Mortgage Rate Rises

Jono8 said:
But why should mortgage owners be the ones to bear the brunt of fixing the problem for everyone? A mortgage is basically a necessity to get on the ladder these days unless you earn an absurd amount or have wealthy parents. Something that is not people's fault (that is the fault of rich people and banks starting centuries ago).

No one wanted an insanely large mortgage for an average family home, but our society and economy has made it a necessity due to greed from the rich. No one wants massive rents either. Now the people already having to pay a lot of money to keep a roof over their heads, have to spend gross amounts more to bailout the economy from greedflation from the rich as well?
Click to expand...
100%. If folk think I am flexing about my mega expensive house, they should realise it looks like this:
https://i.imgur.com/jIxdxdE.jpeg :cry: :cry:
 
ONS say average UK house is 290
Average UK salary is approx 32kyr / 2150 month

One of the better comparison website deals with HSBC right now
25% deposit of 72k
5.19% 3yr fix with HSBC
£1300 month

60% gone before energy, utilities, council tax, food, car, student loan, savings & pension. Calls for belt tightening to the average person must be like a a large dry slap.
 
Jono8 said:
But why should mortgage owners be the ones to bear the brunt of fixing the problem for everyone?
Click to expand...

It's not that they should, it's just that they are. As a probably not very good analogy (I'm tired today after too late a night) but civilians shouldn't be killed in a war, but they are even when they aren't being targetted and it's called collateral damage.

So our economic war at the moment means that some homeowners are going to be collateral damage. And tbf, as has been mentioned, because so many fewer people are on variable rates than in the 80's/90's then a lot less homeowners are being affected than historically.

Jono8 said:
A mortgage is basically a necessity to get on the ladder these days unless you earn an absurd amount or have wealthy parents. Something that is not people's fault (that is the fault of rich people and banks starting centuries ago).

No one wanted an insanely large mortgage for an average family home, but our society and economy has made it a necessity due to greed from the rich. No one wants massive rents either. Now the people already having to pay a lot of money to keep a roof over their heads, have to spend gross amounts more to bailout the economy from greedflation from the rich as well?
Click to expand...

All this high inflation has done (on top of Brexit, Covid and Ukraine) is highlight the structural weakeness in our system.

Yes, the housing market needs rebalancing and ideally that would be done by stagnating prices over the next 20 years while allowing wages to grow. But unfortunately we live in the real world and ideal scenarios don't happen.

People are going to lose their houses (they do anyway at whatever the period of economic cycle) and lose their jobs (again, this isn't uncommon) there is going to be pain, that is unavoidable and the Govt can't step in to protect people from it, as that would most likely be an inflationary pressure and thus self-defeating.
 
gazref said:
ONS say average UK house is 290
Average UK salary is approx 32kyr / 2150 month

One of the better comparison website deals with HSBC right now
25% deposit of 72k
5.19% 3yr fix with HSBC
£1300 month

60% gone before energy, utilities, council tax, food, car, student loan, savings & pension. Calls for belt tightening to the average person must be like a a large dry slap.
Click to expand...

The math just don't math.

Especially so if you are in the South East or London
 
gazref said:
ONS say average UK house is 290
Average UK salary is approx 32kyr / 2150 month

One of the better comparison website deals with HSBC right now
25% deposit of 72k
5.19% 3yr fix with HSBC
£1300 month

60% gone before energy, utilities, council tax, food, car, student loan, savings & pension. Calls for belt tightening to the average person must be like a a large dry slap.
Click to expand...
I don’t think someone with a mortgage on max LTV for an average house has an average individual salary.
 
Jono8 said:
The math just don't math.

Especially so if you are in the South East or London
Click to expand...

Remember that probably includes flats.
I would have guessed 300k is average

Ours is (according to zoopla) above that now, a bit. And I consider it very very average. (nicer houser, rougher area).

We sit just above average salary too. But only last 2 years. We are just a bit above average. And that's how it feel in reality.
 
Last edited:
Why would you expect to drop into the average house with 25% deposit though

Something occurred to me at lunch whilst watering the allotment.

Has the average house not in effect gone up in regards whats average.
A high % of the housing when I grew up seemed to be terraces. Now I know they built way more flats so thats goign to make comparison hard
But 2 up 2 down was a good proportion of the houses that people lived in all their lives. Now it seems thats a starter home, or even less in many peoples eyes.

So whilst housing has gone up in price, I think expectations have as well.

My dad grew up in a 3 up two down, (3rd bedroom literally was a box room), along with his three brothers!
 
Average has always been a terrible measure. Median is far more better. Also, you need to normalise for various factors.

This goes against the grain though for OCUK who can only cope with headline mouth frothing figures.
 
Last edited:
delta0 said:
It is but it is a separate problem from being able to afford mortgage payments.
Click to expand...

Well, not really. It all rolls into one.

As house prices are so silly and now 10x the average salary, bigger mortgages need to be taken out for even the most humblest/average of homes. This means insterest rate rises hit massively more hard than they would before, and realistically, the BoE if already at the maximum of whet they can do without causing massive problems.
 
dLockers said:
Average has always been a terrible measure. Median is far more better. Also, you need to normalise for various factors.

This goes against the grain though for OCUK who can only cope with headline mouth frothing figures.
Click to expand...

8 always assume headline figures are mean average. Where proper stats stuff usually explicitly states median.

Median would bring it down lower due to mega mansions

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Why would you expect to drop into the average house with 25% deposit though

Something occurred to me at lunch whilst watering the allotment.

Has the average house not in effect gone up in regards whats average.
A high % of the housing when I grew up seemed to be terraces. Now I know they built way more flats so thats goign to make comparison hard
But 2 up 2 down was a good proportion of the houses that people lived in all their lives. Now it seems thats a starter home, or even less in many peoples eyes.

So whilst housing has gone up in price, I think expectations have as well.

My dad grew up in a 3 up two down, (3rd bedroom literally was a box room), along with his three brothers!
Click to expand...

One aspect (it was in our case) is that as house values have gone up, and moving costs and stress is ridiculous, plus stamp duty skipping the ghetto house is appealing.

I dunno what my personal cut off would be. Maybe 2 years more renting to get a house a "tier" higher?
 
Last edited:
dLockers said:
Average has always been a terrible measure. Median is far more better. Also, you need to normalise for various factors.

This goes against the grain though for OCUK who can only cope with headline mouth frothing figures.
Click to expand...

Yes I know and agree

I guess my point was, many of the people I assume are complaining of having to pay £500k for a 3 bed semi would maybe have been in a 2 bed terrace before.
I think yet again we are assuming the changes that happened during the boomer years when the big housebuilding carried on were here to stay.

When i think of building near me its nearly all 3 bed semi as a minimum. They were more unusual and "higher than average" if you go back not that far.
 
Freakbro said:
It's not that they should, it's just that they are. As a probably not very good analogy (I'm tired today after too late a night) but civilians shouldn't be killed in a war, but they are even when they aren't being targetted and it's called collateral damage.
Click to expand...
This isn't a case of random bombs though that can't be controlled. The policy makers could change things, to target the inflation control more proportionally across the whole population. It is willful ignorance that they aren't doing that, rather than not being able to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom