I don't know how long ago you buying your 18 thousand pounds house was, but earning 3 thousand a year and your house was 18 thousand doesn't sound bad to me.
I don't earn anywhere near the "avearage wage of about 24-27 thousand", but if you where to x that by three you would have 81 thousand and you wouldn't be able to get anything for that in most parst of southern england unless you go for part rent/part buy.
Though Homes under the Hammer auctions showed auctions last year of houses going for around 75 thousand but that was slap bang in the middle of the recession, I doubt on the open market houses where going for that price.
Also even up to the mid 90's, I knew people buying their council houses for 25 thousand and those houses are worth even now well over 200 thousand, if not 250 thousand.
Her post is pretty meaningless unless she divulges the year.
Housepricecrash.com always had good comparisons between renting and buying with the former always coming out on top at the end of an average 25 year mortgage. It used to take into account everything including:-
!
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying that housepricecrash.com ran a comparison between someone that paid rent for 25 years and someone that paid a mortgage?
If so, this is completely meaningless! The renter may well have paid less, but they are left with nothing at the end of 25 years, whereas the person that paid the mortgage has a house. Or am I really missing something here?
Feel free not to answer if you wish, but roughly, what was your repayment every month or at its highest and what was the total you paid back?
I only ask because it sounds like you did get your place on a good deal as most people did back then and its the first time buyers of the last 10 years that are being clobbered and its not fair because here us younger ones are, being asked to go round doing more and more for the older generation from paying more taxes to delivering meels on wheels, where its "members" of the older generation making our lives so expensive by always moaning about the building of affordable homes.
Feel free not to answer if you wish, but roughly, what was your repayment every month or at its highest and what was the total you paid back?
I only ask because it sounds like you did get your place on a good deal as most people did back then and its the first time buyers of the last 10 years that are being clobbered and its not fair because here us younger ones are, being asked to go round doing more and more for the older generation from paying more taxes to delivering meels on wheels, where its "members" of the older generation making our lives so expensive by always moaning about the building of affordable homes.
I cant remember what it was when we started but it was £136 when we finished I reckon paid sbout 40k all told
Now lets have a look at your moans shall we.
First of all you moan about 'paying' for the old well who the F@ck do you think helped pay for the hospital you were born in, the school you went to, yes thats right the older generation with their taxes and NI and whilst they were doing that they were also paying for the generation before them at the same time paying motgages /rents ands bringing up a family and what do they get for that - well I will tell you some of them end up like my 80 yo father, lying in a hospital bed , covered in his own sh@t crying in pain and being ignored by the nurses, this is a man who has NEVER been able to afford his own home, worked three jobs and is in fact still working as a cleaner to supplement his tiny pension.
And who do you think got him out of there and in to a private hospital, not some baby boomer oldie who is drowning in money at the expense of the young, no my 24 yo nephew who instead of going to uni- instead of whining and complaining that the world owes him a living got up of his @rse when he left school trained as a plumber and now employs apprentices and makes a good living.
Because of his sacrifice my father is home for Christmas - hell in fact its due to him my father is bleddy well alive
And as for your comment about the old denying the young affordable housing dont make me laugh. We have just had a scheme rejected for twenty affordable houses at the top of my road due to objections, it wasnt the old people who objected they WANTED the developement as they had been promised a new bus service if it went ahead, no the objectors were a cabal of 30 somethings who own their own homes and have at least two cars each, THEY objected and the scheme is no longer going ahead.
I cant remember what it was when we started but it was £136 when we finished I reckon paid sbout 40k all told
Now lets have a look at your moans shall we.
First of all you moan about 'paying' for the old well who the F@ck do you think helped pay for the hospital you were born in, the school you went to, yes thats right the older generation with their taxes and NI and whilst they were doing that they were also paying for the generation before them at the same time paying motgages /rents ands bringing up a family and what do they get for that - well I will tell you some of them end up like my 80 yo father, lying in a hospital bed , covered in his own sh@t crying in pain and being ignored by the nurses, this is a man who has NEVER been able to afford his own home, worked three jobs and is in fact still working as a cleaner to supplement his tiny pension.
And who do you think got him out of there and in to a private hospital, not some baby boomer oldie who is drowning in money at the expense of the young, no my 24 yo nephew who instead of going to uni- instead of whining and complaining that the world owes him a living got up of his @rse when he left school trained as a plumber and now employs apprentices and makes a good living.
Because of his sacrifice my father is home for Christmas - hell in fact its due to him my father is bleddy well alive
And as for your comment about the old denying the young affordable housing dont make me laugh. We have just had a scheme rejected for twenty affordable houses at the top of my road due to objections, it wasnt the old people who objected they WANTED the developement as they had been promised a new bus service if it went ahead, no the objectors were a cabal of 30 somethings who own their own homes and have at least two cars each, THEY objected and the scheme is no longer going ahead.
I'm not impressed with your use of abusive words for a start!
As for who do I think paid for the hospitals, don't count on it that it was down to any of the people living today. A lot of them up until recently where a hundred years old or more and could well have been paid off what we looted from the countries we invaded and enslaved or paid mickey mouse wages too.
So you did get a good deal. £136 a month? Most people pay the best part of a thousand pounds if not well over that for a 3 bedroom place now and even 1 or 2 bedroom places will not be that far off.
You missed it where I wrote that younger home owners become nimbys too but most of them are the older generation. The only older ones who want affordable homes now are the ones who priced the young kids out of their areas and now have no young people left to do the stuff they can't.
As for your dad, if that was me, i certainly would have certainly not have accepted that happning to any of my family. Answer is to give them a pice of your mind and complain if they get like that!
World owes us a living? When did I say that? I've always worked but you got double standards by the sounds of it. No doubt you'd moan about people who don't work, and then moan if someone doesn't have work who wants some and says they think their owed it? In a lot of cases they are, especially with what Governments expect out of us!
Btw, your 80 year old dad shold have been able to afford a place over the 80 years, esp with right to buy and the ridiculous discounts that where given to buy council houses.
First of all you moan about 'paying' for the old well who the F@ck do you think helped pay for the hospital you were born in, the school you went to, yes thats right the older generation with their taxes and NI and whilst they were doing that they were also paying for the generation before them at the same time paying motgages /rents
Errm, you talk as if a only a single, older generation pays tax to fund schools and hospitals. What utter crap.
The only relevant argument is what each generation contributes against what they receive. And in this respect, the over 50's are receiving way more than they ever contributed, with younger generations facing the opposite.
I think, beyond all the arguments, the crux of the matter is that first-time buyers can no longer feed the housing market. What we're seeing now is pretty much those who are 'in the market' jiggling things around, such as those who sold around 2-3 years ago with large cash pots, who are snapping up 'bargains'. Once that's done, and we reach the point where many boomers realise that they can't cash in on their brick and mortar cash pot 'pensions', we'll have an major adjustment.
The housing market is essentially a pyramid scam, or ponzi scheme. Without new entrants, it eventually withers.
The great irony in all this is the absence of 100% mortgages. Common sense tells us that 100% mortgages should be made available during times like now when people have difficulty getting deposits together, but then withdrawn when the economy picks up, as there is more personal liquidity in the system to enable people to save up deposits, but hey ho. This'd probably lead to a more long-term inflation-linked rise in prices, but then speculators would be weeping tears of woe in that scenario - no more easy money and boasting at dinner parties about portfolios.
We can't overlook the role of the mortgage brokers in the boom either. I seem to recall that, if judged by average house price over the last few years, and a 3.5x multiplier, the average salary would've been in the region of £60-£70k. One or two dodgy applications there methinks.
Errm, you talk as if a only a single, older generation pays tax to fund schools and hospitals. What utter crap.
The only relevant argument is what each generation contributes against what they receive. And in this respect, the over 50's are receiving way more than they ever contributed, with younger generations facing the opposite.
Very well put. It won't get any better either for the young, not for ages anyway on housing. Other things like energy prices will continue to rocket, especially as our energy supplies have been largely squandared. Guess by whom...?
Dirt cheap you have GOT to be joking, when I first got my mortgage which was for 18k (we could only get 1 1/2 times salary and had to use savings for the rest) I was earning 3k a year yes 3k a year my husband was on 9k a year.
We couldnt buy in a 'nice' area we had to take what we could afford.
Looking at ads for people starting out in the professions me and OH are in a young couple doing what we did and working in the same industry would be earning 60k between them.
and please dont tell me a FTB couple cant buy in London on a combined salary of 60k , my Nephew and his wife on a combined salary of 40k bought a flat in north London this year. Ok they saved up for a few years to get a deposit something that a lot of young people seem unable to unwilling to do
You can buy places quite cheaply in bits of London, 180K to 200K for a 2 bed flat which would cost you around £1000 to £1200 a month in mortgage repayments. But then you could rent the same type of place for £800 to £950 a month and still have your deposit, so I'm not sure why you would want to buy.
Errm, you talk as if a only a single, older generation pays tax to fund schools and hospitals. What utter crap.
The only relevant argument is what each generation contributes against what they receive. And in this respect, the over 50's are receiving way more than they ever contributed, with younger generations facing the opposite.
I'm not wholly convinced. When I started work in 1972, basic rate tax was far, far higher than it is now. That was because we were paying the pensions of all the people who had retired and were retiring on generous state pensions, for council house, school and hospital building programmes, which were legion during the 70s, and there was a bit of a boom in the 90s too.
I've paid for 3 generations of kids, noen of which were mine, to be educated and cared for (which I don't begrudge, I hasten to add), bought my own house because it was the only way I could get a secure home and skinted myself paying for it, and never went to uni because I couldn't afford it.
Nearly 40 years later, having paid into SERPS/S2P all my life (most of my employment was in jobs where there was no occupational pension), I will have to work until I'm 66, rather than 60, despite ill-health, and all that extra money I paid will have got me nothing as they're talking of of enhancing the pension for everyone regardless of what people have paid in. I'll probably be in the same bloody penury as everyone else, with just a small prvate pension that will no doubt be just enough to mean I have to pay all my council tax.
It does make me laugh when I listen to people saying they only paid £160k for their house and now it's worth xyz... Do they ever actually sit down and work out how much their house really cost when mortgage interest, fees, survey etc are all taken into account?
The only really significant item there is the mortgage interest. Stamp duty, surveyor's fees, legal fees, insurance policies and so forth are small beer in comparison. But to answer your question, your prospective mortgage lender should tell you how much interest you can expect to pay over the full term of the mortgage. Mine did. I think it may be a legal requirement nowadays.
Housepricecrash.com always had good comparisons between renting and buying with the former always coming out on top at the end of an average 25 year mortgage.
It used to take into account everything including:-
Loss of interest over 25 years on funds required for deposit, survey, fees, legal costs etc
Loss of income for structural defects (most homes would require replacement windows, roofs, two boilers, rewired, etc over 25 years)
Potentail loss of deposit and any home investment should your circumstances change (25 years is a long time...)
Loss of disposable income where life assurances are compulsory and where mortgage repayments significantly outweigh comparable monthly rentals.
And of course the obvious fact that you hand over thousands every year to the lender - money which is as dead as handing it to a landlord.
Many people would be surprised just how quickly they could save enough to buy outright, then they could claim they only paid xyz for their house!
Many of those things you mention, you're paying indirectly anyway as landlords have to pass on the costs of buildings maintenance, any insurance policies and indeed their own mortgage interest (if applicable) to tenants. If they didn't, they'd be out of business. You're still paying all these things - they're just disguised in a wrapper labelled "rent".
And the one thing you haven't considered is what impact inflation has on this scenario - and it is a consideration which is utterly fatal to your case.
I took out a mortgage in 2002 on a £105k house. My monthly payments were £650 a month to begin with. If I'd stuck to that plan, I would be paying roughly £650 a month on the mortgage now (actually rather less, given how interest rates are at the moment, but that's by the by), and have 15 and a half years left on the mortgage. And my monthly repayments would stay at roughly £650 a month (with variations for fluctuating interest rates) until I'd paid the mortgage off. In all of which time, the "real value" of £650 will have diminished considerably, as wages and prices continue to inflate.
(We didn't stick to that plan. We tightened our belts, overpaid massively and redeemed the mortgage in a little over eight years - saving ourselves many tens of thousands of pounds in interest payments. 25 years may be a long time, but you don't necessarily have to stick to a 25-year plan. I heartily recommend making overpayments if you can afford to do it - and your lender doesn't slap you with early repayment charges.)
If I'd continued renting, and assuming I'd have been paying £650 a month in the first year in rent, by now my rent on the same flat would be closer to £850. Fast-forward another 16 years, who knows - it could be as much £2,000 a month.
Saving enough to buy outright is a great idea if you can do it. But for many people, that would entail either living under one's parents' roof, or enduring some pretty grim accommodation in the meantime, for a considerable number of years - and the problem with saving even for a deposit right now is that house prices can run away from you faster than you can save. Try telling the twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings struggling to get a 25% or 30% deposit together that they should save for the entire sum. Such a proposal would be greeted with derision - and deservedly so.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying that housepricecrash.com ran a comparison between someone that paid rent for 25 years and someone that paid a mortgage?
If so, this is completely meaningless! The renter may well have paid less, but they are left with nothing at the end of 25 years, whereas the person that paid the mortgage has a house. Or am I really missing something here?
The only really significant item there is the mortgage interest. Stamp duty, surveyor's fees, legal fees, insurance policies and so forth are small beer in comparison. But to answer your question, your prospective mortgage lender should tell you how much interest you can expect to pay over the full term of the mortgage. Mine did. I think it may be a legal requirement nowadays.
Many of those things you mention, you're paying indirectly anyway as landlords have to pass on the costs of buildings maintenance, any insurance policies and indeed their own mortgage interest (if applicable) to tenants. If they didn't, they'd be out of business. You're still paying all these things - they're just disguised in a wrapper labelled "rent".
And the one thing you haven't considered is what impact inflation has on this scenario - and it is a consideration which is utterly fatal to your case.
I took out a mortgage in 2002 on a £105k house. My monthly payments were £650 a month to begin with. If I'd stuck to that plan, I would be paying roughly £650 a month on the mortgage now (actually rather less, given how interest rates are at the moment, but that's by the by), and have 15 and a half years left on the mortgage. And my monthly repayments would stay at roughly £650 a month (with variations for fluctuating interest rates) until I'd paid the mortgage off. In all of which time, the "real value" of £650 will have diminished considerably, as wages and prices continue to inflate.
(We didn't stick to that plan. We tightened our belts, overpaid massively and redeemed the mortgage in a little over eight years - saving ourselves many tens of thousands of pounds in interest payments. 25 years may be a long time, but you don't necessarily have to stick to a 25-year plan. I heartily recommend making overpayments if you can afford to do it - and your lender doesn't slap you with early repayment charges.)
If I'd continued renting, and assuming I'd have been paying £650 a month in the first year in rent, by now my rent on the same flat would be closer to £850. Fast-forward another 16 years, who knows - it could be as much £2,000 a month.
Saving enough to buy outright is a great idea if you can do it. But for many people, that would entail either living under one's parents' roof, or enduring some pretty grim accommodation in the meantime, for a considerable number of years - and the problem with saving even for a deposit right now is that house prices can run away from you faster than you can save. Try telling the twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings struggling to get a 25% or 30% deposit together that they should save for the entire sum. Such a proposal would be greeted with derision - and deservedly so.
Totally agree. 1970 must seem like a life time ago to many reading this forum, but it is not and a £4000 mortgage was a real burden at that time (if fact the house was in a state and we had to produce bills to prove the roof was to be replaced before the mortgage was granted. Happy days:))
We were lucky in that we brought in the right location which saw house prices rocket and sold to a builder who turned the place into a couple of flats.
Comments
Her post is pretty meaningless unless she divulges the year.
1983 finished paying my mortgage in 2008
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying that housepricecrash.com ran a comparison between someone that paid rent for 25 years and someone that paid a mortgage?
If so, this is completely meaningless! The renter may well have paid less, but they are left with nothing at the end of 25 years, whereas the person that paid the mortgage has a house. Or am I really missing something here?
Feel free not to answer if you wish, but roughly, what was your repayment every month or at its highest and what was the total you paid back?
I only ask because it sounds like you did get your place on a good deal as most people did back then and its the first time buyers of the last 10 years that are being clobbered and its not fair because here us younger ones are, being asked to go round doing more and more for the older generation from paying more taxes to delivering meels on wheels, where its "members" of the older generation making our lives so expensive by always moaning about the building of affordable homes.
I cant remember what it was when we started but it was £136 when we finished I reckon paid sbout 40k all told
Now lets have a look at your moans shall we.
First of all you moan about 'paying' for the old well who the F@ck do you think helped pay for the hospital you were born in, the school you went to, yes thats right the older generation with their taxes and NI and whilst they were doing that they were also paying for the generation before them at the same time paying motgages /rents ands bringing up a family and what do they get for that - well I will tell you some of them end up like my 80 yo father, lying in a hospital bed , covered in his own sh@t crying in pain and being ignored by the nurses, this is a man who has NEVER been able to afford his own home, worked three jobs and is in fact still working as a cleaner to supplement his tiny pension.
And who do you think got him out of there and in to a private hospital, not some baby boomer oldie who is drowning in money at the expense of the young, no my 24 yo nephew who instead of going to uni- instead of whining and complaining that the world owes him a living got up of his @rse when he left school trained as a plumber and now employs apprentices and makes a good living.
Because of his sacrifice my father is home for Christmas - hell in fact its due to him my father is bleddy well alive
And as for your comment about the old denying the young affordable housing dont make me laugh. We have just had a scheme rejected for twenty affordable houses at the top of my road due to objections, it wasnt the old people who objected they WANTED the developement as they had been promised a new bus service if it went ahead, no the objectors were a cabal of 30 somethings who own their own homes and have at least two cars each, THEY objected and the scheme is no longer going ahead.
I'm not impressed with your use of abusive words for a start!
As for who do I think paid for the hospitals, don't count on it that it was down to any of the people living today. A lot of them up until recently where a hundred years old or more and could well have been paid off what we looted from the countries we invaded and enslaved or paid mickey mouse wages too.
So you did get a good deal. £136 a month? Most people pay the best part of a thousand pounds if not well over that for a 3 bedroom place now and even 1 or 2 bedroom places will not be that far off.
You missed it where I wrote that younger home owners become nimbys too but most of them are the older generation. The only older ones who want affordable homes now are the ones who priced the young kids out of their areas and now have no young people left to do the stuff they can't.
As for your dad, if that was me, i certainly would have certainly not have accepted that happning to any of my family. Answer is to give them a pice of your mind and complain if they get like that!
World owes us a living? When did I say that? I've always worked but you got double standards by the sounds of it. No doubt you'd moan about people who don't work, and then moan if someone doesn't have work who wants some and says they think their owed it? In a lot of cases they are, especially with what Governments expect out of us!
Btw, your 80 year old dad shold have been able to afford a place over the 80 years, esp with right to buy and the ridiculous discounts that where given to buy council houses.
Errm, you talk as if a only a single, older generation pays tax to fund schools and hospitals. What utter crap.
The only relevant argument is what each generation contributes against what they receive. And in this respect, the over 50's are receiving way more than they ever contributed, with younger generations facing the opposite.
The housing market is essentially a pyramid scam, or ponzi scheme. Without new entrants, it eventually withers.
The great irony in all this is the absence of 100% mortgages. Common sense tells us that 100% mortgages should be made available during times like now when people have difficulty getting deposits together, but then withdrawn when the economy picks up, as there is more personal liquidity in the system to enable people to save up deposits, but hey ho. This'd probably lead to a more long-term inflation-linked rise in prices, but then speculators would be weeping tears of woe in that scenario - no more easy money and boasting at dinner parties about portfolios.
We can't overlook the role of the mortgage brokers in the boom either. I seem to recall that, if judged by average house price over the last few years, and a 3.5x multiplier, the average salary would've been in the region of £60-£70k. One or two dodgy applications there methinks.
Ah well, we'll see.
Very well put. It won't get any better either for the young, not for ages anyway on housing. Other things like energy prices will continue to rocket, especially as our energy supplies have been largely squandared. Guess by whom...?
You can buy places quite cheaply in bits of London, 180K to 200K for a 2 bed flat which would cost you around £1000 to £1200 a month in mortgage repayments. But then you could rent the same type of place for £800 to £950 a month and still have your deposit, so I'm not sure why you would want to buy.
I'm not wholly convinced. When I started work in 1972, basic rate tax was far, far higher than it is now. That was because we were paying the pensions of all the people who had retired and were retiring on generous state pensions, for council house, school and hospital building programmes, which were legion during the 70s, and there was a bit of a boom in the 90s too.
I've paid for 3 generations of kids, noen of which were mine, to be educated and cared for (which I don't begrudge, I hasten to add), bought my own house because it was the only way I could get a secure home and skinted myself paying for it, and never went to uni because I couldn't afford it.
Nearly 40 years later, having paid into SERPS/S2P all my life (most of my employment was in jobs where there was no occupational pension), I will have to work until I'm 66, rather than 60, despite ill-health, and all that extra money I paid will have got me nothing as they're talking of of enhancing the pension for everyone regardless of what people have paid in. I'll probably be in the same bloody penury as everyone else, with just a small prvate pension that will no doubt be just enough to mean I have to pay all my council tax.
I feel pretty cheated, frankly.
Maybe not, but they've paid for them to be maintained and modernised.
The only really significant item there is the mortgage interest. Stamp duty, surveyor's fees, legal fees, insurance policies and so forth are small beer in comparison. But to answer your question, your prospective mortgage lender should tell you how much interest you can expect to pay over the full term of the mortgage. Mine did. I think it may be a legal requirement nowadays.
Many of those things you mention, you're paying indirectly anyway as landlords have to pass on the costs of buildings maintenance, any insurance policies and indeed their own mortgage interest (if applicable) to tenants. If they didn't, they'd be out of business. You're still paying all these things - they're just disguised in a wrapper labelled "rent".
And the one thing you haven't considered is what impact inflation has on this scenario - and it is a consideration which is utterly fatal to your case.
I took out a mortgage in 2002 on a £105k house. My monthly payments were £650 a month to begin with. If I'd stuck to that plan, I would be paying roughly £650 a month on the mortgage now (actually rather less, given how interest rates are at the moment, but that's by the by), and have 15 and a half years left on the mortgage. And my monthly repayments would stay at roughly £650 a month (with variations for fluctuating interest rates) until I'd paid the mortgage off. In all of which time, the "real value" of £650 will have diminished considerably, as wages and prices continue to inflate.
(We didn't stick to that plan. We tightened our belts, overpaid massively and redeemed the mortgage in a little over eight years - saving ourselves many tens of thousands of pounds in interest payments. 25 years may be a long time, but you don't necessarily have to stick to a 25-year plan. I heartily recommend making overpayments if you can afford to do it - and your lender doesn't slap you with early repayment charges.)
If I'd continued renting, and assuming I'd have been paying £650 a month in the first year in rent, by now my rent on the same flat would be closer to £850. Fast-forward another 16 years, who knows - it could be as much £2,000 a month.
Saving enough to buy outright is a great idea if you can do it. But for many people, that would entail either living under one's parents' roof, or enduring some pretty grim accommodation in the meantime, for a considerable number of years - and the problem with saving even for a deposit right now is that house prices can run away from you faster than you can save. Try telling the twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings struggling to get a 25% or 30% deposit together that they should save for the entire sum. Such a proposal would be greeted with derision - and deservedly so.
...there's that too, of course.
Totally agree. 1970 must seem like a life time ago to many reading this forum, but it is not and a £4000 mortgage was a real burden at that time (if fact the house was in a state and we had to produce bills to prove the roof was to be replaced before the mortgage was granted. Happy days:))
We were lucky in that we brought in the right location which saw house prices rocket and sold to a builder who turned the place into a couple of flats.