Gilly wrote:
Ah right - have drink, & am with it again now.
Yes, I take your point and see where I've tripped myself up. Sorry for that confusion,
Yes, but you can do that though - I've known people who've done that. (I personally don't have a mortgage that high now, and can't remember how many times our salary it was decades back - I think it was about 2.5x). I'm talking about friends & relatives. It's not that uncommon.
Decades back at 2.5x is just fine.
The issue is the way loans operate.
Islamic banking for example outlaws interest BUT you pay instalments until such time as the estimated future value is reached.
Now heres the catch, if theres ever negative equity then the bank loses and just what have the banks done to the market time and again?
Yup, plonked people in negative equity, took all the mortgage payments, then took the house too when they failed to sell it at the price which repays the loan. The bank also never had the actual finances in place for the loan in the first place...
Of course if people actually wanted a stable economy then there would be no debt because money would not be borrowed at source and we would be buying houses to actually live in them with no motive for profit from their mere purchase or to hold the same value at a later date (higher monetary denomination but same value due to inflation) .
Prices would accurately reflect what is affordable and reasonable according to true market forces instead of the whim of wanker bankers and their con game which convinces people they can somehow have an 'epic win' from it.
'The house always wins.' lol :F
