If house prices fall another 37% ...

penguine

Kenny4315 wrote: »

It devalues the whole house buying thing if the average house price sinks to low, and therefore makes other stuff like cars, tv's holidays, and the like become comparatively more.

This is an argument I haven't seen before, house prices need to be high so that people will appreciate owning a house! As if the UK doesn't already worship at the altar of the gods of property.

penguine

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

It's to everyone's benefit (apart from the dodgy landlords and tenants) to have long-term leases that are similar to those in the US, or even similar to the commercial ones we have in the UK. Leases that provide a landlord with a reliable and stable income and that also allow the tenant to view the property as their home and, within limits, tailor the decor to their own taste. This provides a real alternative to having a secure and settled home, other than the LA and home purchase route.

I never had a long-term lease when I lived in the US -- I don't know about rent protection schemes like those in NY, but wherever I lived you'd often get a 6-month lease to start with then go onto a month-to-month tenancy. I think the laws were stricter though about evicting a tenant. Assuming they'd always paid the rent and adhered to the conditions of their rental agreement, you could only evict them under very particular conditions (ie if you or a close family member was moving into the property or if it needed major renovations). And in many states there was strict anti-discrimination legislation too -- you couldn't pick and choose between different tenants, assuming they had references, deposit, and first and last month's rent you had to take the first willing tenant who came along.

Last place I lived before moving to the UK I had a month-to-month tenancy right from the beginning. I lived there almost 7 years. They only raised the rent twice (and that was by just $10-15 each time).

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You realise it was talking about you, when I said "your"?

Wasn't me predicting anything!

Your = Yours. Not mine

OK, so my great predictive powers

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

OK, so my great predictive powers

Yes, you love your great predicting powers

I do too.

Maybe you could work on powers of actually reading before replying now though as you have the predictions wrapped up!

Kenny4315

penguine wrote: »

This is an argument I haven't seen before, house prices need to be high so that people will appreciate owning a house! As if the UK doesn't already worship at the altar of the gods of property.

Just saying that living standard have moved upwards during the HPI when more money was available via the increasing house value. For example, when I got my first BMW company car it was a real statement that you'd got on well in the organisation. Now there FFing everywhere, because they are comparative cheaper than the next biggest purchase you make.

Avg house £200k BMW £30k 15%
Avg house £150k BMW £30k 20%
Avg house £100k BMW £30k 30%

Same with private schools and other big money items, if house prices tumble the opportunity to use funds accumulated in the house will be gone.

Kenny4315

mewbie wrote: »

I wonder how you think they can buck the market?

Reduce stamp duty :rotfl:
Lower VAT :rotfl:
Increase N.I. :rotfl:
Pay back biggest debt ever :rotfl:
Build more / less / same number of houses :rotfl:
Lower interest rates :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Nope. Tell me. How does someone undo a decade of mad lending and a massive bubble? Or just maybe they can't.

No sign of mewbie today ...... wonder if he's ill ....... ..... hope you get better soon ..... :money: :money: :money:

At least GD and ad have been on taking it on the debating chin.

carolt

Kenny4315 wrote: »

Just saying that living standard have moved upwards during the HPI when more money was available via the increasing house value. For example, when I got my first BMW company car it was a real statement that you'd got on well in the organisation. Now there FFing everywhere, because they are comparative cheaper than the next biggest purchase you make.

Avg house £200k BMW £30k 15%
Avg house £150k BMW £30k 20%
Avg house £100k BMW £30k 30%

Same with private schools and other big money items, if house prices tumble the opportunity to use funds accumulated in the house will be gone.

Does it really not occur to you that your extra free money to pay for your new BMW, school fees etc didn't just come from nowhere? It came because some poor sod who just happened to be born 20 years later has borrowed up to his eyeballs in debt to buy your house.

What you're describing is on one level just a straightforward transfer of wealth through generations, with the younger subbing the older. But on another level, as has become apparent, it's a mirage, because - like all Ponzi schemes, where those at the top of the pyramid only got excellent returns because those at the bottom got nothing, and actually lost the value of what they put in - it couldn't last. It's this that has, writ large, caused the economic mess we're in now. Eventually, too many of the people at the bottom of the pile couldn't afford to pay for what they'd borrowed.

And the whole sorry pyramid came crashing down. Bringing with it, incidentally, most of the world's economic system.

For someone who claims to be so much older and wiser, you seem to have very little grip on economic realities or history.

Yes, free money is nice. But houses don't = free money.

Long-term, what's happened is that we're all (=taxpayers) paying for your free beemers and school fees through our taxes, and will be for many, many years to come.

Kenny4315

carolt wrote: »

Does it really not occur to you that your extra free money to pay for your new BMW, school fees etc didn't just come from nowhere? It came because some poor sod who just happened to be born 20 years later has borrowed up to his eyeballs in debt to buy your house.

Nice of you to drop in ....... tookk your time reading over the nationwide report .... I like the careful approach you have taken spending such a good time on a report you so eagerly awaited......

I'm 38 so if they were born 20 years later they'd be 18 and just out of school, that's if they did there A levels.

My cash came from me working hard, its a hard concept to grasp.

I bought my first house and did it up when I was 25, that would make them in reception class.

My wealth will transfer to my kids in the generation below, when I decide the time is right, maybe another 20 years. Ever heard of inheritance which passes wealth from the older to the younger ?

carolt

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

LA housing has been a double edged sword, it has provided affordable rental and secure tenure for its tenants, but has dominated the UK housing market to the point where private enterprise was stifled and marginalised and so there was never any need to follow the US and some EU models with long-term leases, which meant that people had to make a choice between LA housing, insecure private tenancies or buying a home.

This was made worse with the 'right to buy', suddenly a large amount of LA housign stock was taken off the rental market, leaving a void that was filled by the BTL landlords. The main error was in not passing legislation regarding long-term leases for private rentals at the same time as they passed the right to buy legislation.

We're left with a housing situation where there is very little LA housing available and what is available is often low quality and in deprived areas (the best stock in good areas were snapped up years ago), a private rental market where there is no security of tenure and very little legislation to protect the tenant from huge rent hikes, having the property sold from under them, etc. and the option of purchasing their home at a price that results in mortgage payments that represents a huge proportion of their income and will leave most people juggling their finances.

What a mess.

Excellent post, DD. I don't normally reply to your posts, DD, but it makes me sad that given you're obviously capable of writing intelligent, thoughtful posts like this, you choose - for reasons I cannot begin to understand -to conduct personal vendettas instead.

You could make a really helpful contribution, you know.

Maybe there is hope.

I daresay one of your 'friends' will PM you with this. :rolleyes:

carolt

Kenny4315 wrote: »

I'm 38 so if they were born 20 years later they'd be 18 and just out of school, that's if they did there A levels.

My cash came from me working hard, its a hard concept to grasp.

I bought my first house and did it up when I was 25, that would make them in reception class.

Why do you always write as if you were about 55 then?