alan Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366696/Councils-struggling-time-buyers-20-deposits-homes.html Why our Warrington council making workers unemployed then giving money to 1st time Buyers don.t think this is the right time for this[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 It's not right - as in effect they're subsidising "private" ownership with our tax money; similar to baling out the banks. IF an interest is retained by the Council, and repaid on the sale of the property, that wouldn't be so bad. They could always start building Council housing for rent of course and thus house the homeless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 I also disagree with the policy (coming from a soon to be home owner) with the reason obs outlined, however, the shared ownership scheme should continue in its present form, this has increased my scope for housing considerably (since the bank will only lend a certain ammount to me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 I think Obs says it all on this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 In theory, and many moons ago in practise, the bank would base a loan (mortgage) on an assessment of your ability to pay back the loan over an agreed period. In "the old days", when folk could be reasonably confident of a "job for life", such a calculation was presumably less risky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 House prices have far outstripped wages Obs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 Aswell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Wonder how much of a mortgage you will need for a converted office. It seems that to ease the burden on the housing shortage the government is set to make it easy to convert unused office blocks to affordable/rented accommodation. There are plenty in warrington town centre and elsewhere in the area that are lying empty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Wonder how much of a mortgage you will need for a converted office. It seems that to ease the burden on the housing shortage the government is set to make it easy to convert unused office blocks to affordable/rented accommodation. There are plenty in warrington town centre and elsewhere in the area that are lying empty. my old offices are being converted into flats as we speak. Obviously to get more rent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Seems private landlords are experiencing a boom period - as folk can't afford to get on the property ladder, demand for rented accomodation has soared - and so too have rents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 I really don't know how people afford the rents either. Houses near me are being rented out for over ?800 a month and they are only terrace houses God help all the youngsters as they can't even get decent jobs (or any job for that matter) let alone hope to have a home of their own in the future wether rented or mortgaged. Their only option will be tents or maybe caravans on greenbelt land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 For a couple living together, or a pair of friends sharing that is under ?100 per week each. National minimum wage is ?5.93 for an over 21 - which comes to just under ?220 per week for a nice easy 37 hour week with very little in the way of income tax to pay at that earnings level. Under 50% of gross earnings on housing costs? Fairly affordable if you don't insist on food shopping at M&S! (and there currently a number of terraces in Stockton Heath around the ?600 per month mark which would mean our hypothetical couple was spending only 1/3 of gross earnings on housing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 For a couple living together, or a pair of friends sharing that is under ?100 per week each. National minimum wage is ?5.93 for an over 21 - which comes to just under ?220 per week for a nice easy 37 hour week with very little in the way of income tax to pay at that earnings level. Under 50% of gross earnings on housing costs? Fairly affordable if you don't insist on food shopping at M&S! (and there currently a number of terraces in Stockton Heath around the ?600 per month mark which would mean our hypothetical couple was spending only 1/3 of gross earnings on housing) inky, you make it sound almost atractive to be on minimum wage and how can you make such a sweeping statement regarding all those on the national minimumum wage having a nice easy 37 hour week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Errm OK Inky Then add to that to ?120 a month for Council Tax... the ?40 ish a month for Water Rates (non-metered) then your your Gas/Elec, car tax, petrol etc .... not to mention everything else that your well earned minimum wage has to cover and not everyone shops at posh M&S you know Yes your calculations do make it sound rather easy until you take into account everything else and we have had the same discussion recently regarding the 'ease' of affordability with our nephew who like you thinks it would be 'simples' but has now realsised that maybe it's not. We struggled at times and went without when we bought our home 20 years years ago despite us both having well paid jobs compared to many others. The house cost us just under ?60K and the mortgage payments were around ?450 a month (interest only) so I still stand by my belief that youngsters these days don't stand a chance. But hey why am I moaning as we hardly have any mortgage left now which is unusual for an 'interest only mortgage' but we saw our downfall and paid some off and if we pop our clogs our son could suddenly inherit a paid for house in the next few years... EEEEEEEK... Are we now a target for Euthanasia !!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Carefull on the stairs Diz - HE'S BEHIND YOU! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 So you will not be having the mushroom soup any time soon then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 I may well delete my posts incase he ever ventures onto the forum or better still just change my posts into my other half's name Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 They will stay at home with their parent/s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 No Peter they will want to do what we all did and move on, get their independance, and then hopefully settle down with the their loved one and start a family of their own...with their Lamborghini parked on the landscaped sweeping drive (well ok mybe not the last bit) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 No Peter they will want to do what we all did and move on, get their independance, and then hopefully settle down with the their loved one and start a family of their own...with their Lamborghini parked on the landscaped sweeping drive (well ok mybe not the last bit) You just said they couldn't afford to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 I said that's what they will WANT to do... not what they will be ABLE to do... stop being so picky Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 It's not right - as in effect they're subsidising "private" ownership with our tax money; similar to baling out the banks. IF an interest is retained by the Council, and repaid on the sale of the property, that wouldn't be so bad. They could always start building Council housing for rent of course and thus house the homeless. Obs, this 'scam' doesn't really subsidise private ownership because the money 'lent' by the council gets paid back with substantial interest over the term of the mortgage. It is in fact another way of bailing out the banks, who due to lack of borrowers would otherwise have to lower interest rates. It also helps the developers who would otherwise have to sell their houses at a lower price. It also is a good little earner for the council who get a good cut of the interest. This type of profiteering from those who are gullible/desperate is just another example of the sick society we live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 For a couple living together, or a pair of friends sharing that is under ?100 per week each. National minimum wage is ?5.93 for an over 21 - which comes to just under ?220 per week for a nice easy 37 hour week with very little in the way of income tax to pay at that earnings level. Under 50% of gross earnings on housing costs? Fairly affordable if you don't insist on food shopping at M&S! As Dizzy has already pointed out there are other outgoings to be considered, by the time these have been paid there wouldn't be any money for food on the present minimum wage. Isn't it about time the govt ended the 'nanny state' and stopped supporting businesses profit making and enforced a realistic minimum wage of at least ?9 per hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 They will stay at home with their parent/s. Perhaps another solution would be for G.O.P.'s to live in homes with their carers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 For a couple living together, or a pair of friends sharing that is under ?100 per week each. National minimum wage is ?5.93 for an over 21 - which comes to just under ?220 per week for a nice easy 37 hour week with very little in the way of income tax to pay at that earnings level. Under 50% of gross earnings on housing costs? Fairly affordable if you don't insist on food shopping at M&S! As Dizzy has already pointed out there are other outgoings to be considered, by the time these have been paid there wouldn't be any money for food on the present minimum wage. Isn't it about time the govt ended the 'nanny state' and stopped supporting businesses profit making and enforced a realistic minimum wage of at least ?9 per hour. Sha in an ideal world then that would be great but the problem with your idea of a ?9 minimum wage is that you are forgetting about all the businesses who employ people who do NOT make huge profits many of which take on younger and inexperienced people. If they were forced to pay ?9 an hour minimum wage they just wouldn't take people on and lets face it jobs are hard enough to come by without throwing that into the equation. Whereby a company can take on a school leaver for currently just over ?5 an hour (not that many do) or an inexperienced person for the same (not that many do) or anyone for that matter who is desperate for work if it was bumped up to ?9 an hour then forget it as not only would the employer have to fork out a lot more in weekly wages each week but their own contributions towards the employees tax/nhi would double too making it even more costly to bother employing them Sad state of affairs really eh 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.