Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Democorruptcy

It should be Jimjam not Jam

Recommended Posts

I thought you meant they should be called the jimjams because apart from 16 hours per week they spend the rest of their time sat in their jimjams waiting for their "in work" benefits cheques to roll in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Democorruptcy said:

JAMS are Just About Managing but that's because of the JIM

Joint Income Mortgage Just About Managing (JIMJAM)

As opposed to their parents, who were SIMSITS

Single Income Mortgage Second Income To Spend

 

Well that's what women's rights got us. Extra labour for the same pile of bricks at double price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also have JIRJAMS Joint Income Renters Just About Managing because of the JIMJAMs. If the JIMJAMs had stayed as SIMSITS, there wouldn't have been the same amount of HPI and resulting capital appreciation, that tempted so many into BTL. 

Just say No... to JIM.

 

Share this post


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

JAMS are Just About Managing but that's because of the JIM

Joint Income Mortgage Just About Managing (JIMJAM)

As opposed to their parents, who were SIMSITS

Single Income Mortgage Second Income To Spend

 

Think you would need to go back to grandparents to find those who could buy on one wage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, One-percent said:

Think you would need to go back to grandparents to find those who could buy on one wage. 

Average UK house price in the mid-90s was £60k, average wage was £17k. Easily doable to buy the average house on one average wage.

Anybody born up to the early 1970s theoretically had a bite at that cherry. I guess it's possible to be a grandmother in your 40s.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Average UK house price in the mid-90s was £60k, average wage was £17k. Easily doable to buy the average house on one average wage.

Anybody born up to the early 1970s theoretically had a bite at that cherry. I guess it's possible to be a grandmother in your 40s.

True, but it very much depends on where it is.  Many parts of the country, prices will be and would have been above the average (definition of average really) and often wages are not commensurate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One-percent said:

True, but it very much depends on where it is.  Many parts of the country, prices will be and would have been above the average (definition of average really) and often wages are not commensurate.  

Average house price in London was £68k in 1995.

Share this post


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

Average house price in London was £68k in 1995.

Bought in London in 94 and needed two wages.  Were were on average professional wages.  The 70s were when it went mental re hpi 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, One-percent said:

Bought in London in 94 and needed two wages.  Were were on average professional wages.  The 70s were when it went mental re hpi 

Share the maths? My house prices are from the Land Registry.

Share this post


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

Share the maths? My house prices are from the Land Registry.

I honestly can't remember Dorkins.  It may be that we had lost a lot on the first property, which we were selling.  So 72k sold for 55. Luckily we had been paying down the mortgage so no NE but little in the way of a deposit.  5% springs to mind.  We nearly walked out of a meeting with the Halifax as they said we did not earn enough to cover the mortgage.  It was only a matter or about 3k. But lending rules were much tighter. We could only raise 3x one income plus 1x second income.  Guess this was why we needed the two wages, not so much the price but the much tighter rules on lending multiples 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, One-percent said:

I honestly can't remember Dorkins.  It may be that we had lost a lot on the first property, which we were selling.  So 72k sold for 55. Luckily we had been paying down the mortgage so no NE but little in the way of a deposit.  5% springs to mind.  We nearly walked out of a meeting with the Halifax as they said we did not earn enough to cover the mortgage.  It was only a matter or about 3k. But lending rules were much tighter. We could only raise 3x one income plus 1x second income.  Guess this was why we needed the two wages, not so much the price but the much tighter rules on lending multiples 

You are making Dorkings point for him (her) 

Although 3x main plus 1x second is technically using two incomes, it's a long way from 4.5x joint income. With pay rises on the main income, once children come along the second income can become disposable. The JIMJAMS problem now is partly childcare and the costs of two people ging to work. I've nothing against women having careers, if they want, it's just that using the income to pay more for a pile of bricks puts others in a JAM. Why not keep the money, the house is still the same? Houses are as cheap as what people are prepared to borrow. If tomorrow everybody only borrowed 3x main income, there wouldn't be enough capital appreciation for speculators. Though obviously the governbankment hasn't and isn't helping people pay less. The more you pay, the more you work, the more tax they get.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Si1 said:

GIMPS

 

Grandparents In Mansions, Partying on Ships

Bravo sir.

 

GIMPS & ROGGIs

Grandparents in Mansions, Partying on Ships. renting out garage to grandkids, innit.

Share this post


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

Houses are as cheap as what people are prepared to borrow. If tomorrow everybody only borrowed 3x main income, there wouldn't be enough capital appreciation for speculators. Though obviously the governbankment hasn't and isn't helping people pay less. The more you pay, the more you work, the more tax they get.

 

I totally agree with your dual income argument, this is why we are borrowing 0x income until house prices return to sanity. They can't force you to sign up for a mortgage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

I totally agree with your dual income argument, this is why we are borrowing 0x income until house prices return to sanity. They can't force you to sign up for a mortgage.

They're running out of props - this might be next :o

On the acronym front I'm renting from Citizens Using No-choice Tenant Slaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Average house price in London was £68k in 1995.

..this was about London.

Venger, on 02 Sept 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:snapback.png

James Ferguson, smarter by a long way, recognising the cycle has been overridden (that we didn't have a crash because Govs responded with extreme measures)... saying we're at a market top, knowing that very few sellers get out at 90% peak when the market turns -------->  but also winding me up, recounting houses he's bought cheap in the early 90s with his property companies£57,000 yielding 16-18%...  "now worth over a million and some".

 

Video 2014: http://videos.bigpictureinvestment.co.uk/debate.html

 

I will wait for the HPC.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2016 at 9:19 AM, Democorruptcy said:

You are making Dorkings point for him (her) 

Although 3x main plus 1x second is technically using two incomes, it's a long way from 4.5x joint income. With pay rises on the main income, once children come along the second income can become disposable. The JIMJAMS problem now is partly childcare and the costs of two people ging to work. I've nothing against women having careers, if they want, it's just that using the income to pay more for a pile of bricks puts others in a JAM. Why not keep the money, the house is still the same? Houses are as cheap as what people are prepared to borrow. If tomorrow everybody only borrowed 3x main income, there wouldn't be enough capital appreciation for speculators. Though obviously the governbankment hasn't and isn't helping people pay less. The more you pay, the more you work, the more tax they get.

 

Sort of.  But interest rates were higher then.  There was also no subsidised childcare or tax credits.  We both had to work to make the figures add up.  Now, my parents, they really did only need one wage 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, One-percent said:

Sort of.  But interest rates were higher then.  There was also no subsidised childcare or tax credits.  We both had to work to make the figures add up.  Now, my parents, they really did only need one wage 

You showed up at a bank with (from the sound of things, please correct it wrong) less than 3 months' wages by way of deposit wanting a mortgage on a more expensive than average house in London. I'd have been reluctant to lend on a single wage too. The fact that you couldn't buy on a single wage doesn't mean that everybody was in that situation.

My parents FTB'd in 1995 on a 4 bed detached in Berkshire on a single non-financial sector office worker's wage. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have had a big deposit, no inheritances and they were hit hard by unemployment in the early 90s recession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

You showed up at a bank with (from the sound of things, please correct it wrong) less than 3 months' wages by way of deposit wanting a mortgage on a more expensive than average house in London. I'd have been reluctant to lend on a single wage too. The fact that you couldn't buy on a single wage doesn't mean that everybody was in that situation.

My parents FTB'd in 1995 on a 4 bed detached in Berkshire on a single non-financial sector office worker's wage. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have had a big deposit, no inheritances and they were hit hard by unemployment in the early 90s recession.

Perhaps we need to agree to disagree over remembered experience.  For us and all our friends in London, buying small two and three bed properties, all professional people, all couples were having to both work.  It might have been slightly different in the shires, but in london I knew no one who could get by on one wage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, One-percent said:

Sort of.  But interest rates were higher then.  There was also no subsidised childcare or tax credits.  We both had to work to make the figures add up.  Now, my parents, they really did only need one wage 

It's not about whether two people were working or not. It's about standard of living, less debt means more living. If people are in a JAM now while rates are low, they are trapped in it forever, if rates rise and take their pay rises. 

Childcare subsidies are our taxes going to bankers, so people can pay more for houses by using two incomes. If housing costs were cheaper they wouldn't be necessary. 

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.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   30 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.