Mortgage stress article...
- Thread starter rugrat
- Start date
I use a crystal radio and a wind-up gramophone for my entertainment if they count...
Woohooo
90,000 people desperate to sell there house, please accept my low offer before the bank turfs you out on your ar$e, looks like I will have to put my rent up again with those extra applications. Sorry for being too hard but if you could afford to pay back $2000 per month and so you went and got a loan so you had to repay $1800 and now you have to repay $2600 that is not my problem , it is however partially the banks problem now.
15year old telly that fits exactly into 15 year old wall unit. Hope that telly never dies not because its amazing but could not be bothered builder another wall unit
Jezza
90,000 people desperate to sell there house, please accept my low offer before the bank turfs you out on your ar$e, looks like I will have to put my rent up again with those extra applications. Sorry for being too hard but if you could afford to pay back $2000 per month and so you went and got a loan so you had to repay $1800 and now you have to repay $2600 that is not my problem , it is however partially the banks problem now.
15year old telly that fits exactly into 15 year old wall unit. Hope that telly never dies not because its amazing but could not be bothered builder another wall unit
Jezza
Just wondering what everyone else thinks about the equation i.e 30% of income or more towards a mortgage = mortgage stress.
Say I take home $1,000 per week, and I need to make mortgage payments of $350 per week, that would technically mean I am experiencing 'mortgage stress'.
However, I am left to live of $650 a week, which I would have thought was quite reasonable? I have no other debts or loans, so the $650 would go towards bills, groceries, and luxuries for the week. Am I seeing things differently
Say I take home $1,000 per week, and I need to make mortgage payments of $350 per week, that would technically mean I am experiencing 'mortgage stress'.
However, I am left to live of $650 a week, which I would have thought was quite reasonable? I have no other debts or loans, so the $650 would go towards bills, groceries, and luxuries for the week. Am I seeing things differently
Just wondering what everyone else thinks about the equation i.e 30% of income or more towards a mortgage = mortgage stress.
Say I take home $1,000 per week, and I need to make mortgage payments of $350 per week, that would technically mean I am experiencing 'mortgage stress'.
However, I am left to live of $650 a week, which I would have thought was quite reasonable? I have no other debts or loans, so the $650 would go towards bills, groceries, and luxuries for the week. Am I seeing things differently
The wife and I bring in about $16k per month from working (after tax), and we spend well over half that on IP interest, bills and paying off our own PPOR. (Of course, the IPs generate quite a lot of rent for us)
Are we in mortgage stress? No, we are not.
Just wondering what everyone else thinks about the equation i.e 30% of income or more towards a mortgage = mortgage stress.
Say I take home $1,000 per week, and I need to make mortgage payments of $350 per week, that would technically mean I am experiencing 'mortgage stress'.
However, I am left to live of $650 a week, which I would have thought was quite reasonable? I have no other debts or loans, so the $650 would go towards bills, groceries, and luxuries for the week. Am I seeing things differently
I think it is silly to work off a %.
Say we have three different people, Joe, Jack and Harry. Joe earns 40k pa. Jack earns 80k pa. Harry earns 160k pa. Each of them have 50% of their income directed towards various debt repayments. The income left to live on (groceries, bills, entertainment, etc) would be 20k (Joe), 40k (Jack), and 80k(Harry). All may be considered in mortgage 'stress' if relying on the % of income dedicated to paying it, however Jack is still left with Joe's entire annual income, and Harry has double that. The cost of living should be the same for all three people, so why would we consider the higher income earner in 'stress' even though they still have double the amount to spent on things other then debt, then what the lower income earner earns over an entire year.
Very simplified and doesn't take into consideration taxation etc, however the example demonstrates my point.
Don't know about that, but we did live in a shoe box in the middle of the road.......
Seriously though; if you are young, and have bugger-all money, then buy a property that is really, really cheap.
And don't buy anything (doodads) new or on credit.
Last edited:
Hi, that's why we need to ignore the sensational stories & look instead at what's happening. In a sense it's field work.
X has to spend 30% on mortgage payments so he's suffering mortgage stress.
OK, suppose he doesn't have to pay a mortgage because he has no house.
Doesn't he ALSO have to pay 30% of his income on housing in the form of rent?
$300 pw rent = $1200 per month = $15000 approx p.a. = $45000 income p.a.
Ergo, anyone who assumes that FHBs will be stressed and consequently forced to sell, you know what they say about ASSUME making an *** out of you and me.
KY
X has to spend 30% on mortgage payments so he's suffering mortgage stress.
OK, suppose he doesn't have to pay a mortgage because he has no house.
Doesn't he ALSO have to pay 30% of his income on housing in the form of rent?
$300 pw rent = $1200 per month = $15000 approx p.a. = $45000 income p.a.
Ergo, anyone who assumes that FHBs will be stressed and consequently forced to sell, you know what they say about ASSUME making an *** out of you and me.
KY
Most rents dont fully pay most 80%lvr mortgages. But more importantly if you dont pay the mortgage you not only get kicked out of your house you may lose your financial interest in it. If you dont pay your rent your landlord will claim it on insurance. The risk to the bank is different, and as we saw in GFC Mk1, the risk to the banks (and whoever they onsell mortgages to), is what its all about.
Rental non payment is fairly low risk for an insurer because its usually rectified pretty quickly so the losses are small, it doesn't involve reposession and sale.
great, its the time in the cycle where rates go up, stupid people who didnt do high school maths cry foul that rates aren't even at long term average, and yet they didnt even factor in rates going above average (which, half the time, they will be).
and then they go on to blame Kevin...its not his fault you didnt get to year 12, its hardly even his fault rates rise - thats what they do, they go up and down.
if i was stupid enough to not do the maths, i certainly wouldnt be agreeing to be part of any news story on 'struggling families' when anyone with any intelligence knows its just a parading of families with no planning or knowledge that rates go up and down...
of course theres the families that might be struggling due to loss of job or something unexpected, but for 'normal' mortgage situations where they just bought outside their means whiles rates were low, a life lesson to them.
and then they go on to blame Kevin...its not his fault you didnt get to year 12, its hardly even his fault rates rise - thats what they do, they go up and down.
if i was stupid enough to not do the maths, i certainly wouldnt be agreeing to be part of any news story on 'struggling families' when anyone with any intelligence knows its just a parading of families with no planning or knowledge that rates go up and down...
of course theres the families that might be struggling due to loss of job or something unexpected, but for 'normal' mortgage situations where they just bought outside their means whiles rates were low, a life lesson to them.
Exactly right. The Daily Telegraph ran another poor FHB story as well. Some of the comments from the first home owners just show how clueless people were when they bought at historic low interest rates.
I'm loving this though. All the socialist Rudd voting idiots will now be hit the hardest.
Home dreams turn sour in the southwest
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/home-dreams-turn-sour-in-the-southwest/story-e6frewt0-1225864001029
Bluestorm, I also noticed all the people they spoke to bought with no deposit of their own, instead using the FHG to use as a deposit.
Shouldn't the lenders also have some responsibility when assesing these people?
Lender: Hmm, you are middle aged, have no savings and 7 foster kids, sure we'll give you 320k
Surely there should be some sort of protection for/against clueless folks like this.
the banks have the obligation to themselves to make sure they dont lend to people who wont be able to repay (or who a repossession would lose the bank money, which may not be in all cases, im not sure).
but people applying for a loan need to take responsibility for that. they are the ones making the decision to buy a place, its their choice. if they stuff up 10 years of their life with a wrong decision, thats their own fault. there is plenty of info out there for people want it, but the ones that get themselves in this mess only see the spanking new place they wouldnt have dreamed off 3 years ago, everything else they can somehow justify around. until now.
but people applying for a loan need to take responsibility for that. they are the ones making the decision to buy a place, its their choice. if they stuff up 10 years of their life with a wrong decision, thats their own fault. there is plenty of info out there for people want it, but the ones that get themselves in this mess only see the spanking new place they wouldnt have dreamed off 3 years ago, everything else they can somehow justify around. until now.
Exactly right. The Daily Telegraph ran another poor FHB story as well. Some of the comments from the first home owners just show how clueless people were when they bought at historic low interest rates.
I'm loving this though. All the socialist Rudd voting idiots will now be hit the hardest.
Home dreams turn sour in the southwest
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/home-dreams-turn-sour-in-the-southwest/story-e6frewt0-1225864001029
1. You're buying into the bollocks reported in the article.
2. Some Non-Rudd voters have purchased above their means also. This happens regardless of the current interest rate.
3. Your post proves that you can find idiots in all shapes and sizes.
Gotta love the big flat screen TV behind the 'struggling couple', wish I had a TV like that...
add in the leather lounge they're leaning against (doesn't look like a cheap one to me) and the hint of gym equipment in the background and you have .... get real!
add in the leather dining chairs and polished floors ... where is the raw chipboard flooring and unmatching picnic chairs?
oh - i bought a new lcd tv 6 years ago, only because the video player died and the new one didn't have the right connections to plug into the 15 year old tv.
also, the example given were joe on his $40,000pa paying $350pw for mortgage or rent ... what about joe and jenny together on $60-80k. or joe rents out the spare room for $150pw. obviously they're not being hit hard enough with the stress to compensate their lifestyles.
My parents ust purchased their 3rd flat screen TV.
42" plasma with built in HD tuner $499 delivered
Cheers
Mick
Similar threads
