freeman of the land + cancer + 500 'protesters' = massive farce

Martini1991 said:
Whys it nonesense for it to sound absurd to have paid off the original value of the house multiple times without paying off the mortgage? If you literally just see it as that, it sounds utterly ridiculous.

I don't need to do the math, I think the reality is silly.

I just don't have the mentality to accept paying out inordinate sums of money for the necessity of a roof above my head, and the rest of the lark.
Click to expand...

Look at it from the lender's point of view then. Why should they lend you £40,000 (or whatever it is) and only expect back the £40,000 over a period of 25 years? Their loss would be huge, and even the closest family member would baulk at that proposal.

Would you lend me £40,000 now and let me pay it back, month by month, for 25 years with no interest?

Your reality is, unfortunately, unreal.
 
No one's forcing you to take out a mortgage? What's the alternative? Rent forever? Wait till my Mam snuffs it and take her house (That she's paid off)?

I'd rather cease to exist than to share your viewpoint Dowie. World's crap enough without the masses willingly becoming cogs in the machine.
 
Martini1991 said:
No one's forcing you to take out a mortgage? What's the alternative? Rent forever? Wait till my Mam snuffs it and take her house (That she's paid off)?

I'd rather cease to exist than to share your viewpoint Dowie. World's crap enough without the masses willingly becoming cogs in the machine.
Click to expand...

its reality though, yes if the idea of paying interest seems unfair to you then perhaps you should rent/live with your mum/go live in a yurt in a field somewhere/or accumulate sufficient cash that you don't need a mortgage to buy a property

no one is forced to lend to you either - tis your call, surprisingly enough a lender wants a return on the money they lend out
 
The_Abyss said:
Look at it from the lender's point of view then. Why should they lend you £40,000 (or whatever it is) and only expect back the £40,000 over a period of 25 years? Their loss would be huge, and even the closest family member would baulk at that proposal.

Would you lend me £40,000 now and let me pay it back, month by month, for 25 years with no interest?

Your reality is, unfortunately, unreal.
Click to expand...

I don't have the answers, I just don't agree with the system as it is.

Although I'm not suggesting only paying back 40K, I'd say 70K total is on the high side of acceptable to me.
 
You're right, it isn't going to get any better for you until people give away land, money and trees at the price you think is acceptable.
 
Martini1991 said:
I don't have the answers, I just don't agree with the system as it is.

Although I'm not suggesting only paying back 40K, I'd say 70K total is on the high side of acceptable to me.
Click to expand...

over what time period? Who do you expect to make all these potentially uber low interest loans?
 
To be fair back 25 years ago interest rates were probably a fair bit higher than they are now (this would have been true for interest on savings too).

When you took out a mortgage the sum you paid back would be much more than it is now for the same value mortgage.

I have a £90K mortage on which I am expected to wind up paying more like £140-£150K back over the term. You can reduce this by overpaying to reduce the debt, or re-mortgage with a shorter term to pay it off quicker.

the main problem here sounds like he thought he was on an endowment mortgage, but instead was on interest only. With interest only your monthly payments are low but at the same time you need to be saving enough cash to cover the principal at the end.

If he thought it was an endowment mortgage then I guess he thought the payments would have helped to pay it off when the endowment policy lapsed, maybe with a shortfall, but to find none of the capital is paid off would certainly have been a shock.
 
The_Abyss said:
You're right, it isn't going to get any better for you until people give away land, money and trees at the price you think is acceptable.
Click to expand...

More like it's the elder generation which has caused the problems for the younger generations with their acceptance (And other crap), given you know how the housing market used to be relative to yearly wages.

It's completely unfeasible for me to do what my Mam did in regards to housing, and I don't have kids to support (Me and my brother at that time for my Mam), and have I have a partner (Whereas my Mam didn't) and a better wage.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
More like it's the elder generation which has caused the problems for the younger generations with their acceptance, given you know how the housing market used to be relative to yearly wages.
Click to expand...

That's ok then. All you need to do now is explain this to the older generations and ask them to sell their assets, land and houses to you at below the current market price and at the price which you deem acceptable.

I certainly don't deny that the baby boomer generation have benefited enormously from many social and economic changes. But what do you want to do about it? Insist that they sell to you at a price you think reasonable, realising a loss for them? Do you think that they had it easy and were entitled to buy a house in their economic situation at the time, a time when home ownership was far lower than it is today?

Will you sell your house at a loss, or at the price that's acceptable to the next generation, to help them?
 
The_Abyss said:
That's ok then. All you need to do now is explain this to the older generations and ask them to sell their assets, land and houses to you at below the current market price and at the price which you deem acceptable.

I certainly don't deny that the baby boomer generation have benefited enormously from many social and economic changes. But what do you want to do about it? Insist that they sell to you at a price you think reasonable, realising a loss for them? Do you think that they had it easy and were entitled to buy a house in their economic situation at the time, a time when home ownership was far lower than it is today?

Will you sell your house at a loss, or at the price that's acceptable to the next generation, to help them?
Click to expand...

Like I say, I'm going to have to invest in a bloody good tree house.

Although frankly, and unfortunately, I expect I'll have a mortgage in the next 2 years, and hopefully have it paid off by the time I'm 45 while hating the very concept :p

At the very worst case scenario, mortgage at 30 and paid off by 50.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Like I say, I'm going to have to invest in a bloody good tree house.

Although frankly, and unfortunately, I expect I'll have a mortgage in the next 2 years, and hopefully have it paid off by the time I'm 45 while hating the very concept :p

At the very worst case scenario, mortgage at 30 and paid off by 50.
Click to expand...

Apologies if I have come across as harsh. If so, then that's reflective of the challenges that most younger people face today when looking to buy a house. I'm not from the baby boomer generation, but I am old enough to have owned a few houses over my lifetime and to have benefitted from them going up in value (although I've also seen them fall in value too).

Buying a house is ultimately no different from buying anything else, with the exception that you do need somewhere to live. Of course, you can decide not to buy at all and rent instead.

People will have differing views, but the concept of being able to buy something for more money than you have is empowering. The reason that some don't like it is that the people or institutions that finance this borrowing don't always seem to share the same risk. Ultimately, if you borrow then you're beholden to someone though - State, lender, whoever. The alternative is that others just give money or assets away, and that isn't terribly common. Good luck with house buying when you get there, and good luck now with saving towards it.
 
I don't think you were being harsh to be honest. Just a different opinion. I hate most things :p

I wish that my family (Elder generation) had been home owners rather than renting, so houses would be passed down, as I fully intend to pass my house to my future children (But also hope they'd have their own, and so on and so forth)
 
Last edited:
Does kind of suck - despite otherwise being (adjusted) better off financially than my dad was at my age I can only dream of having the house buying power he had - think he had 3 houses on the go then selling one, living in one and investing in another and I'd be scraping the barrel to afford 1 comparable to the cheapest house.
 
make estate agents work for a flat fee per house sold, and stop people owning and renting out more than 2 houses, job done.
as for the chap in the OP, if he was paying interest only, then he's just renting the house from the bank at a cheaper rate than buying it or renting privately,
shame he didnt save some of the few extra quid he had at the end of every month
 
Last edited:
what a surprise the freeman of the land nonsense didn't work out for him:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tgage-payments-vows-saying-won-t-beat-me.html

sucks for him, he believed all the pseudo legal nonsense, the delays from protesting previous evictions mean he's only ended up depleting the equity he had in the house with further bailif charges etc.. when he could have probably bought a smaller property with the equity he had otherwise.

and the numpties from the get out of debt free website who seemingly were encouraging/advising him - well they'll carry on drinking the kool aid and giving out dubious and harmful 'advice' to other suckers
 
I like the idea that all the supporters should have done a kickstarter to actually help him as opposed to whining that owing money has consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom