Re: charity calendar - update

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:50:39 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, Tim Hobbs
><[email protected]> writes
>>>
>>>>Many people of course are paying absolutely nothing under the
>>>>present system
>>>> and surely you must agree that is wrong.
>>>
>>>I absolutely and totally agree. The "benign" effects of a little
>>>inflation in the 60's and 70's is really coming home to roost.Inflation
>>>was a hard unmeans tested tax on the old people of today.
>>>
>>
>>Cuts both ways that one. The flipside is that thirty years ago people
>>took on high mortages for houses to find that inflation made the debt
>>virtually insignificant a few years on when inflation had moved the
>>goalposts.
>>
>But what of those who couldn't afford their own house?
>>Nowadays, a mortgage which takes 35% of your income today will still
>>be doing similar in ten years time.

>House price inflation is subject to supply and demand - very little
>supply, very great demand. Demand used to be rationed by mortgage
>availability - you actually had to have a savings account with most
>lenders to get in the queue for a loan. There is also the expectation of
>a very much higher quality of building than was the case in the 60s -
>fitted carpets work tops, kitchen cupboards, double glazing central
>heating were all extras.

Yes, but they are relatively trivial costs. The greatest cost is the
land, not the worktops or radiators. The rampant house price
inflation of late has not been on par with general RPI or earnings
inflation, and thus people are saddled with genuine long-term debt
whilst those who joined the housing ladder 30 years ago (todays
pensioners) very quickly found their mortgages to be a relatively
small proportion of their income.

Renting a house is generally more expensive month on month than paying
the mortgage on one.

Not being able to afford a house is actually a case of not being able
to afford a deposit (not much of an issue these days). Previously the
council offered an alternative in the form of state subsidised
housing, which meant those who weren't willing / able to pay the full
market price (rent or mortgage) ended up with no fixed asset and rent
bills until the day they died. Homeowners have no housing bills
(apart from maintenance) from the age of 50-60.




--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

In news:[email protected],
Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> blithered:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:50:39 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>> In message <[email protected]>, Tim Hobbs
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>>
>>>>> Many people of course are paying absolutely nothing under the
>>>>> present system
>>>>> and surely you must agree that is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I absolutely and totally agree. The "benign" effects of a little
>>>> inflation in the 60's and 70's is really coming home to
>>>> roost.Inflation was a hard unmeans tested tax on the old people of
>>>> today.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cuts both ways that one. The flipside is that thirty years ago
>>> people took on high mortages for houses to find that inflation made
>>> the debt virtually insignificant a few years on when inflation had
>>> moved the goalposts.
>>>
>> But what of those who couldn't afford their own house?
>>> Nowadays, a mortgage which takes 35% of your income today will still
>>> be doing similar in ten years time.
>
>> House price inflation is subject to supply and demand - very little
>> supply, very great demand. Demand used to be rationed by mortgage
>> availability - you actually had to have a savings account with most
>> lenders to get in the queue for a loan. There is also the
>> expectation of a very much higher quality of building than was the
>> case in the 60s - fitted carpets work tops, kitchen cupboards,
>> double glazing central heating were all extras.
>
> Yes, but they are relatively trivial costs. The greatest cost is the
> land, not the worktops or radiators. The rampant house price
> inflation of late has not been on par with general RPI or earnings
> inflation, and thus people are saddled with genuine long-term debt
> whilst those who joined the housing ladder 30 years ago (todays
> pensioners) very quickly found their mortgages to be a relatively
> small proportion of their income.

As compared to their current council tax which is a large proportion.

>
> Renting a house is generally more expensive month on month than paying
> the mortgage on one.
>
> Not being able to afford a house is actually a case of not being able
> to afford a deposit (not much of an issue these days). Previously the
> council offered an alternative in the form of state subsidised
> housing, which meant those who weren't willing / able to pay the full
> market price (rent or mortgage) ended up with no fixed asset and rent
> bills until the day they died. Homeowners have no housing bills
> (apart from maintenance) from the age of 50-60.



--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!

In message <[email protected]>, Tim Hobbs
<[email protected]> writes
>On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:50:39 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>>In message <[email protected]>, Tim Hobbs
>><[email protected]> writes
>>>>
>>>>>Many people of course are paying absolutely nothing under the
>>>>>present system
>>>>> and surely you must agree that is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>I absolutely and totally agree. The "benign" effects of a little
>>>>inflation in the 60's and 70's is really coming home to roost.Inflation
>>>>was a hard unmeans tested tax on the old people of today.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Cuts both ways that one. The flipside is that thirty years ago people
>>>took on high mortages for houses to find that inflation made the debt
>>>virtually insignificant a few years on when inflation had moved the
>>>goalposts.
>>>
>>But what of those who couldn't afford their own house?
>>>Nowadays, a mortgage which takes 35% of your income today will still
>>>be doing similar in ten years time.
>
>>House price inflation is subject to supply and demand - very little
>>supply, very great demand. Demand used to be rationed by mortgage
>>availability - you actually had to have a savings account with most
>>lenders to get in the queue for a loan. There is also the expectation of
>>a very much higher quality of building than was the case in the 60s -
>>fitted carpets work tops, kitchen cupboards, double glazing central
>>heating were all extras.
>
>Yes, but they are relatively trivial costs. The greatest cost is the
>land, not the worktops or radiators. The rampant house price
>inflation of late has not been on par with general RPI or earnings
>inflation, and thus people are saddled with genuine long-term debt
>whilst those who joined the housing ladder 30 years ago (todays
>pensioners) very quickly found their mortgages to be a relatively
>small proportion of their income.
>
I bought my house in 1979 just before Thatcher won the election and
interest rates shot up to 11% or more. A lot of house owners had a very
hard time of it.
>Renting a house is generally more expensive month on month than paying
>the mortgage on one.
>
>Not being able to afford a house is actually a case of not being able
>to afford a deposit (not much of an issue these days). Previously the
>council offered an alternative in the form of state subsidised
>housing, which meant those who weren't willing / able to pay the full
>market price (rent or mortgage) ended up with no fixed asset and rent
>bills until the day they died. Homeowners have no housing bills
>(apart from maintenance) from the age of 50-60.
>
and council tax - but their income is much reduced. The only difference
is that they may have repaid their mortgage. But the asset value of
their house is paper wealth - it doesn't pay the bills.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting