How To Make £100K In A Year

[DeepLurker]

I bet the train is still losing money though!

Very probably, yes.

Commuter routes are not usually profitable, as the carriages are jam-packed for a couple of hours in the morning and again a couple of hours in the evening, then for the rest of the day you've got capital (the trains) and staff lying idle (or shuffling up and down the line 90% empty, which is pretty much the same thing).

[MrPin]

Er - is Huntingdon so terrible that you can't consider it? Are people fat and pale there as well?

400k for a smallish uglyish Victorian wreck in Cambridge (so I guess total cost 700k by the time you're done with everything as it looks like a rebuild while remaining standing) is, well, ludicrous.

My grandfather came from Huntingdon. One of my ancestors was Mayor twice! In the 1890s

[Guest TheBlueCat]

My grandfather came from Huntingdon. One of my ancestors was Mayor twice! In the 1890s

Cromwell!

[Executive Sadman]

Huntingdon is basically the oxmoor (london overspill) estate with a few older streets attached to it. Crap location on the perma-congested A14, town centre dead after 6pm. St Ives or St neots are nicer, though still only what could be called average.

[Bland Unsight]

Yes this 'bubble' is slightly different in that dim but rich are fueling it rather than 120% self cert mortgages. Which means house prices can crash without taking out the banking system.

Some people are going to take a serious hair cut IMO but next time round it won't be the banks/taxpayers.

We live in hope. It's always been my instinct that one of the possible consequences of this weird deferral of the inevitable asset price collapse that has followed from QE and FLS holding rates down is that some people who would be wise to take their money off the table will in fact be drawn to do otherwise.

[Reck B]

I often see £500k houses sold in my village to couples who have been in the market for a decade or more. At a guess, their household incomes would be £35-£40k

Is it unreasonable to think that if you bought a house for £100k in say 1998 and climbed the ladder say 4 times, extending yourself to the max each time, you could be sitting on £200-£250k of equity, thanks to the credit boom?

If housing costs remained static over this period, I'd imagine they have really only paid off around £50-80k in capital.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Reck B

[Venger]

I often see £500k houses sold in my village to couples who have been in the market for a decade or more. At a guess, their household incomes would be £35-£40k

Is it unreasonable to think that if you bought a house for £100k in say 1998 and climbed the ladder say 4 times, extending yourself to the max each time, you could be sitting on £200-£250k of equity, thanks to the credit boom?

If housing costs remained static over this period, I'd imagine they have really only paid off around £50-80k in capital.

In your example there, doesn't that imply you often see upsizers to the £500,000 houses?

£200-£250K equity, buying £500K houses? The household income doesn't seem to cover the upsize to the more expensive home. If they somehow managed it, just a bit of a crash from that level, carrying quarter million mortgages, in a deleveraging uncertain economy isn't something I'd like to be exposed to.