Springveldt Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Obviously I'm wasting my breath, sit down and play with entitledto.co.uk and if you aren't getting what it suggests you should then get on the phone and sort it out.The people complaining my figures aren't right also have factors like " the wife's work wasn't involved in the voucher scheme" well there's your problem, doesn't make my figures wrong does it ? Yeah cause that extra £60 tax free is really going to make the difference when you have to pay over £500 a month childcare. Get real, if a couple earn £50K between them the government pays next to nothing towards childcare. I don't care how you try to spin in, the government DOES NOT pay for their childcare. Go and play with entitledto.co.uk yourself and show me where it says they will pay over £500 a month childcare. You get around £40 a month, quite a big difference from what you are making out. If a couple earning £50K have a £150K mortgage and 1 child in full time childcare they will be paying around half their wage just for those costs alone. Then add in council tax, gas, leccy etc and they won't be anywhere near as well off as you are making out. Edited March 10, 2009 by Springveldt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springveldt Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 How long has this been the case, and is it guaranteed to be so in the future? It's not the case, never has been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) It's not the case, never has been. So according to GirlyGirl: It’s perfectly achievable to buy a nice house and raise kids in la la land as tax credit benefits (subject to annual change and is a temporary income) makes it affordable to do so?!? Not only that, but said examples of benefit given has been proven to be grossly exaggerated. That or her or hubby lied on the application form. Mind you, this is from someone who apparently held down an £18/20k a year job (in the mid nineties) whilst in full time study and considered this to be normal. Kind of discredits everything else she has said imho!! Edited March 10, 2009 by bloodsucked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munro Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Oh jees, I understand the points you were making.My points are lost on you, hence the ............. You have extrapolated mode wage into your yield calcs on btl's and then used the same data to support the model earlier to put a case for what house prices should be. You need to look at the market as a HOLE ffs...............Plus, one further thing to factor in. Houses are firstly homes, hence the buy decision is not purely based on economics if it were we would never had got to 2007. Anyway, stick to mode wage who cares, but house prices have never got to mode wage. You put an argument forward for 'average' then I would listen. You said MODE, wrong wrong wrong. I sold TWO houses in 2008 and STR'd (that makes me twice as clever as your partner joke btw ), mainly my central point is that if the market was allowed to be a true market then we would have a hell of a lot further to fall. But, it isn't and it sickens me because its not being allowed to be. I have recently begun the process of buying back in.....................you know why? Because me and my wife were scared into it. Our STR fund is in £'s, however I got 30% off so for me even if prices were to get to 60% I have gained 50% of the benefits from our strategy. Which is never a bad place to be in a deal, the other option, sitting it out further is a risk we ain't going to take. We are obviously at cross-purposes. I am looking at the market as a whole. That's why people on modal wages matter; there's a lot of them and they affect the average house price. Of course there is segmentation in the market, whether rented or owner-occupier. If you are a BTLer and your target market is people on modal wages then it does matter to you. If you are only interested in people on average wages, then since you are fishing in a much smaller pool the numbers stack up differently. If you are earning in the £100k bracket then you will only consider a very small portion of the housing market. If you are buying back in, fine. But you are, as you admit, acting irrationally; either that or we differ on risk-assessment, because I think we have some way to go before the possibility of Zimbabwe-style inflation kicks in. Another 10%-20% off represents a great deal of money. In terms of the market as a whole, you seem to be projecting your fear onto others. Dismissing anyone who earns sub-£15k or so as irrelevant is a strong indicator of how you see your position in the housing market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Girly girl Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 So according to GirlyGirl:It’s perfectly achievable to buy a nice house and raise kids in la la land as tax credit benefits (subject to annual change and is a temporary income) makes it affordable to do so?!? Not only that, but said examples of benefit given has been proven to be grossly exaggerated. That or her or hubby lied on the application form. Mind you, this is from someone who apparently held down an £18/20k a year job (in the mid nineties) whilst in full time study and considered this to be normal. Kind of discredits everything else she has said imho!! Really ? Well you need to open your eyes to what's happening around you because whilst I have never said I considered my achievements to be normal, I'm well aware I'm beyond brilliant :-) I'm certainly not unusual and that's why I have a house to bring my children up and know where they are going to school for years to come. Nobody lied on application forms, i'm afraid all the houses you think you're going to get your sticky mits on will be shit holes the BTL brigade don't want any more or newbuild flats because unless you start learning how the game is played and making the rules work for you, you will never be where I am now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Really ?Well you need to open your eyes to what's happening around you because whilst I have never said I considered my achievements to be normal, I'm well aware I'm beyond brilliant :-) I'm certainly not unusual and that's why I have a house to bring my children up and know where they are going to school for years to come. Nobody lied on application forms, i'm afraid all the houses you think you're going to get your sticky mits on will be shit holes the BTL brigade don't want any more or newbuild flats because unless you start learning how the game is played and making the rules work for you, you will never be where I am now. Well sorry superwoman, you'll just have to excuse me then if I don't believe you. Oh an I already have a house thanks, and without the need for any handouts in order to make the mortgage affordable. Edit to add: global financial disaster pending of course Edited March 10, 2009 by bloodsucked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grizzly bear Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Wrong, if a couple earning £25k each have children then they get their childcare paid for by tax credits plus at least £100 childcare vouchers, making them able to easily afford £150k mortgage, when will this fact sink in on this board. Up until you earn £61k between you, then the government will top you up and make having children and a mortgage affordable. Fact. Girly girl, for info - is this childcare up to going to school, or does it carry on afterwards? As far as I can see this might enable a couple to support a big mortgage with her continuing to work, but not if the childcare drops away at school age so the kids have to be delivered by 8.30 and collected by 3.15 and looked after for half terms and holidays, which effectively rules out a full-time job for at least one parent. I was also going to say that my brothers friends have bought 2 bedroom flats in London costing £250k+ on multiples of 4x joint and these flats aren't even big enough to bring up a family... (although could probably manage with one child) now prices are falling they are all in negative equity making it impossible to move. Also in London all day nurseries cost around £60 per day per child. Perhaps £150k mortgage managable but is a £250k one manageable in these circumstances? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spivT Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Really ?Well you need to open your eyes to what's happening around you because whilst I have never said I considered my achievements to be normal, I'm well aware I'm beyond brilliant :-) I'm certainly not unusual and that's why I have a house to bring my children up and know where they are going to school for years to come. Nobody lied on application forms, i'm afraid all the houses you think you're going to get your sticky mits on will be shit holes the BTL brigade don't want any more or newbuild flats because unless you start learning how the game is played and making the rules work for you, you will never be where I am now. wow, look how the worm has turned. From being 'hard working mum and all round good egg' to bitter, sneering cow ? You really are a piece of work, where do you get off being so smug. showing yer true colors.....that's what debt deflation does to the populace. enjoy. Edited March 10, 2009 by spivtastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telometer Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Thats coz right now the only people brave enough to take on mortgages are those with big salaries or secure jobs. Just think, a lowly supermarket shelf stacker on 15k a year cant afford to buy a house or get a mortgage - i mean, what are they going to buy for 55k in the current market - thats why there needs to be a big crash No way should somebody earning 15k aspire to owning their own home. They are much better off in rented accommodation. What if the boiler goes, leaving them with a £1,000 bill, and the next week the drains collapse, another £2,000. I have a friend earning 18k with a 3x mortgage. Said friend is totally skint, and a broken window = disaster. That the chimney needs relining means the fire cannot be lit, and the house is reliant on the coal fire. No way should this be a houseowner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REP013 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 No it countinues until they leave full time education, after school care/holiday until they are 18.But if you do the maths carefully one partner is actually better off working 16 hours and no more because whatever they don't earn working the other 24 hours is topped up by the government. Obviously this only applies to people earning about £50k between them but say a couple of nurses or a policeman and his wife would easily fit into this senario. I really, really think you need to take this into account when making any decisions because quite simply lots of people who you might think are struggling simple aren't or haven't been fully informed how the system works but once they do they will be fine. I don't understand? So, if I have children and earn < £50k the government will give me the rest up to £50k - where do I sign? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Girly girl Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) wow, look how the worm has turned. From being 'hard working mum and all round good egg' to bitter, sneering cow ?You really are a piece of work, where do you get off being so smug. showing yer true colors.....that's what debt deflation does to the populace. enjoy. Do you know what funnily enough I take exception to being called a fraudster. Who cares whether you "believe me" or not it's actually not the point, we don't receive tax credits either as of Monday this week, but thousands and thousands of people do and that will keep the wolf from the door, so unemployment is irrevelent. People may not be moving up the ladder in any hurry or even getting on it these days but they certainly won't be falling off in the numbers you're hoping. As for me being smug, I'm not the one that wants to see people on the streets and plenty here are positively relishing the idea of just that. Edited March 10, 2009 by Girly girl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Would anybody like a chocolate biscuit and a whisky? I've been given a large tin of biscuits, and I have a bottle of single malt here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spivT Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Do you know what funnily enough I take exception to being called a fraudster.Who cares whether you "believe me" or not it's actually not the point, we don't receive tax credits either as of Monday this week, but thousands and thousands of people do and that will keep the wolf from the door, so unemployment is irrevelent. People may not be moving up the ladder in any hurry or even getting on it these days but they certainly won't be falling off in the numbers you're hoping. As for me being smug, I'm not the one that wants to see people on the streets and plenty here are positively relishing the idea of just that. At what point did i say i didn't believe you ? try following the thread, i happen to think there's a lot of validity in what your saying and the experiences your recounting - i detect a ring of truth based on the experiences of others i've seen......but the difference is i only grudgingly accept what goes on [playing/using the system within the rules], i have an immense dislike for it, because i don't believe it's sustainable. I've always believed it's been a numbers game, and those i've seen who've been successful [financially atleast] have a ruthless, derring do, sod everyone else attitude. Many of those more circumspect are left to rue what might have been. But a line has clearly been crossed in recent years in terms of this derring do.....you may think that the fact the risk takers have the safety net in bail outs or protection is proof of how the ruthless streak comes out smelling of roses, but it won't go on forever. The bail outs, the initiatives to keep people in their homes and in work or in benefit when out of work, the plethora of debt and finance help available from the authorities none of these things can reset the debt mountain, only a moratoria on debt can do that. And until such time as that comes, that debt has to be serviced and the cost of servicing that debt continues to rise inspite of lower IR's. Down the road your tax credits and such like become a pipe dream. and i seriously believe that. but a lot can change in the coming years. But Good luck to you girlygirl...though you don't need it, i think certainly you've taught people a thing or two if they choose to listen...... Edited March 10, 2009 by spivtastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gideon Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Two things If you have a household income of £50000 you would be lucky to get £500 a year Tax Credits FACT See for yourself http://www.taxcredits.inlandrevenue.gov.uk...QHousehold.aspx If you claim Childcare Vouchers you should not be claiming Childcare costs through Tax Credits http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childcare/interaction-tc-cv.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D179 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 On another note , I was offered 8 legs of venison the other night for £500......... do you think thats two deer.............. just thought ide lighten the mood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 It is perfectly feasible as long as average house prices fall below £100k. But people have become so brainwashed by "profits" from housing that they are convinced if prices fall that low, we will be swept away by a tidal wave of speculative BTLers. What they don't seem to realise is that i. banks won't lend on the scale needed and ii. tenants won't be able to pay the rents needed for yields to add up. Of course with savings rates at near zero an argument can be mounted that yields of 3% from BTLing look attractive, but this doesn't allow for capital losses and maintenance/transactions/running costs. Unless we get Zimbabwean-style inflation in which case anyone who possibly can should buy...but that's another argument.Meanwhile Victorian slum dwelling looks positively humane compared to the 21st century equivalent version of "affordable housing" for those on modal wages - HMOs. No more ripples out from the 'Bonus Banker' cult. A few yrs ago on here and I've mentioned it a couple of times since, we worked out about 450,000 Flats, Bungalows, Houses come onto the market EVERY YEAR thru deceased estates. If we have stalled now for two yrs we are easily up to a MILLION houses/flats now and going up 40,000 a month (increasing massively over the winter months - a cold winter, unfortunatly = more deceased too). Add the increasing amount of REPO's - why Brown is desperate to restart market coz it will force house prices down even further for forced sellers (which is why the Fire-Sale Bigboy's are moving in from USA) - just wait and see! This will then hit those who 'mewed' their house 'gains' away coz they will find they are in Neg equity when they HAVE to move for that new Mc job - and the spiral continues down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BXLONDONMAN Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Or lie well.... people have lied to well that's why property prices are so high now !!! we need to put some of these people in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 So this has just confirmed that you need to earn well above the average wage to buy a house today. Didn't we all work athat out 10 years ago??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) The median salary in the UK at the moment is £479 per week. Meaning that half of the population earn less than this. A lot less than this. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285 Edited March 10, 2009 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) The median salary in the UK at the moment is £479 per week. Meaning that half of the population earn less than this. A lot less than this. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285 With phantom jobs being slashed that were created as a by-product of a yellow brick road economy this median will shrink accordingly. Since when did it take three tiers of management to cater for just five members of staff?!? And how anyone can justify using temporary benefit handouts to prop up affordability is beyond me. Yet how that extra £10.50 a week once all the kids are at school makes any kind of a difference is equally baffling. Edited March 11, 2009 by PopGun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricbax Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) Six years ago I was earning £60k and was considered very well paid. If I was still earning 60K now I'd be claiming family tax credits and benefits. And this is after a period of "historically low" inflation. Prudence my a""se. Salaries have doubled in that time for almost everyone (with a job). Huh? Average salaries in the UK haven't doubled since 2003, that's absolutely insane! Wages have barely kept up with official inflation figures, let alone real inflation ffs. And as for "almost everyone with a job" - right, so someone who was earning £18k in 2003 is on £36k for doing the exact same job now? Edited March 11, 2009 by ricbax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britney's Piers Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 If 40k is the average income in this country then I am the Queen of the Netherlands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springveldt Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 oh and you can also claim busy bee or leapfrog salary scarifice vouchers on top of that amount, up to £200 per month per working parent I discovered last night, so the deal gets better and better.You do realise that those vouchers only make the payment tax free, don't you? You still have to actually hand over £200 to get the vouchers, the government doesn't give you a £200 voucher every month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abharrisson Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Thats coz right now the only people brave enough to take on mortgages are those with big salaries or secure jobs. Just think, a lowly supermarket shelf stacker on 15k a year cant afford to buy a house or get a mortgage - i mean, what are they going to buy for 55k in the current market - thats why there needs to be a big crash I don't really get this... why should a shelf stacker from Tesco's earning £15k per year ever think they should be able to buy a house.... purchase costs to one side... the maintenance and insurance etc of even the most basic abode would probably be enough to break them.... its a non-starter... house ownership is a not a god given right for all, you have to earn enough to be able to afford it... breaking the belief that everyone should be able to buy a house they like where they like is a fundemental fallacy that is part of the reason we got into this mess in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I don't really get this... why should a shelf stacker from Tesco's earning £15k per year ever think they should be able to buy a house.... purchase costs to one side... the maintenance and insurance etc of even the most basic abode would probably be enough to break them.... its a non-starter... house ownership is a not a god given right for all, you have to earn enough to be able to afford it... breaking the belief that everyone should be able to buy a house they like where they like is a fundemental fallacy that is part of the reason we got into this mess in the first place. Actually, it could be relatively easy for just about everyone who worked to own the place they live in..or at least own a place to live in. In fact, the economy would be far more efficient and robust if this were the case. The problem is the gargantuan inflated real estate costs and rentier vested interests blocking and preventing reforms that would allow this to happen naturaly, so they can continue systematically stealing from the productive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.