Minor content rant...

gurramok

20goto10 wrote: »

A 10 year mortgage is better than a 25 year mortgage. A 5 year mortgage is better than a 10 year mortgage. A 25 year mortgage is better than a 35 year mortgage. Where do you get 25 years is good from? Because thats how it used to be in 1984?

No. It was the norm pre-bubble, lets say 2002. now that is not decades ago.

Banks do not give out many 5/10 mortgages as the rate of return for them is abysmal.

Why should the historic norm of 25yr be changed to 35yr? Kindly explain.

20goto10 wrote: »

What makes you think they are "stuck". They may be simply happily living their lives. As for the "tell that to the people who got stung" argument, well you can say that about just about everything. People get killed crossing the road, therefore nobody should cross the road and anyone who does is an idiot who is going to get run over. It's simply not an argument. You're taking someone elses situation and applying it to everyone. you're not only doing that, you're taking someone elses negative situation and applying it to everyone. I could just as easily take a positive situation and apply it to everyone. Therefore anyone who doesn't buy is an idiot. My point being, there are more and more positive stories out there now that prices have corrected themselves. I know there is more correction to come but it really doesn't matter in the grander scheme of things. I actually feel sorry for someone who cannot see past the dollar signs in a situation as important as buying a home. It's a factor, not the factor.

You do not get it. Money rules the world. If you want somewhere to live, you need money. We can be positive all we like, its the reality that bites.

Negative equity(do you know what this means?) results in people who bought starter homes being unable to move.
Many of those people bought apts inside\outside the major cities and houses outside the cities(Navan to Dublin for example).

The first lot bought majorly 1 and 2 bed apts. Now they want kids and cannot move as their accommodation is too small, negative equity is preventing them, its a miserable life.
Same for Tom in is his 3bed semi in Navan, commuting for many years to Dublin.

Hence they are stuck. This affects mobility of the workforce, do you understand now?

Kipperhell

gurramok wrote: »

Tell that to the 40% of investors who bought during the bubble. Also throw in those homeowners who 'must get on the ladder at all costs' to sell later at a profit(that equity thing) who are now in serious negative equity.
(especially those stuck in apts and houses in commuter towns)

This is one of those play with figures. The 40% investors are not 40% of investors but 40% of the property sales from the given period. The other investors are still there so the 40% is diluted. There will be some overlap of old investors in the recent purchases but they will most likely using gearing and will still be able to write off their interest payments with other properties.
There are still a lot of people who are paying their mortgages even though they are in negative equity with no problems there may be only a relatively minor difference between rent and mortgage.
I think the thread is pointing out that certain people have taken over here and can't discuss anything any more as they only see it one way. I abandoned a thread nearly instantly as there was no ability to even discuss the possibilities.

20goto10

ntlbell wrote: »

Because they're on pat kenny/joe duffy/anyone who will listen moaning about it? you can't sit down in a pub without hearing some poor unfortunate's tales of woe is me about their 1bed shoe box dropping 150k and they are STUCK there for the rest of their lives as they have no way of paying back that sort of money to get out.

come on, stop clutching at straws.

people jumped on the "ladder" thinking it was the first step to buying a bigger home yes there might be a few who are happy in the 1 bed have no intentions of getting married or having a familiy or been able to go asleep at night without lsitening to the neigbours snoring but these are a very small MINIORITY

the MAJORITY are stuck and have no way out.

There's no way out of negative equity except to wait it out. I'm not disagreeing there. What I am disagreeing with is that everyone is looking for a way out. Neither do I agree that people bought as a first step. How do you get to the next step? I mean if they were pushed to the limit on the mortgage of their "shoe box" then how exactly did they expect to upgrade to something better without coming into a windfall of money? I don't think that was the reality of the situation. The reality was that society was changing and living in an apartment was seen as modern day living. And I think it still is, albeit a cheaper form of living which is what it should always have been.

Anyway, I'm not arguing about what happened in the past. This argument does not apply today.

ntlbell

20goto10 wrote: »

There's no way out of negative equity except to wait it out. I'm not disagreeing there. What I am disagreeing with is that everyone is looking for a way out. Neither do I agree that people bought as a first step. How do you get to the next step? I mean if they were pushed to the limit on the mortgage of their "shoe box" then how exactly did they expect to upgrade to something better without coming into a windfall of money? I don't think that was the reality of the situation. The reality was that society was changing and living in an apartment was seen as modern day living. And I think it still is, albeit a cheaper form of living which is what it should always have been.

Anyway, I'm not arguing about what happened in the past. This argument does not apply today.

No there's no way out but there is a way to make better judgments use bigger deposits and make better decisions "pre flop" which is what a lot of people here are trying to advise on.

Society wasn't changing lending practices changed leading people with absolute no knowledge or financial know how to get themselves into situations that were just not sustainable "going forward" 3/4 commutes to places like gorey just to get a step on the ladder, buying shoe boxes for 400k on the avg ind wage etc

I don't want to argue about the past I don't want to argue about the future, people have their opinions one way or another the "don't buy now" brigrade are entitled to their's the "ballsy guys are buying now" brigrade are entitled to theirs and can both post in the same threads

so if people feel the threads are one sided then get into them and put your points across and let the OP's decide?

isn't that what getting advise is all about? different angles? weigh each up and deicde for yourself?

gurramok

20goto10 wrote: »

There's no way out of negative equity except to wait it out. I'm not disagreeing there. What I am disagreeing with is that everyone is looking for a way out. Neither do I agree that people bought as a first step. How do you get to the next step? I mean if they were pushed to the limit on the mortgage of their "shoe box" then how exactly did they expect to upgrade to something better without coming into a windfall of money? I don't think that was the reality of the situation. The reality was that society was changing and living in an apartment was seen as modern day living. And I think it still is, albeit a cheaper form of living which is what it should always have been.

Anyway, I'm not arguing about what happened in the past. This argument does not apply today.

You see, you are missing something in your argument.

That wait it out is going to be many years. Alot relied on 'prices always go up mantra' to move on from small apts, you could not blame them with the lies been fed to them by property vested interests via the media and banks.

Most Irish apts are not built for families, you cannot be serious suggesting otherwise?

The people who are most affected by this negative equity are young people(20-40) who bought starter homes to 'get on the ladder'

Yes some bought to live in apts for many years, alot did not.

The numbers are serious, some reports put the amount of people in negative equity at 200,000 or so, and that number is growing daily.

So the advice of not to buy now for those who did not yet is valid to prevent them to fall into the same trap for most of their youth.

Of course, anyone who wants to buy now with immediate negative equity of years to come, overpaying for it and they are buying a sizeable family home in an area of civilisation, go ahead.

D3PO

gurramok wrote: »

Why should the historic norm of 25yr be changed to 35yr? Kindly explain.

Medical science meaning people lilve longer so can spread payments over a longer period, social change meaning people tend to work later into life before retiring than before.

There pretty good starting points.

goes without saying the shorter your mortgage the better as the less interest you will pay, but nothing wrong with a 25 year old getting a 35 year mortgage is there ?

I mean most people getting one of this length will be thinking of paying it off earlier anyway I would suggest.

ntlbell

D3PO wrote: »

Medical science meaning people lilve longer so can spread payments over a longer period, social change meaning people tend to work later into life before retiring than before.

There pretty good starting points.

goes without saying the shorter your mortgage the better as the less interest you will pay, but nothing wrong with a 25 year old getting a 35 year mortgage is there ?

I mean most people getting one of this length will be thinking of paying it off earlier anyway I would suggest.

There's nothing _wrong_ with it but why do it if you don't have to?

40yr 100% mortgages were not brought in because people were living longer and earning more etc they were brought in so banks could make more money get people into debt for longer and be able to pay monthly payments back on something that really they couldn't afford

we're still living longer today as we were 3 years ago but 100% mortgaes have vanished? how odd. no one's offering 40 years anymore very strange?

these were brought in to make the banks more money over a longer period of time the quicker you pay off your mortgage the less the bank makes.

i can't believe after 3 years having these discussions we keep having to go over the basics.

El Stuntman

ntlbell wrote: »

No there's no way out but there is a way to make better judgments use bigger deposits and make better decisions "pre flop" which is what a lot of people here are trying to advise on.

I knew you'd get a poker analogy in somewhere :pac:

D3PO

ntlbell wrote: »

There's nothing _wrong_ with it but why do it if you don't have to?

40yr 100% mortgages were not brought in because people were living longer and earning more etc they were brought in so banks could make more money get people into debt for longer and be able to pay monthly payments back on something that really they couldn't afford

we're still living longer today as we were 3 years ago but 100% mortgaes have vanished? how odd. no one's offering 40 years anymore very strange?

these were brought in to make the banks more money over a longer period of time the quicker you pay off your mortgage the less the bank makes.

i can't believe after 3 years having these discussions we keep having to go over the basics.

whos talking about 100% mortgages. they never were a good idea. Banks are absolute idiots for inventing these "products" If somebody hasnt the financial sense or ability to save a desposit then there are imediate alarm bells indicating they are good candidates to default.

Id consider this the biggest balls up in terms of lending followed closley by the joke that is sub prime lending

as for there nothing wrong with it but why do it if you dont have to. Goes without saying the shorter you can make your mortgage term the better. It doesnt make 35 year morgages a bad thing though. Note no mention of 35 year 100% mortgages

ntlbell

D3PO wrote: »

whos talking about 100% mortgages. they never were a good idea. Banks are absolute idiots for inventing these "products" If somebody hasnt the financial sense or ability to save a desposit then there are imediate alarm bells indicating they are good candidates to default.

Id consider this the biggest balls up in terms of lending followed closley by the joke that is sub prime lending

as for there nothing wrong with it but why do it if you dont have to. Goes without saying the shorter you can make your mortgage term the better. It doesnt make 35 year morgages a bad thing though. Note no mention of 35 year 100% mortgages

I was just using it to illustrate the reason behind the producst is to get people tied into longer loans more interest more profit for the bank they're not designed to "help" people.

adding 10-15 years o interest payments when IMO there is no NEED to is a BAD thing.

if you do NEED to then you NEED to look at it again and see WHY.

it will usually be you need to stretch it because you can;t really afford it if you can't afford it WHY would you pay more? people who can't afford it are the one's who can't afford to be paying more!

D3PO

ntlbell wrote: »

adding 10-15 years o interest payments when IMO there is no NEED to is a BAD thing.

if you do NEED to then you NEED to look at it again and see WHY.

it will usually be you need to stretch it because you can;t really afford it if you can't afford it WHY would you pay more? people who can't afford it are the one's who can't afford to be paying more!

anybody that has a longer term and doesnt need it is silly goes without saying. Pay as little interest as you can.

I dont agree that "stretching" means you cant afford it. For the record I had a 35 year mortgage.

Did I ever plan on taking 35 years to pay it off ? No but in terms of getting the amount I wanted to this was something I had to do to satisfy the bank of my repaying ability.

I have since reduced the term to 25 years, I was going to reduce it further but right now Im also saving in a high yield interest account as its working better for me right now. When rates beginto rise again i will go and reduce the term further using these savings to bridge the higher monthly repayments

ntlbell

D3PO wrote: »

Did I ever plan on taking 35 years to pay it off ? No but in terms of getting the amount I wanted to this was something I had to do to satisfy the bank of my repaying ability.

this sounds very much like not being able to afford it?

I'm no columbo tho.

D3PO

ntlbell wrote: »

this sounds very much like not being able to afford it?

I'm no columbo tho.

no that black and white always though right ?

In my case decided to get the mortgage on my own. Have a long term girlfriend who lives with me.

could have got 25 year term with both salaries on the application. but then I would have messed her FTB status up

so now i have what was always afordable and still have the opportunity to use her FTB status to either move up the ladder of in time purchase into the investment market.

i didnt create the system but i will exploit it where there are loopholes

anyway what makes 35 years unafordable i still dont get it ? its more costly yes but not unafordable

ntlbell

D3PO wrote: »

anyway what makes 35 years unafordable i still dont get it ? its more costly yes but not unafordable

It doesn't make them affordable if you keep having to stretch the amount of years then it's very likely your buying something that is stretching you.

if this is the case then the last thing you need is to end up paying more?

affordability to ME is not just been able to make the repayment's

it's been able to make those payment's live a very comfortable lifestyle, be still be able to make those payments if interest rates increase a number of times, be still able to make them should my own or "our" wages drop e.g. loose one while one is out of work due to starting a familiy etc etc

if you can't afford something PAYING MORE for the same thing you couldn't afford in the first place doesn't make sense does it?

most people have no idea how much buying a house costs they don't realize a 250k house will cost 500k+ after interest etc

people who are average earners etc can't afford to throw away 250k in a lifetime is this really that difficult to understand?

it's not for me to decide what one can afford and what can't

i just want to make sure they understand what they're getting into and what they can do to avoid paying more than they should

D3PO

ntlbell wrote: »

affordability to ME is not just been able to make the repayment's

it's been able to make those payment's live a very comfortable lifestyle, be still be able to make those payments if interest rates increase a number of times, be still able to make them should my own or "our" wages drop e.g. loose one while one is out of work due to starting a familiy etc etc

i agree stress testing and affordability is more than just being able to pay this one bill totally agree.

Now if the banks did their jobs right they would work out what they believe that affordable repayment amount is taking into consideration the stress test elements you have mentioned

you would also know whats affordable to you.

so take this example you work out €1,000 a month is affordable to us (nice round figure) that €1,000 a month over 35 years affords you the opportunity to purchase maybe a larger house, or a house in a nicer area or what not.

yes it is going to cost you more in interest and what not but that doesnt make it unaffordable as every person has their own criteria as to whats affordable.

taking about efficencies is all well and good. Could I have bought for less used that to lessen the mortgage term and then any other excess to top up my pension payments therfore using tax efficencies to "get more" for my money ? sure I could.

would I lead the lifestyle I chose to lead ? No I dont think I would.

at the end of the day people make lifestyle choices that cost more or less money based on what they want all the time. it doesnt make them financially inept.

For me stretching is haivng to get a 100% mortgage, or working out your afordability based on todays historically low interest rates.

if you can afford 35 years at 6% and chose to do so that then to me becomes a lifestyle choice and not an afordability one

ntlbell

D3PO wrote: »

i agree stress testing and affordability is more than just being able to pay this one bill totally agree.

Now if the banks did their jobs right they would work out what they believe that affordable repayment amount is taking into consideration the stress test elements you have mentioned

you would also know whats affordable to you.

so take this example you work out €1,000 a month is affordable to us (nice round figure) that €1,000 a month over 35 years affords you the opportunity to purchase maybe a larger house, or a house in a nicer area or what not.

yes it is going to cost you more in interest and what not but that doesnt make it unaffordable as every person has their own criteria as to whats affordable.

taking about efficencies is all well and good. Could I have bought for less used that to lessen the mortgage term and then any other excess to top up my pension payments therfore using tax efficencies to "get more" for my money ? sure I could.

would I lead the lifestyle I chose to lead ? No I dont think I would.

at the end of the day people make lifestyle choices that cost more or less money based on what they want all the time. it doesnt make them financially inept.

For me stretching is haivng to get a 100% mortgage, or working out your afordability based on todays historically low interest rates.

if you can afford 35 years at 6% and chose to do so that then to me becomes a lifestyle choice and not an afordability one

but the relevance and to put it into perspective of what we''re trying to discuss in this thread.

lets say you want to buy that house today you can only "manage" it "afford it" over 35 years.

we tell you if you wait save a bit more you will buy the same house and able to now afford it over 20? would it not make sense to hang on? which is really what this is about?

D3PO

ntlbell wrote: »

but the relevance and to put it into perspective of what we''re trying to discuss in this thread.

lets say you want to buy that house today you can only "manage" it "afford it" over 35 years.

we tell you if you wait save a bit more you will buy the same house and able to now afford it over 20? would it not make sense to hang on? which is really what this is about?

in todays market place it makes sence to hold in that scenario yes i agree. i guess i was trying to hijack this into an afordability versus lifestyle choice discussion :P

gurramok

D3PO wrote: »

Medical science meaning people lilve longer so can spread payments over a longer period, social change meaning people tend to work later into life before retiring than before.

There pretty good starting points.

goes without saying the shorter your mortgage the better as the less interest you will pay, but nothing wrong with a 25 year old getting a 35 year mortgage is there ?

I mean most people getting one of this length will be thinking of paying it off earlier anyway I would suggest.

That is such a stupid idea.(based on medical science)

Ok, if i'm 20years of age(wish:D), why won't you give me a 50 year mortgage as i can theoretically work till i'm 70?

Most people and more importantly(their partner) will have some sort of health issue/worry(both are expenses) over the age of 55, why should they be paying a mortgage then?

Notice i say partner as it has taken 2 people to afford a mortgage, if one goes ill, its chaos. (same for a partner having kids in their prime years)

That choice of working until 70 is only a choice if you have your health. Thing is, most people our age think its going to all rosy healthwise forever and never think ahead.

D3PO

gurramok wrote: »

That is such a stupid idea.(based on medical science)

Ok, if i'm 20years of age(wish:D), why won't you give me a 50 year mortgage as i can theoretically work till i'm 70?

Ok there are limits obviously. Everything is based off of risk analysis at the end of the day. The difference between a 25 year old getting a 35 year mortgage to finish at 60 and somebody getting a 40 year mortgage at 30 are poles apart.

i get it your playing devils advocate but lets not get into silly season here

gurramok wrote: »

Most people and more importantly(their partner) will have some sort of health issue/worry(both are expenses) over the age of 55, why should they be paying a mortgage then?

working off a logic of reasonable inflationary increases with wages in line your morgage nearing the end of its term would become an almost irrelevent expense lets be fair , can you really say this is going to put a strain on them that much ? also mortgage coverage covers ability to work maybe this should be made compulsary for mortgages say of over 30 years ?

Now get out of this thread you old coot over 20 sheesh lol

gurramok

That inflationary thing is such a 70's/80's thing Our parents who scraped it in the recession back then had it good when they pulled through it with 'cheap' mortgages.

Don't count on it to make your mortgage a pittance in 25 yrs time. ECB want inflation at 2%. The unusual scenario of hyperinflation or a global oil shortage will help you sure

20goto10

gurramok wrote: »

That inflationary thing is such a 70's/80's thing Our parents who scraped it in the recession back then had it good when they pulled through it with 'cheap' mortgages.

Don't count on it to make your mortgage a pittance in 25 yrs time. ECB want inflation at 2%. The unusual scenario of hyperinflation or a global oil shortage will help you sure

Yeah and the ECB are doing such a great job of keeping things steady aren't they :rolleyes: Inflation is inevitable, but I do agree with you that it is not wise to rely on that alone. Most people would progress in their careers, making things easier as you get older.

TaxiManMartin

Deepsense wrote: »

Ive noticed a vibe in here that is manifesting itself more and more frequently - "anyone who wants to buy a house/flat is an idiot and dont buy and here are a hundred reasons why". Im getting tired of every question ending with the same statements. No matter what question is posed the "dont buy you fool" brigade come out in force. I understand that 99% of the time it is intended to be helpful, but lately its really all I see when anyone mentions that they want to buy. They have made the decision, need some advice and that advice is dispensed with a swift backhander of “Youre an eejit” comments.

Anyone daring to suggest that the market is not as black as night gets bashed - Sweet Sue in another thread is an expmple of this. We get it - youre not a fan of EAs. But is there any need to abuse the ones who do come on and declare themselves? It was very poor form tbh.




There are a few people who do actually want to buy, so why not help them with advice like usual instead of I told you so ramrodding all the time? Its wearing and its boring and it makes in here less fun to wander about in when you know how every thread is going to end.

Sorry. Rant over. Blame the sugar levels.

Oh dear.
You must be psychic.
This thread has gone exactly the same way.
Looks like some of the usual suspects have pounced.
Leave them be i say. They've been ranting at people buying houses for years and years. Now that there is a crash they think they knew it all along (keep preaching and you'll be right some day and all) and now they are milking it for all they are worth.

I predict that there will be another boom though. If i keep predicting it i will be right someday. Watch.

TaxiManMartin

D3PO wrote: »

anybody that has a longer term and doesnt need it is silly goes without saying. Pay as little interest as you can.

I dont agree that "stretching" means you cant afford it. For the record I had a 35 year mortgage.

Did I ever plan on taking 35 years to pay it off ? No but in terms of getting the amount I wanted to this was something I had to do to satisfy the bank of my repaying ability.

I have since reduced the term to 25 years, I was going to reduce it further but right now Im also saving in a high yield interest account as its working better for me right now. When rates beginto rise again i will go and reduce the term further using these savings to bridge the higher monthly repayments

I intend to do similar if i decide to buy a house this year.

Get a 35 year mortgage, but straight away we're going to double the payments - and increase even more with bonuses or salary increases etc. Just in case a few years down the line the economy turns to sh!te again. If it does we can just stop paying til we sort ourselves out, due to the overpayments we will have built up. If it doesnt tank, the mortgage is paid a lot faster than even 20 or 15 years. It just for the sake of some wiggle room should we ever need it, not because we cant afford the payments.

gurramok

TaxiManMartin wrote: »

Oh dear.
You must be psychic.
This thread has gone exactly the same way.
Looks like some of the usual suspects have pounced.
Leave them be i say. They've been ranting at people buying houses for years and years. Now that there is a crash they think they knew it all along (keep preaching and you'll be right some day and all) and now they are milking it for all they are worth.

I predict that there will be another boom though. If i keep predicting it i will be right someday. Watch.

What nonsense. Look through my posts and other posters posts since at least 2006, we were mocked and laughed out for our accurate assessments.

TaxiManMartin wrote: »

I intend to do similar if i decide to buy a house this year.

Get a 35 year mortgage, but straight away we're going to double the payments - and increase even more with bonuses or salary increases etc. Just in case a few years down the line the economy turns to sh!te again. If it does we can just stop paying til we sort ourselves out, due to the overpayments we will have built up. If it doesnt tank, the mortgage is paid a lot faster than even 20 or 15 years. It just for the sake of some wiggle room should we ever need it, not because we cant afford the payments.

Why not take out a 25yr one initially?

Something to do with not affording the repayments on it?

spockety

TaxiManMartin wrote: »

I predict that there will be another boom though. If i keep predicting it i will be right someday. Watch.

Please, stop calling it a 'boom', there might be children reading.

It was, and still is, a bubble.

ZYX

TaxiManMartin wrote: »

I intend to do similar if i decide to buy a house this year.

Get a 35 year mortgage, but straight away we're going to double the payments - and increase even more with bonuses or salary increases etc. Just in case a few years down the line the economy turns to sh!te again. If it does we can just stop paying til we sort ourselves out, due to the overpayments we will have built up. If it doesnt tank, the mortgage is paid a lot faster than even 20 or 15 years. It just for the sake of some wiggle room should we ever need it, not because we cant afford the payments.

Oh TaxiManMartin, have you not being paying attention. If you are going for a 35 year mortgage, that means you cannot afford any other type of mortgage. It doesn't matter that you think you are taking control of your own finances, it doesn't matter that you know how much you can afford. Everyone here (none of whom know anything about your financial situation, but hell why let that stop them) will tell you a 35 year mortgage means you are stupid.
Anyway why are you buying. It doesn't matter how much you buy a property for, it will go down in value.


EDIT: See Guramok knows. "Why not take out a 25yr one initially?

Something to do with not affording the repayments on it?"

He has spent days looking through your financial records and has come to an informed decision- despite you saying the opposite.

TaxiManMartin

ZYX wrote: »

Oh TaxiManMartin, have you not being paying attention. If you are going for a 35 year mortgage, that means you cannot afford any other type of mortgage. It doesn't matter that you think you are taking control of your own finances, it doesn't matter that you know how much you can afford. Everyone here (none of whom know anything about your financial situation, but hell why let that stop them) will tell you a 35 year mortgage means you are stupid.
Anyway why are you buying. It doesn't matter how much you buy a property for, it will go down in value.


EDIT: See Guramok knows. "Why not take out a 25yr one initially?

Something to do with not affording the repayments on it?"

He has spent days looking through your financial records and has come to an informed decision- despite you saying the opposite.

Obviously some dont understand my reasoning at all.
Its more a case of them not wanting to understand it.

I thought i explained it clearly. 35 year mortgage requires less payments - just in case the economy goes tits up again a few years down the line. I'll have big over payments and a nice low monthly payment in case things get so bad the bank comes knocking. Of course i dont expect anything but having it all paid off within the 15 years, but you never know.

Its a safety cushion, nothing more. Any sensible person would understand this.

I intend to more than double the payments, and barring any death to the economy over the next 15 years, have the whole 35 year mortgage paid off in that 15 years or less if i can. How could that mean i cant afford it?

What is stupid about taking a longer term loan but making overpayments which would make it the same as a shorter term loan.
If you wanted you could even bank the overpayments for any time that the savings interest rates (minus dirt) are higher than the mortgage rate you are paying, and then pay it off the mortgage later when the rates are reversed.

Its really going to kill those guys if property starts to increase in value again isnt it. It just hurts them to think that anyone ever bought a house and was right to buy it.

We'll buy a house when we see fit, for our own reasons, as anybody else should do if they feel owning a house suits them more than renting.
You'd think nobody ever bought a house when it was the right decision listening to some of you.
Everybody is different. It suits some and it doesnt suit others. I wont be speculating - in either direction, up or down. I'll be making a decision and covering myself in case of unexpected developments.

TaxiManMartin

ZYX wrote: »

EDIT: See Guramok knows. "Why not take out a 25yr one initially?

Something to do with not affording the repayments on it?"

He has spent days looking through your financial records and has come to an informed decision- despite you saying the opposite.

Well he is psychic you know.
That guy knows everything about everyones circumstances who ever even thought about buying a house.
I dont know how he does it. Amazing.

ntlbell

TaxiManMartin wrote: »

I intend to do similar if i decide to buy a house this year.

Get a 35 year mortgage, but straight away we're going to double the payments - and increase even more with bonuses or salary increases etc. Just in case a few years down the line the economy turns to sh!te again. If it does we can just stop paying til we sort ourselves out, due to the overpayments we will have built up. If it doesnt tank, the mortgage is paid a lot faster than even 20 or 15 years. It just for the sake of some wiggle room should we ever need it, not because we cant afford the payments.

but if you base the initial purchase on the basis of dropping a wage, increased interest rates and buy something very affordable then the latter part of your theory is solved at the outset anyway? you can still get a 20yr and still overpay if you wish?

ntlbell

TaxiManMartin wrote: »

Well he is psychic you know.
That guy knows everything about everyones circumstances who ever even thought about buying a house.
I dont know how he does it. Amazing.

he has this uncanny ability that seems to fall on deaf ears here.

it' something very few people have

it's called

wait for it...

common sense..

give it a whirl