Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
sailor0500

Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.

Featured Posts

8 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 

Anecdotally, in the past, (or at least with my parents, their siblings, my grandparents and the same for the OH) people who rented often did so from the house-builder himself.

You've raised a good point. My paternal grandfather, who was a builder, built three houses on the outskirts of Chesterfield just before the war (my Dad laboured for him during his vacation from University, I remember him telling me), and instead of selling them, he put tenants in them. When he retired they gave him a regular income for the rest of his life.

 

I'm not sure if builders still do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Athy said:

Remember the parable of the talents.

It takes about an hour to raise steam, so.....

 

I've never quite understood the parable of the talents, confusion arising form the use of the word 'talent'.

If a 'talent' is a unit of currency then the parable gives a biblical justification for capitalism.

But if the use is as in 'She has a talent for music' then I can fully understand that it is not good to waste a God given/natural gift.

30 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

It’s hard not to think his opinion is born out of envy. Of course he would have been in a position to be a BTL landlord himself had he not spent a good proportion of his teacher’s salary on boats and beer!

Play the ball Nick, not the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

 

Play the ball Nick, not the man.

So it's true, then.:D

Yes, a talent was a unit of currency as I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

... that is over half of their monthly income (after paying NI) going on rent, hardly 'affordable' is it.

I think around 30-40 years ago, when interest rates were something like 10%, and mortgage rates higher, many people were paying over half their monthly income (after tax/NI) to their mortgage lender.   Okay, so they were probably going to end up with a house many years later, but at the time they still had to cut back on other expenditure simply to pay their housing costs, so had to forgo things that were then 'luxuries' as a result.

 

It is no different now.  Except perhaps that some people now feel 'entitled' to much more: expensive mobile phone contracts, large TVs, take-away food, overseas holidays etc

 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

 

Play the ball Nick, not the man.

I’m outraged at your suggestion that there’s something wrong with playing with men. ?

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I’m outraged at your suggestion that there’s something wrong with playing with men. ?

Hmmm, not my idea of fun,  but....a greeno nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Cheese said:

I think around 30-40 years ago, when interest rates were something like 10%, and mortgage rates higher, many people were paying over half their monthly income (after tax/NI) to their mortgage lender. 

Exactly. Mrs. Athy and I bought our first house in 1989. Our monthly mortgage payment was, almost to the penny, 50% of our joint professional income. Oh how we loved that 15% interest rate. It did gradually get easier, as interest rates fell and as we were able gradually to pay off bits of our loaned sum. But it was quite a baptism of fire at first.

I suspect that WVag hasn't taken into account the fact that many households have two earners living in them, so the proportion of income which goes on rent (or mortgage) is that mush smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even as late as when i got wed 1956 a good number of newly weds had no chance of buying a home even very difficult to rent, the general rule was you lived with parents or in laws with hand me down furniture & a possible selection of wedding present kitchen kit when we first started boating although the house was only 2 off 8'x7'rooms it was bliss it was all ours all by ourselves & able to do what & when within confines of the job & NO traveling to get to work unless you count the walk along the gun whale from cabin doors to engine ole doors but the freedom to just have to please ourselves "Price less" I can't comment on renting as when giving up boating (wifes ill health)the proceeds of the sale of 2 boats provided cash for a good part towards to house purchase What gets to me is folk who spend their money on  non essentials (Their prerogative) New cars multiple holidays etc & then moan about what you have & complain about their rent cost,car lease payments; HP on kit & eating drinking out most nights & comments like "you must have a well payed job" When you point out what they spend that they don't need to they take the hump a walk off

Edited by X Alan W
  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Cheese said:

I think around 30-40 years ago, when interest rates were something like 10%, and mortgage rates higher, many people were paying over half their monthly income (after tax/NI) to their mortgage lender.   Okay, so they were probably going to end up with a house many years later, but at the time they still had to cut back on other expenditure simply to pay their housing costs, so had to forgo things that were then 'luxuries' as a result.

 

It is no different now.  Except perhaps that some people now feel 'entitled' to much more: expensive mobile phone contracts, large TVs, take-away food, overseas holidays etc

 


When I bought my first house in Yate, near Bristol in 1978 the mortgage was for £9,000; my wage was about £3,000 pa and the amount that the mortgage lender would offer was 3 times the lowest salary and half the higher salary of a couple on a 25 year mortgage. What is the average multiplier these days? What length of mortgage are they giving these days? Why do you think that is??

 

11 minutes ago, Athy said:

Exactly. Mrs. Athy and I bought our first house in 1989. Our monthly mortgage payment was, almost to the penny, 50% of our joint professional income. Oh how we loved that 15% interest rate. It did gradually get easier, as interest rates fell and as we were able gradually to pay off bits of our loaned sum. But it was quite a baptism of fire at first.

I suspect that WVag hasn't taken into account the fact that many households have two earners living in them, so the proportion of income which goes on rent (or mortgage) is that mush smaller.

This seems like another piece of mis-remembering (I expected better of you:huh:). As this link shows (  https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/Repo.asp   ) the interest rate never reached 15% in 1989. I do however remember paying the 17% of November 1979 (thank you Maggie:angry:).

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:


 

 

This seems like another piece of mis-remembering (I expected better of you:huh:). 

But surely you appreciate that your figures show the Bank of England base rate, and that lenders such as whoever ours was (some now-deceased BS) charged a higher rate.

I expected better of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Athy said:

But surely you appreciate that your figures show the Bank of England base rate, and that lenders such as whoever ours was (some now-deceased BS) charged a higher rate.

I expected better of you.

You must have found a pretty rubbish Building Society since I didn't pay more than 17% in 1979 (which was more than enough).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Cheese said:

I think around 30-40 years ago, when interest rates were something like 10%, and mortgage rates higher, many people were paying over half their monthly income (after tax/NI) to their mortgage lender.   Okay, so they were probably going to end up with a house many years later, but at the time they still had to cut back on other expenditure simply to pay their housing costs, so had to forgo things that were then 'luxuries' as a result.

 

It is no different now.  Except perhaps that some people now feel 'entitled' to much more: expensive mobile phone contracts, large TVs, take-away food, overseas holidays etc

 

 

7 minutes ago, Athy said:

Exactly. Mrs. Athy and I bought our first house in 1989. Our monthly mortgage payment was, almost to the penny, 50% of our joint professional income. Oh how we loved that 15% interest rate. It did gradually get easier, as interest rates fell and as we were able gradually to pay off bits of our loaned sum. But it was quite a baptism of fire at first.

I suspect that WVag hasn't taken into account the fact that many households have two earners living in them, so the proportion of income which goes on rent (or mortgage) is that mush smaller.

Yes, it's a bit like those who whinge about our generation and "free" further education, forgetting that we paid 35% income tax back then, I well remember my first pay packet by the time all the deductions had been taken off it was about half what I actually earned.  

 

For many many people of our generation buying your first house was bloody hard and entailed a lot of sacrifices in terms of material wealth.  And there was no end in sight to high interest rates.   I remember being genuinely scared when they went up to 15%.  And sorry WV but they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

 

Yes, it's a bit like those who whinge about our generation and "free" further education, forgetting that we paid 35% income tax back then, I well remember my first pay packet by the time all the deductions had been taken off it was about half what I actually earned.  

 

For many many people of our generation buying your first house was bloody hard and entailed a lot of sacrifices in terms of material wealth.  And there was no end in sight to high interest rates.   I remember being genuinely scared when they went up to 15%.  And sorry WV but they did.

Once again, the last time Income Tax was at 35% base rate was in 1976/1977 (even before I bought my first house), when Athy bought his house the base rate was 25%. I also experienced the 14.87% rates of October 1989, and yes it was very tight, but you are comparing a time when the economy was struggling (hence the high interest rates), it's a bit like making a comparison with 2007/8 when we had the financial crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Athy said:

But surely you appreciate that your figures show the Bank of England base rate, and that lenders such as whoever ours was (some now-deceased BS) charged a higher rate.

I expected better of you.

The truth of the matter even though at the time we didn't realise it is we had it way better back then than kids today. I bought my first house for 8450 pounds in 1981 when my salary was 11k do the sums, it's easy I had to borrow less than once my income. The same house sold last month for 100k and the bloke doing that job now earns around 30 k so has to borrow way in excess of my percentage. I a couple of years later sold it at a big profit and paid 30k for a large immaculate semi which I sold for more than double that amount four years later. Youngsters in decent enough jobs today that would have bought houses in my time have less than zero chance today in most cases. My wife didn't even have to work she stopped at home with the kids and worked a couple of evenings a week at the local pub for holiday money. Kids today have to house share and a modest house is four billion pounds a week to rent so no chance of progress. 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was younger I used to spend a fair amount of time in the pub. Other than that, my 'luxuries' were somewhat limited. I ran an old car, buying a new one was completely out of the question. If I was lucky I'd get away on holiday once a year, Ibiza or Majorca. I bought clothes that I though suited me, not too many. No way would I have paid 3 times as much for something with a 'desirable' label. Eating out was so uncommon it might as well have not existed and takeaways were limited to beer mopping up chips and curry sauce etc. In terms of technology, I rented a t.v.

 

I bought my first house at 25 it was just over 3 times my salary, my salary was pretty decent for the time.

 

Fast forward to now, people won't be seen dead in old cars, they have to be brand new. Spain is naff so to have street cred you have to holiday in Cuba or the Maldives. Clothes must have labels on them. Yes, even underpants. You're so bored of eating out at all the different restaurants that you go to the 'fusion' variety, and think nothing of spending a week's rent on a meal for two. The unbranded smartphone for 50 quid off Ebay would do everything your iPhone does but no, it has to be the one costing several hundred pounds. And several hundred more, when the latest one comes out.

 

Meanwhile in Stockport, houses are still 3-4 times an equivalent salary.

 

At the end of the day everyone knows the cost of things, and needs to make their own choices. 

 

 

Edited by Gareth E
  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You must have found a pretty rubbish Building Society since I didn't pay more than 17% in 1979 (which was more than enough).

 

Correct. In the days before fractional reserve banking lenders could only lend out the deposits they held from savers. As savers were paid well below base rates, there was still some headroom to lend at under bank base rate and make enough gross profit to cover the costs of lending. These were building societies remember? Not there to make a profit but to provide a service. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gareth E said:

When I was younger I used to spend a fair amount of time in the pub. Other than that, my 'luxuries' were somewhat limited. I ran an old car, buying a new one was completely out of the question. If I was lucky I'd get away on holiday once a year, Ibiza or Majorca. I bought clothes that I though suited me, not too many. No way would I have paid 3 times as much for something with a 'desirable' label. Eating out was so uncommon it might as well have not existed and takeaways were limited to beer mopping up chips and curry sauce etc. In terms of technology, I rented a t.v.

 

I bought my first house at 25 it was just over 3 times my salary, my salary was pretty decent for the time.

 

Fast forward to now, people won't be seen dead in old cars, they have to be brand new. Spain is naff so to have street cred you have to holiday in Cuba or the Maldives. Clothes must have labels on them. Yes, even underpants. You're so bored of eating out at all the different restaurants that you go to the 'fusion' variety, and think nothing of spending a week's rent on a meal for two. The unbranded smartphone for 50 quid off Ebay would do everything your iPhone does but no, it has to be the one costing several hundred pounds. And several hundred more, when the latest one comes out.

 

Meanwhile in Stockport, houses are still 3-4 times an equivalent salary.

 

At the end of the day everyone knows the cost of things, and needs to make their own choices. 

 

 

When I was younger I spent hardly any time in the pub, I have only ever had old, second hand cars that I've learned the mechanical skills to keep on the road. We holidayed in the UK. I mostly wore jeans and T-shirts and rare meal out was in a Wimpy bar (remember them?). I was 23 when I bought my first house which cost just over 3 times my annual salary of £3,000 and you know what? paying for it was relatively easy. Fast forward to today where, allowing for inflation, my 1978 wage of £3000 is now worth £16,300, so what sort of shed are you going to get for £50,000? My first house was a comfortable, modern terraced house in Yate.

 

My daughter, in a managerial position, is still not earning enough to be able to buy somewhere to live. She has moved on numerous occasions but invariably ends out living in a house-share, there is the problem that where you can afford to buy somewhere (she has lived in Port Talbot) there is little work and what work there is , the pay is crap; where there is work the accommodation is expensive. She will become a property owner in the future, when I die, until then there is no realistic prospect of it. Trying to save enough is just chasing rainbows since property prices have just continued upwards, which is why I, even as a property owner, would welcome a property price crash. She doesn't spend money on any of the stuff you've listed, but since she isn't going to get together enough money to get on the property ladder, she might just as well do so.

 

Also checking the average house prices in Stockport, Right Move gives an average price for a terraced house as £162,000 so a quarter of this is circa £40,000, which is well above the UK average salary of £30,500 unless of course you want to live in a sh*t area, but since I didn't have to do so when I first bought, I'd be hypocritical to tell someone else to do so.

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

When I was younger I spent hardly any time in the pub, I have only ever had old, second hand cars that I've learned the mechanical skills to keep on the road. We holidayed in the UK. I mostly wore jeans and T-shirts and rare meal out was in a Wimpy bar (remember them?). I was 23 when I bought my first house which cost just over 3 times my annual salary of £3,000 and you know what? paying for it was relatively easy. Fast forward to today where, allowing for inflation, my 1978 wage of £3000 is now worth £16,300, so what sort of shed are you going to get for £50,000? My first house was a comfortable, modern terraced house in Yate.

 

My daughter, in a managerial position, is still not earning enough to be able to buy somewhere to live. She has moved on numerous occasions but invariably ends out living in a house-share, there is the problem that where you can afford to buy somewhere (she has lived in Port Talbot) there is little work and what work there is , the pay is crap; where there is work the accommodation is expensive. She will become a property owner in the future, when I die, until then there is no realistic prospect of it. Trying to save enough is just chasing rainbows since property prices have just continued upwards, which is why I, even as a property owner, would welcome a property price crash. She doesn't spend money on any of the stuff you've listed, but since she isn't going to get together enough money to get on the property ladder, she might just as well do so.

 

Also checking the average house prices in Stockport, Right Move gives an average price for a terraced house as £162,000 so a quarter of this is circa £40,000, which is well above the UK average salary of £30,500 unless of course you want to live in a sh*t area, but since I didn't have to do so when I first bought, I'd be hypocritical to tell someone else to do so.

Whilst we clash on certain other matters ? You are quite correct and kids haven't a chance now. Not only is property out of most youngsters grasp, the job We did all those years ago had a good pension after thirty years and that pension is now less and that's after forty years. I don't profess to have any of the answers but I sure as hell know we had it easier even when paying high interest rates like we all did we still had a better deal.

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jerra said:

Can somebody explain what is wrong with renting a house.  When I was young it was the norm and nobody bothered.

It's pretty d*mn expensive that is what is wrong with it. When you spend half your income on rent it is fair to say something is wrong. Unlike in the days I spoke of when builders were building houses to rent out (which was back in the 1950's, 1960's) and the rents were reasonable, today, as a renter, you are paying someone else's mortgage for them (plus a small profit). There is an old adage about 'Money goes to money'.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

It's pretty d*mn expensive that is what is wrong with it. When you spend half your income on rent it is fair to say something is wrong. Unlike in the days I spoke of when builders were building houses to rent out (which was back in the 1950's, 1960's) and the rents were reasonable, today, as a renter, you are paying someone else's mortgage for them (plus a small profit). There is an old adage about 'Money goes to money'.

Housing today is pretty expensive whether you buy or rent.   So what is wrong with renting?  We have been told buy to let landlords are evil, presumably because they are providing expensive housing.  So as all housing is expensive all forms of providing accommodation must be evil.

 

EDIT:  To add you are providing profit for somebody (probably not small) when buying.

Edited by Jerra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Whilst we clash on certain other matters ? You are quite correct and kids haven't a chance now. Not only is property out of most youngsters grasp, the job We did all those years ago had a good pension after thirty years and that pension is now less and that's after forty years. I don't profess to have any of the answers but I sure as hell know we had it easier even when paying high interest rates like we all did we still had a better deal.

Feels odd to be in total agreement?, I think I might need to take a lie down in a dark room?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Housing today is pretty expensive whether you buy or rent.   So what is wrong with renting?  We have been told buy to let landlords are evil, presumably because they are providing expensive housing.  So as all housing is expensive all forms of providing accommodation must be evil.

I haven't said they are evil, they are just profiting from a seriously faulty system. It is not in the interest of the major house-builders to build enough homes for people to live in since that would cause a fall in the obscene price of housing, so they deliberately keep the housing market 'lean'. When the houses are put on the market the BtL buyers have an advantage over those who just want somewhere to live since they only have to pay the interest on the loan so can offer more for the property, thereby pushing the house prices ever higher, and even further out of reach for anyone wanting to buy one to live in. The crap policies of the past were supposed to create a 'property owning democracy' when in fact it has done the polar opposite and even less people can afford housing. The housing market is broken for those who are not already quite wealthy.

 

The government 'Help to Buy' scheme was the work of an economic illiterate, to throw money at a problem caused by lack of supply, the result was an increase in house prices.

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I haven't said they are evil, they are just profiting from a seriously faulty system. It is not in the interest of the major house-builders to build enough homes for people to live in since that would cause a fall in the obscene price of housing, so they deliberately keep the housing market 'lean'. When the houses are put on the market the BtL buyers have an advantage over those who just want somewhere to live since they only have to pay the interest on the loan so can offer more for the property, thereby pushing the house prices ever higher, and even further out of reach for anyone wanting to buy one to live in. The crap policies of the past were supposed to create a 'property owning democracy' when in fact it has done the polar opposite and even less people can afford housing. The housing market is broken for those who are not already quite wealthy.

Firstly I didn't say you said it was evil I said "we are told it is evil" (as posted further up the thread.

 

The point I am making (or failing to) is today nobody seems to accept renting as acceptable or normal people must be pushing to try to buy if at all possible.  60 years ago there was no drive for ownership and no disgrace in renting people just accepted they couldn't afford to buy.  Why the angst now because they can't afford to buy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jerra said:

Firstly I didn't say you said it was evil I said "we are told it is evil" (as posted further up the thread.

 

The point I am making (or failing to) is today nobody seems to accept renting as acceptable or normal people must be pushing to try to buy if at all possible.  60 years ago there was no drive for ownership and no disgrace in renting people just accepted they couldn't afford to buy.  Why the angst now because they can't afford to buy?

What you are actually finding is that people are being forced to accept renting is normal since they now have no other choice. By removing the choice it liberates landlords to charge maximum for their properties. When you talk of 60 years ago, people renting then were doing so for decades (anecdotal, referencing several in my immediate family) whereas these days, as an example, my daughter has been moved on numerous times by landlords, despite dependable payment of rent, taking due care of the property and generally being a good tenant. The landlords either wanted to sell, upgrade the property and increase the rent or 'allegedly' move back in themselves. To be honest, anyone with children these days renting a property by choice is a brainless idiot who wants to put their children through the trauma of repeatedly moving house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.