Will the plan work to turn generation rent into buy?

[NRS]

stitched said:

mikewilliams79 said:

stitched said:

As stated previously, I have worked 84 hour weeks.
That is 12 hours of 24 working for seven days.
Anyone claiming to have worked more hours than this is either a superhero or a bullstter.
I presume they mean they were signed in to work and asleep but on call? If so say so.

Offshore workers routinely work 12 minimum for 3 weeks and often 14+ per day, so no, not bullst

Yes
Bullst.
You have never worked the rigs.
Try sticking to things you know about.

I have, he's not BSing... Particularly stuff outside UK waters, or service companies.

I also thought you'd be a fan - more work the better, anyone can do it and so on?

[98elise]

mikewilliams79 said:

stitched said:

As stated previously, I have worked 84 hour weeks.
That is 12 hours of 24 working for seven days.
Anyone claiming to have worked more hours than this is either a superhero or a bullstter.
I presume they mean they were signed in to work and asleep but on call? If so say so.

Offshore workers routinely work 12 minimum for 3 weeks and often 14+ per day, so no, not bullst

Anyone that's served on a Warship will have done similar. In Defence Watches you work 12 hour days (6 hours on 6 hours off) continuously.

If you have any system issues then that can easily extend beyond 12 hours a day.

[InitialDave]

I've done a couple of "in at 6am, out at midnight, back in again at 6am" sessions, and yeah, I can't say I'd want to do that long term. A few days at the end of the month to deal with a crunch, ok, fine, it needs doing, but it takes a lot out of you. Knowing I'd have to do it again and again with no proper respite, I'd probably lose my marbles in short order.

[mikewilliams79]

NRS said:

I have, he's not BSing... Particularly stuff outside UK waters, or service companies.

I also thought you'd be a fan - more work the better, anyone can do it and so on?

Only because it doesn't fit it with his point: 'anyone working more than 12hrs per day is bullstting' (as he so eloquently states)

[stitched]

Bacon Is Proof said:

stitched said:

As stated previously, I have worked 84 hour weeks.
That is 12 hours of 24 working for seven days.
Anyone claiming to have worked more hours than this is either a superhero or a bullstter.
I presume they mean they were signed in to work and asleep but on call? If so say so.

I've done more than 84 this week running a pub.
You simply don't know what you are talking about, and are blind to the privilege you enjoy.

Take a step back and have a little think about things, about other people's differing circumstances and why your life has been easier than others

Step duly taken.
I have thought quite a bit about my privileged life.
You actually worked behind the bar, or served or cooked food for those 84 hours?
And I agree actually, running a pub or bar can be exacting work, I hope you can get back to it soon.

The idea that someone is capable of working for 120 hours a week is simply risible.
That I take the stance that working involves performing tasks for money, or in your case to better your business.
So to the 120 hours a week claim, don't tell me, show me.
Because at best it is misleading, at worst an outright lie.

[stitched]

mikewilliams79 said:

NRS said:

I have, he's not BSing... Particularly stuff outside UK waters, or service companies.

I also thought you'd be a fan - more work the better, anyone can do it and so on?

Only because it doesn't fit it with his point: 'anyone working more than 12hrs per day is bullstting' (as he so eloquently states)

Not at all, I can and have worked a stint of 60n hours without rest, it was necessary at the time, it took me a week to recover from it, your suggestion you regularly work a 120 hour week was, and is a bald faced lie.

[mikewilliams79]

stitched said:

Not at all, I can and have worked a stint of 60n hours without rest, it was necessary at the time, it took me a week to recover from it, your suggestion you regularly work a 120 hour week was, and is a bald faced lie.

Again, I never said 120.

You said people regularly doing more than 84 is a bullstter. I and several others are telling you this is common place, for a fact it’s just you don’t like that.

[stitched]

stitched said:

A.J.M said:

Some people on here, while singing their own merits of travelling half way round the world for free to sleep on a couch to earn more money and think nothing of it.

Seem to either accidentally or deliberately gloss over the reality that there are many jobs that don’t pay the national average of £38k.
But they are jobs that are needed and have to be done.

I’ll take my own industry as prime example.
Care sector.

There are currently, 18% of the working age population, or over 7 million people, who are defined as disabled according to the Equality act 2010.
8% of children in the U.K. are disabled.

These people will require care in their daily lives.
Either a little, a lot or 24/7/365. They will need care for life.

So, these jobs are needed. The pay regardless of location in the country is very similar, so moving for better pay isn’t really worth it.
Leaving the job, simply means someone else will step in and do it.

Why should these folks be punished for doing a difficult job that sadly isn’t valued by society in large.

I’ve been doing it 12 years, sadly the number of people needing care is growing, the salary isn’t.
We don’t get 4% annual pay rises or large bonuses.

I’m still waiting over 2 months on to see if Nippys £500 bonus is going to be paid to me. My midwife friend has already had and spent hers...

We need houses as well, affordable ones. Not overpriced shoeboxes in some st hole area the police won’t go to.

By the middle of June I’ll be out this industry.
Taking my 12 years of knowledge and experience with me.
Experience, hard won through 55+ to 120 hours a week working. In a job that frankly plenty on here simply couldn’t do. I already have a 40 minute, 32 mile commute I don’t need to add to that.

I’ve got on the ladder, not at the bottom, but a couple of rungs up, purely as while saving to get on it, I hit that stage of life where kids are only a few years away, so I’ve had to future plan to take that into account. Even with that, the house needs a complete renovation to make it suitable.

There needs to be a good supply of houses for those on the lower end, doing the hard jobs that don’t pay well but are essential to society.

Filling new build housing estates with £200K+ Houses with zero space between them isn’t the answer as they are out of reach.

Spare a thought for those in that position, because one day, we may be the lifeline you need to live your life.

I think anyone working a full week with only 13 hours rest deserves a house.
I have done 84 hour weeks, I doubt you have.
I took a chance and went self employed.
The one place we agree is that there should be housing provision for those less well paid who are essential.
I'd suggest something modelled on Port Sunlight but govt sponsored.

I don't recall saying you did, the claim was however certainly made.
If I implied you made it through confusion of multiquotes then I apologise.

[NRS]

stitched said:

I don't recall saying you did, the claim was however certainly made.
If I implied you made it through confusion of multiquotes then I apologise.

I do a 37.5 hours a week. your 60 hours is utter BS, no one would do that.

[anonymous-user]

Nationwide announce first time buyer 5.5 times salary mortgage as long as you fix for five years.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/ar...

[stitched]

NRS said:

stitched said:

I don't recall saying you did, the claim was however certainly made.
If I implied you made it through confusion of multiquotes then I apologise.

I do a 37.5 hours a week. your 60 hours is utter BS, no one would do that.

Foston dairy, owned by Dairycrest at the time.
I spent 6 months working mon to fri days 7am to 7pm.
12 times 5 is sixty.
So yes I did a sixty hour week for 6 months as a self employed contractor, I can probably track back and PM you bank statements from this time.
I thought you did 120 hour weeks?

[stitched]

stitched said:

NRS said:

stitched said:

I don't recall saying you did, the claim was however certainly made.
If I implied you made it through confusion of multiquotes then I apologise.

I do a 37.5 hours a week. your 60 hours is utter BS, no one would do that.

Foston dairy, owned by Dairycrest at the time.
I spent 6 months working mon to fri days 7am to 7pm.
12 times 5 is sixty.
So yes I did a sixty hour week for 6 months as a self employed contractor, I can probably track back and PM you bank statements from this time.
I thought you did 120 hour weeks?

Sorry, wrong bloke again, can you lot stop using 3 letter usernames.

[TheBinarySheep]

moles said:

Do any hobby btl landlords declare rent to hmrc?, I know none of my mates do or ever have

We have one property that we let out, and yes, it's declared to HMRC at the end of the year. Both my wife and I are self employed, so it just gets rolled into my wife's self assessment. It's not worth the risk in my opinion.

On the discussion of rent payments. There are people out there that get their rent paid for, and still can't pay their rent. Our tenant hasn't paid rent for 8 month despite them receiving the rent from Universal Credit. There seems to be this notion that private landlords are the devil, but many of us are getting screwed over left, right and centre.

[Electro1980]

This whole argument about working hours is stupid.

No one is consistently working longer than 50odd hours a week long term, and even that is high. The average working hours in the U.K. is about 37. Yes, some people are working a lot more but the vast majority of those are in very specific circumstance.

Stints away from home where there is buffer all else to do, with long periods of leave.

Hospitality where work/home life is very blurred.

Contractors on defined length, short term, contracts.

All of these are of no relevance to the average young person wanting to buy a house, which is the question at hand.

[Sycamore]

Electro1980 said:

All of these are of no relevance to the average young person wanting to buy a house, which is the question at hand.

What were you expecting from PH

Overview of 5% mortgages available as of them being released yesterday.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/new-mo...

Edited by Sycamore on Tuesday 20th April 11:44

[anonymous-user]

Sycamore said:

Overview of 5% mortgages available as of them being released yesterday.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/new-mo...
It mentions the top mortgage available with 10% is around 2.99% interest.

So an extra 1% really if using 5%.

Ouch, as someone who got a 1.54% mortgage with Natwest with a 20% deposit last year, these figures seem incredibly high.

I assume the reality is going to be that looking past the headline "5% deposit" these mortgages are going to be unaffordable for a large percentage of the people they are aimed at.

[Sycamore]

Joey Deacon said:

I assume the reality is going to be that looking past the headline "5% deposit" these mortgages are going to be unaffordable for a large percentage of the people they are aimed at.

I'd imagine it'll be mostly used by those buying a cheaper home anyhow, so the extra interest in the grand scheme of things isn't that bad, provided it means people can get a mortgage payment similar to what they'd be paying in rent.

But the scheme has a max house price of £600k. Anyone using a 5% deposit for a house costing anything more than maybe a third of that will be getting rinsed on interest beyond belief. But then they probably shouldn't be buying such an expensive place with a 5% deposit to begin with.

[okgo]

Sycamore said:

I'd imagine it'll be mostly used by those buying a cheaper home anyhow, so the extra interest in the grand scheme of things isn't that bad, provided it means people can get a mortgage payment similar to what they'd be paying in rent.

But the scheme has a max house price of £600k. Anyone using a 5% deposit for a house costing anything more than maybe a third of that will be getting rinsed on interest beyond belief. But then they probably shouldn't be buying such an expensive place with a 5% deposit to begin with.

The thing is, the 600k thing is aimed at London. Where that will buy you a nice 2 bed, or a total stehole of a house somewhere. These people will all easily be able to afford the payment, as for a couple they'll be used to paying 1k each for a room already/1800-2k for a alright 1 bed somewhere. So I do think there will be a fair few going at the top end. Obviously finding 30 grand is still a fair amount, but it's within the reach of BOMAD/your more saving oriented 28 year a lot more than 60 is.

But yes, those rates are grim.

[mikewilliams79]

Joey Deacon said:

Ouch, as someone who got a 1.54% mortgage with Natwest with a 20% deposit last year, these figures seem incredibly high.

I assume the reality is going to be that looking past the headline "5% deposit" these mortgages are going to be unaffordable for a large percentage of the people they are aimed at.

If you worked as hard as our resident hero you could have put 50% down

[Sycamore]

okgo said:

Sycamore said:

I'd imagine it'll be mostly used by those buying a cheaper home anyhow, so the extra interest in the grand scheme of things isn't that bad, provided it means people can get a mortgage payment similar to what they'd be paying in rent.

But the scheme has a max house price of £600k. Anyone using a 5% deposit for a house costing anything more than maybe a third of that will be getting rinsed on interest beyond belief. But then they probably shouldn't be buying such an expensive place with a 5% deposit to begin with.

The thing is, the 600k thing is aimed at London. Where that will buy you a nice 2 bed, or a total stehole of a house somewhere. These people will all easily be able to afford the payment, as for a couple they'll be used to paying 1k each for a room already/1800-2k for a alright 1 bed somewhere. So I do think there will be a fair few going at the top end. Obviously finding 30 grand is still a fair amount, but it's within the reach of BOMAD/your more saving oriented 28 year a lot more than 60 is.

But yes, those rates are grim.

Makes sense when you put it like that. I'm in the West Midlands, so London is another world

There are 4 2/3 houses on my street for sale for ~£160k. So for those who struggle to save but can afford the monthly payments similar to what they currently pay in rent, I could see the appeal of scraping together £8k and buying much sooner than you otherwise would be able to if having to save double that.

4% isn't great, but not life threatening with a 95% LTV on a £160k house compared to 5% on a 95% LTV at £600k