get them the benefits and care they should be entitled to. The UK is an absolute shambles of a country. We should be ashamed.

dannyboycey

PasturesNew wrote: »

I will no longer be owned by "The Man".

Amen to that!

mr.broderick

PasturesNew wrote: »

I would be too worried to take on a mortgage because of the long-term obligations it means. If you have a change of circumstances it can really tie you down/bog you down and get you down. Been there, done that. Got trapped. No thanks! Also, any mortgage I could get would either be so small it's not worth bothering with, or so large I wouldn't sleep at night.

Therefore, at the bottom of the market, I don't expect to put down my entire cash pot and mortgage on top of that to buy some super-mansion... I plan to spend 60% of my cash pot and invest the remaining 40%. I will then be financially independent at a subsistence level. This will then allow me to be free to work/not work at whatever salary I choose to. I will be able to resign if I have a rubbish manager or save and holiday if I have a good one.

I will no longer be owned by "The Man".

No disrespect but you are talking as though a crash is a given, i am not convinced.

mitchaa

dannyboycey wrote: »

I pay a lot of tax and it really riles me that the government take MY hard earned money and give it to lazy people to keep them stocked up on fags and booze!

Who then burgle your home and steal your car just to rub salt into the wounds that you haven't given them enough:rotfl:

HouseBuyer_2

Why would people prefer higher mortgage rates for a smaller loan than a lower rate to a bigger loan? Would you not pay the same at the end of the day (since mortgages are 25 years).

And isn't it still a big ball and chain when you have a mortgage of 10% even though you bought your house at the corrected price?

How many people can realistically afford 25% deposit? If you are lucky and live rent free with the oldies, I can see that happening but even with us (as reasonable wage earners), we will struggle with paying our 250,000 repayment mortgage of about 1900 each month.

And no, we don't live extravagant lifestyles but we do need to have the odd new suit for work and ocassional takeaway.

Paul_N wrote: »

I don't think people are too bothered about what mortgage rates are. If mortgage rates continue to climb, house prices will just fall further anyway. Lots of people would prefer a smaller loan size with higher mortgage rates rather than a large loan size with low mortgage rates. And that makes perfect sense. It doesn't necessarily mean housing is going to be any more affordable, but it does mean you haven't got a big ball and chain of a debt hanging round your neck if things start to go pear shaped in the economy and mortgage rates start rising (like we're seeing now).

And of course some sensible people have been putting off buying over the past 2-3 years and have large cash deposits ready, and no debt. Falling prices mean they have an ever increasing deposit percentage (well over 25% in some cases) and so mortgage applications shouldn't be a problem.

HouseBuyer_2

mr.broderick wrote: »

No disrespect but you are talking as though a crash is a given, i am not convinced.

I don't think there will be a big crash (am hoping for a small one) but I can assure you that right now at this moment in time, there are more sellers than buyers. Something's going to give soon