Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

46 Yr Old Colleague Uses Htb... Tries To Talk Me Into It


Guest

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

No doubt spending on what one of my equally finacially astute colleagues did, and MEWed £100k from a 2001 £80k mortgage (now left with £180k mortgage, family, 2 kids) and lived the life of Riley for the past decade. Sad, but true. I've no axe to grind or no malice and they are trying to sort finances out which I have every respect for. They've even said they wish they hadn't gone so mad. Little comfort now.

Ive an axe to grind against such people as ive been funding their mortgage and they expect it via low interest rates. If it wasnt for this kind of financially illiterate folk housing would be affordable yet their kind just blame the banks.

Whilst obviously i wish no harm to their kids, their spendaholic actions and the many millions just like them have ruined the lives of probably several million kids who get shifted from one school to another due to parents stuck in the rent trap .. or parents splitting up due to the stress of it all.

Edited by Corruption
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

Ive an axe to grind against such people as ive been funding their mortgage and they expect it via low interest rates. If it wasnt for this kind of financially illiterate folk housing would be affordable yet their kind just blame the banks.

Whilst obviously i wish no harm to their kinds, their spendaholic actions and the many millions just like them have ruined the lives of probably several million kids who get shifted from one school to another due to parents stuck in the rent trap .. or parents splitting up due to the stress of it all.

OK, my fault I should have been a bit more specific. I've every axe to grind to the weak government/bankers that have got us/them into this position, but in a way you can't blame people for taking advantage of it. Albeit there is a level of personal responsibility that should be thrown into the mix and hopefully those that were suckered in learn a lesson and ultimately I am not saying they should be bailed out either. Far from it.

It's like the benefits/unemployed conundrum. Do you blame the welfare system or the individual that takes advantage of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

OK, my fault I should have been a bit more specific. I've every axe to grind to the weak government/bankers that have got us/them into this position, but in a way you can't blame people for taking advantage of it. Albeit there is a level of personal responsibility that should be thrown into the mix and hopefully those that were suckered in learn a lesson and ultimately I am not saying they should be bailed out either. Far from it.

It's like the benefits/unemployed conundrum. Do you blame the welfare system or the individual that takes advantage of it?

Thing is everyone has blamed the banks even the kind that spent like a drunken ugly bloke in a brothel, and the ones who spunked the money up the wall are some how seen as victims that deserve to be bailed out.

Id have some sympathy for people that bought a overpriced to live in, but not for those who remortgaged to pretend they're rich.

Edited by Corruption
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

Ive an axe to grind against such people as ive been funding their mortgage and they expect it via low interest rates. If it wasnt for this kind of financially illiterate folk housing would be affordable yet their kind just blame the banks.

Whilst obviously i wish no harm to their kinds, their spendaholic actions and the many millions just like them have ruined the lives of probably several million kids who get shifted from one school to another due to parents stuck in the rent trap .. or parents splitting up due to the stress of it all.

Respect.

They've spent their house. You can blame people and I do. They took advantage of it to live a life of Riley. Their choice. The victims.

Now they have 'a level of personal responsibilty'? Just let them pay what they owe. If not, sell up. Like most of the rest of us have to, including to our landlords, for no one has an emotional breakdown for us of comes out with excuses that "they didn't know what they were doing." Respect. In awe of the special homeowners. Respect respect, now learned a lesson about debt-to-income many of us learnt as kids. They've taken advantage of it to put themselves in more debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

Respect.

They've spent their house. You can blame people and I do. They took advantage of it to live a life of Riley. Their choice. The victims.

Now they have 'a level of personal responsibilty'? Just let them pay what they owe. If not, sell up. Like most of the rest of us have to, including to our landlords, for no one has an emotional breakdown for us of comes out with excuses that "they didn't know what they were doing." Respect. In awe of the special homeowners. Respect respect, now learned a lesson about debt-to-income many of us learnt as kids. They've taken advantage of it to put themselves in more debt.

What's worse is that even if they have endured a damascene conversion, the economy has become so bloated on such ******wittery we're expected to take up the ******wit slack and go all Viv Nicholson to make up for their repentance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446
yet their kind just blame the banks.

That's because the banks lent them the money. So they have some culpability as well.

If the issue is reckless lending/borrowing then who has the greater responsibility- the highly paid professionals who lent the money or the ordinary people who borrowed it? Under the laws of joint enterprise people can be locked up just because they were marginally involved in a crime such as murder- I would apply that same logic to bankers who facilitated reckless lending- they are just as responsible in my view as the people who borrowed the money-both parties felt they had something to gain- both are guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

It's markets. Both sides get caught up in an irrational frenzy, including lenders, at the ending of a major credit expansion and even Govs rolled up into it, coming out with statements about forever boom, soft-landings, economy found permamently high glide path.

Individuals get replaced in the banks. The debt for the borrowers are real.

We make our own decisions ******.

Even now people still trying to buy at silly high prices, not learned a thing, wanting more BTL. And here you, with your excuses for strangers, paying x5+ what others might pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

That's because the banks lent them the money. So they have some culpability as well.

If the issue is reckless lending/borrowing then who has the greater responsibility- the highly paid professionals who lent the money or the ordinary people who borrowed it? Under the laws of joint enterprise people can be locked up just because they were marginally involved in a crime such as murder- I would apply that same logic to bankers who facilitated reckless lending- they are just as responsible in my view as the people who borrowed the money-both parties felt they had something to gain- both are guilty.

Absolute genius!

That's a private prosecution that I'd be prepared to stump up some cash for.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

If the issue is reckless lending/borrowing then who has the greater responsibility- the highly paid professionals who lent the money or the ordinary people who borrowed it?

They lend against an asset they can repossess. The bank is probably also insuring against non recovery of bad loans.

The higher risk is on the borrowers side, who stands to lose their 'home' etc, or more likely might have to live on less money if things go wrong for them.

So who should act more responsibly? The borrower should, if they value their own financial security. If a borrower is an idiot and ends up bankrupt the system is working, they shouldn't have access to money if they are going to damage themselves and others with it. Future lenders will bear that poor history in mind as well of course and be less willing to give them another go.

Thats how it should work. Take away the penalty for being financially irresponsible with your borrowing and in so doing damage yourself and the rest of the economy and they will just keep on doing it. More remortgaging, more buy to lets, keep those gains and socialise those losses, the savers will pick up the tab with their lower interest rates, what suckers! etc etc. And that is damaging to all of us, as we are seeing.

You may as well blame smith and wesson for drive by shootings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410
Thats how it should work. Take away the penalty for being financially irresponsible with your borrowing and in so doing damage yourself and the rest of the economy and they will just keep on doing it. More remortgaging, more buy to lets, keep those gains and socialise those losses, the savers will pick up the tab with their lower interest rates, what suckers! etc etc. And that is damaging to all of us, as we are seeing.

You'd think there had been mass reposessions and houses were now trading at lower prices, when you read these excuse givers.

Not that house prices here 30% above 2006/07, after trillions in global stimulus.

Contribute to a fund John. None of the solicitors I know in their early 30s can afford to buy a home of their own, given victims in rubbish jobs have outbid them, mortgage rescues, improved SMI, QE, 0,5%, FLS, Global QE. Even newbuilds pulling in more dumb money from stupid entitled mid 20 year olds, with little push on reckless to take pain, or older owners of the superior housing stock to cut asking prices, and even more people piled into BTL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

Ive an axe to grind against such people as ive been funding their mortgage and they expect it via low interest rates.

Whereas I think we have not been funding these greedy b4stards for years. Our mutual kids have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412
You may as well blame smith and wesson for drive by shootings.

Bankers-like those who sell guns- have a degree of responsibility as to the distribution of their product.

If we follow your logic we should not be prosecuting people like drug dealers who are-after all- only responding to the demands of their customers.

The reality is that we give private banks the right to create bank credit from thin air and in return they have an obligation to ensure that this credit is not handed out in an irresponsible way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

Just as a matter of interest is she more sexy than other more sensible women you know?

Theory being that being crazy may attract richer partners and therefore a good strategy.

No, no no no no..... off the scale no. Not "more" just not at all. Bleuuuuuch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
14
HOLA4415
15
HOLA4416
16
HOLA4417

I most certainly have been donating several grand a year due to no interest on savings. Not to mention high tax rates.

And many millions of families have been forced into insecure accommodation where they can be evicted on some chancer landlords whim.

Remind me who the victims are again, apologists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

Have just realised that help to buy 2 has no upper earnings limit on it. I had presumed it was 60K like it used to be and couldn't understand how it had sent London FTB type places prices stratospheric, now I realise there is no upper earnings limit on it. The people who have used it are either idiots who have contributed to putting themselves into debt slavery for years longer than needed or, as discussed, if they get lucky, will get off without paying back any of that 15%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
18
HOLA4419

So that breaks down as:

£50k gubberming loan

£12.5k deposit

£187.5k mortgage (on a £25k salary, trust me there's no hope of that increasing!)

Sorry to resurrect this but how the hell does one get a 187.5K mortgage on 25K a year in 2014? No one is lending anything more than four times salary and hasn't been for a while. Certainly not 7.5 times salary as described here!!!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

Sorry to resurrect this but how the hell does one get a 187.5K mortgage on 25K a year in 2014? No one is lending anything more than four times salary and hasn't been for a while. Certainly not 7.5 times salary as described here!!!?

It's like the bible - learn from the parables, but try not to take them too literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

Sorry to resurrect this but how the hell does one get a 187.5K mortgage on 25K a year in 2014? No one is lending anything more than four times salary and hasn't been for a while. Certainly not 7.5 times salary as described here!!!?

Joint buyers? Another salary to be added - and I think x4.5 joint was granted on HTB mortgages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

I was wondering how you get a 187k mortgage on that as well. Whenever I stick a salary figure just under 26k on the online calculators with a 60k deposit, the figures only show a maximum of around 120k.

187k on 25k (with a tiny deposit) is unbelievable, dare I say a reckless.

I thought that 4.5x income was still being offered, but banks could only lend a certain percentage of their mortgages at more than 4.5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

I was wondering how you get a 187k mortgage on that as well. Whenever I stick a salary figure just under 26k on the online calculators with a 60k deposit, the figures only show a maximum of around 120k.

187k on 25k (with a tiny deposit) is unbelievable, dare I say a reckless.

I thought that 4.5x income was still being offered, but banks could only lend a certain percentage of their mortgages at more than 4.5.

Yes. Banks can lend 15% of their mortgage book to mortgages at x4.5 (joint) salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

I was wondering how you get a 187k mortgage on that as well. Whenever I stick a salary figure just under 26k on the online calculators with a 60k deposit, the figures only show a maximum of around 120k.

187k on 25k (with a tiny deposit) is unbelievable, dare I say a reckless.

I thought that 4.5x income was still being offered, but banks could only lend a certain percentage of their mortgages at more than 4.5.

not only is it a huge multiple today, it is inevitable that in 5 years time, the multiple on loan is going to go up by another 2 times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information