|
By:
the barron all pefectly correct and i agree with every word you say but your forgetting all the loons out there who keep remortgaging their house up to the new value, so actualy in reality their house hasnt risen in value at all and when you take into account fees for remortaging over time their house has actualy lost value,but keep it to yourself and dont spoil their fun
|
|
By:
True Baron.. but IF you have offsprung you can take pleasure in handing it over and retain a right to live-in.
Any rools have a way aroundem. |
|
By:
people may also like to add what type of mortgage they have,wonder how many people rolling up all this so called free money in house price rises have interest only mortgages,
|
|
By:
Around £160,000. I rent but would love to buy it but cant due to the owners negative equity on it. The only way I can probably buy it in the short term is if house prices shot up so owner could sell it for the 250,000 odd he owes on it or if house prices crashed and owner had it repossessed. Not an ideal situation at the moment as I like the house a lot and hate the thought of moving even if I found what some people might consider a better house.
|
|
By:
people may also like to add what type of mortgage they have
__________________ i can't understand anyone who doesn't have an interest only mortgage - why make the struggle even harder ? remember -to pay off the repayment fraction you need to earn to get the money ,and too earn the money you need to pay TAX . mug country |
|
By:
125k - 1991
600k - 2015 |
|
By:
Would be good to see some pics with dates, so we can see what price differentials there are in different parts of the country....
|
|
By:
a 120,000 house in East Anglia bought in 1967 would be worth around 40,000 in 'the bank' .
bought in 1997 ,that same house would be worth 60,000 in 'the bank' . bought in 1980 ,that house would be worth 50,000 in 'the bank' . assuming that the bank interest kept up with general inflation which it rarely does. The downside of all this are interest payments - very high in the 70s and 80s and of course repairs . I'm guessing there may be a net gain in some examples ,but mainly it amounts to free rent - 97 would have been the better of the three as interest payments were the lowest |
|
By:
that 1967 house would have cost around 2k in 1967 money
|
|
By:
£185k in 2006 (but had to immediately spend £15k on modernisation) so in reality £200k. In Yateley (Hart).
Now worth c.£280k. House prices have risen sharply here; no ethnic population, low crime and good commuter links to London. The district (Hart) been voted best place to live in UK for the last 4 years. |
|
By:
https://www.lovemoney.com/news/13916/the-best-place-to-live-in-the-uk-revealed
|
|
By:
mortgage 159 000
house worth 450 000 remortgage for 300 000 interest only, bank wants 349,000 or there going to repocess currently skint,so bleating to the papers sorry wrong story and thread, ![]() |
|
By:
My great aunt told me she could have purchased the house where she lived in the 1920s/30s for £200 it's now worth £650,000
|
|
By:
1995
flat 28k I was on a really shate wage,but scraped a deposit,offered 2k below fixed price,got it value 120k |
|
By:
mortgage free
![]() |