A little Hypocrisy?

Maisie11 wrote: »

I do agree with some of the OP's comments. People make sweeping generalisations and suggest that 25-30% off the asking price is acceptable. Well not around here (South Bucks) and the area we are hoping to move to (West Oxford). I do believe that some areas will hold steady. I dont mean that they will increase but I do think that the reductions if any are nothing like some of the figures quoted by people who will never buy a house, they will always be looking for the market to drop and drop. If that happens jobs will be lost and they wont be able to afford it. There are a number of serial renters I know. Always looking for a bargain, always say they will know the property they want to buy when they see it.

Guess what - they will never do it. Sometimes life is just too short to be constantly waiting.

Oxfordshire prices have been peculiar in relation to the market. It used to be that Oxfordshire and the Cotswolds were very, very much more expensive than the West but I've noticed that we have seen in Oxfrdshire stuff we couldn't dream of in my area. Oxford of course, is its own market. to be clear: of course I'm not suggesting Oxfordshire etc have not suffered price rises, but that these price rises were not proportional to some areas.

It's all a bit mad anyway. The average person buys a flat, then a house, raises their family, gives all of their money back to the state when they go in a care home or pays it in tax of some sort.

What's it all about then? I reckon someone thought about this years ago and rubbed their little hands in glee at the fact that lots of money would come out of this little jobby. Bet they were bank shareholders as well as in Govt.

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

When we buy a house, I don't want values to go up. It wouldn't do us any good (because we'd still live there) and it wouldn't do other people any good (because they would need more to buy).

I would far rather there weren't big price rises again, after I've bought.

I'm the same. I bought my first house in 1995 and then my current house in 2002. Unlike most home owners (or so it seems, I don't want to generalise here) I didn't feel richer as my house 'value' trebled, instead I was worried about how rising prices would impact my children's ability to buy their homes and I worried about how disasterous the crash would be to the wider economy.

I would very much like a gradual decrease over the next 5 years down to 30% from peak and then growth in line with average earnings so that everyone can afford a home if they so desire.

I say gradual, so that anyone who bought at or close to peak can either sell at a small loss or overpay to prevent negative equity (I certainly don't want anyone to get 'creamed', regardless of how ill-advised it was to buy. These are real people and real families, you have to be pretty shabby to want financial disaster to befall them).

I would love stagnation because it benefits all of us, FTBs and those of us with growing families who want to move up the ladder and not have it fly away from us at an exponential rate!

Instead what we'll get is a sharp correction, a damaged economy and soaring inflation, soaring interest rates and lots of public/personal debt. House prices will again be affordable, but many people still won't be able to buy because they will either be too worried about job security or due to fuel/food/etc. inflation, tougher mortgage lending conditions and high interest rates, they still won't be able to afford to buy.

Some people think they're immune because they have saved up a large deposit, but having (say) 30k as a deposit won't be of any use if they're out of work. They simply won't qualify for a mortgage. Plus they're at a disadvantage because means-tested benefits will result in them having to live off their savings until they're below 6k or they get another job.

As I've said often on this forum to the people who seem to take real delight in an approaching recession. Be careful what you wish for because in a recession virtually everyone suffers.