VinnieK Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 The point is that those days are unlikely to happen again. Even if a number of properties go into negative equity, that doesn't necessary herald a repeat of those days. What is important is i. The wider economy, ii. Employment and wage increases, iii. The average degree of negative equity (the value of a house being less than say £3000 of the remaining mortgage is not exactly going to be a sign of the coming apocalypse). iv. Inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 The point is that those days are unlikely to happen again. Even if a number of properties go into negative equity, that doesn't necessary herald a repeat of those days. What is important is i. The wider economy, ii. Employment and wage increases, iii. The average degree of negative equity (the value of a house being less than say £3000 of the remaining mortgage is not exactly going to be a sign of the coming apocalypse). iv. Inflation. Good point...negative equity is only an issue to me if I am looking to sell my house, which I'm not. The same would be true if there was an appreciation in value, Im not looking to sell. As is mentioned above a property, at least for me, is a long term investment. Same for those people with endowment shortfalls...look at the picture over 17-25 years and then bleat if you have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Some good points, but lets not forget that a lots of those that are buying houses now have no kids and the size of the house is not as important now. But as they get older ? then the kids come along and then space becomes a premium. Also many have bought appartments and in some of those the lease may say no kids or pets, then that becomes a problem, not only that appartments are not the best place to bring up kids for many reasons. How many of you have bought starter homes and then had kids and if so did you manage ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 The legacy of Thatcherism - in order to talk about wealth creation/distribution we have to invoke home ownership as the yardstick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 lets not forget that a lots of those that are buying houses now have no kids and the size of the house is not as important now. But as they get older ? then the kids come along and then space becomes a premium. It might sound harsh, but that's their choice, plain and simple. Is it really responsible to have a child when you can't afford to raise it and maintain their living standards/improve them in order to incorporate their child? There are enough risks at play when building a family, such as the stability of one's employment etc, without making them even worse by having a child before the parents are prepared financially for the demands and obligations such a decision makes on them. A mortgage is an investment. When you take one out you're effectively saying "I believe that the benefits of doing this outweigh the risks involved in such a loan". You're investment consists of the promise to honour the obligations of the mortgage in return for a lump sum payment that enables you to have what you want there and then. To then Have a child halfway down the line is no excuse whatsoever should it, along with the already existing debts and expenditures, prove too much to handle financially, the parents in question should have planned a little bit more carefully for the future. Of course, sometimes bad things happen that aren't the immediate fault of the parents in question, redundancy, injury, marriage break ups and so forth - that's partly what the welfare state is for, as a last resort safety net to help those who've fallen on rocky times. People who just have kids for the fun of it and then find they can't cope when reality hits them simply have no one else to blame other than themselves. Not the banks, not the government, not even the wicked scooby-do villainous property developer who buys their home for a pittance when the mortgage lender puts their house up for auction due to lack of repayment of debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Having children is an investment to when you think of it, But if young couples of today were to wait until they had paid off the house before having kids they would be in their 50s and having kids when your that age is hard work plus you miss out on a lot of the upbringing of the Kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.