We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Sensible measures to improve the house market
Comments
-
justpurchased wrote: »I think what you are failing to see is that there may be more people per sqkm able to afford the average house, than there are average houses.
I think that may well be true.
But it's also been the case that there has been a lot of speculation in property, fueled by the "prices only go up" mania....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
I think you'll find that there aren't appreciably more homeless people than there were back when prices were in line with reality and all that has happened over the last decade is that people are having to take on more debt to own their own homes than ever before.
I've seen the cost of a basic place go from around 50k to 150k (or more) in about 8 years. Meanwhile, wages haven't increased by anything like as much.
(Assuming a 10% deposit) how on earth is it in people's interests to borrow 135k to buy something that they'd previously have been able to get by borrowing 45k when their income has risen by maybe 5-6k pa?
Just because you can get a lot of credit to buy something doesn't mean that it is a sensible idea to do so.
Like you said go out and get another job.
Like a previouse poster said personal accountability would be the best thing for banks, borowers, everybody.
Also over that time the population grew by over 3M, how many houses were built.0 -
justpurchased wrote: »Like you said go out and get another job.
Like a previouse poster said personal accountability would be the best thing for banks, borowers, everybody.
Also over that time the population grew by over 3M, how many houses were built.
No problem - I'm sure that people in everyday jobs can just go out and become a GP or Barrister so that they can afford the new astronomically high prices on FTB places that they could formerly have afforded as teachers, factory workers, civil servants, office workers....
... or they could just follow your suggestion and borrow eye-poppingly huge multiples of their salary and pray that credit remains lax, interest rates never rise and the economy never goes into recession. Oh and that houseprices never drop.
--
Every pound less borrowed (to buy a house) is more than two pounds less to repay and more than three pounds less to earn, over the course of a typical mortgage.0 -
neverdespairgirl wrote: »I think that may well be true.
But it's also been the case that there has been a lot of speculation in property, fueled by the "prices only go up" mania.
No I agree totaly and the people who were over greedy deserve to loose.
I moved out of my birth town as it is a wash with rich old people. Prices were silly (and i have a reasonably good job), crime was nothing (as old people cant run fast). But for the town ifrastructure it is no good as our child will need to play with children and go to school one day.
There are a lot of well of people out there a lot of them are mortgage free. I don't think some people factor in old people when it comes to housing, A lot of these will be sitting retired in their propertys for the next 20 years!0 -
No problem - I'm sure that people in everyday jobs can just go out and become a GP or Barrister so that they can afford the new astronomically high prices on FTB places that they could formerly have afforded as teachers, factory workers, civil servants, office workers....
... or they could just follow your suggestion and borrow eye-poppingly huge multiples of their salary and pray that credit remains lax, interest rates never rise and the economy never goes into recession. Oh and that houseprices never drop.
Not saying that but part of the problem is that as a country we have shot our self in the Ars@ with the size of our population.0 -
justpurchased wrote: »Not saying that but part of the problem is that as a country we have shot our self in the Ars@ with the size of our population.
Prices didn't rocket with population - otherwise the same thing would have happened with rents and we'd have a massive problem with homelessness.
They went up because the banks would give anyone who could fog a glass well in excess of 100k to buy a rabbit hutch.
Now they're paying the price, the borrowers are paying the price and the taxpayers are paying the price to rescue the banks.--
Every pound less borrowed (to buy a house) is more than two pounds less to repay and more than three pounds less to earn, over the course of a typical mortgage.0 -
Prices didn't rocket with population - otherwise the same thing would have happened with rents and we'd have a massive problem with homelessness.
They went up because the banks would give anyone who could fog a glass well in excess of 100k to buy a rabbit hutch.
Now they're paying the price, the borrowers are paying the price and the taxpayers are paying the price to rescue the banks.
So why have prices not dropped to £50K overnight?0 -
justpurchased wrote: »So why have prices not dropped to £50K overnight?
Because houses are an illiquid asset. Almost as illiquid as they come.
The housing market is like the path of a supertanker.--
Every pound less borrowed (to buy a house) is more than two pounds less to repay and more than three pounds less to earn, over the course of a typical mortgage.0 -
Because houses are an illiquid asset. Almost as illiquid as they come.
The housing market is like the path of a supertanker.
Soory I dont think your argument holds. I agree houses need a correction but if you think population has nothing to do with the cost of them you are deluded.0 -
justpurchased wrote: »Soory I dont think your argument holds. I agree houses need a correction but if you think population has nothing to do with the cost of them you are deluded.
The argument holds really well, population hasn't gone down at all in the past 12 months, yet house prices are tanking. The rabbit hutches will sell but at about 30% of what deluded sellers and developers have got them up for now.
Your typical rabbit hutch in London is about 200k, that means a single person must be on about £40000 a year AND have £60000 in the bank as a deposit
, this is the historical lending level, there will be a massive correction whether people like it or not and its just about started.:T 0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards