House Prices up 4.2% in 3 months Nationwide

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I know, but no ones really been able to answer the posters question with a hint of actual fact or decent reasoning.

Ok, so my answer in post 18 does not figure for decent reasoning?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=22101033&postcount=18

It's a simple answer to a simple question.

If the OP wanted to post again saying why low house prices are good, I could probably come up with a few answers there as well

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Ok, so my answer in post 18 does not figure for decent reasoning?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=22101033&postcount=18

No.

Whatever the price, it doesnt matter. They can still downsize and still take some money from the pot.

Its the same as making 200k profit on a 3 bed, and then trading up to a 4 bed, and realising thats 200k has made no difference, as the 4 bed has risen too.

It's not like you can downsize and suddenly magically keep your full 200k. My parents have just done it. Would have been lovely if they could have downsized and paid 1997 prices, but unfortunately, smaller houses rose in price too.

If someone downsized at the bottom of the market from a 4 bed to a 2 bed, they would still have money left over right at the bottom of the house prices in the 90's.

Lets face it, it's BTL that rising house prices are good for. Or someone who has inherited a house and can sell it on at a massive price, though no doubt those pople would rather have their family member.

That is why no one can answer, because there is no other reason massive and rising house prices are a good thing....they are only good for investors.

It makes little difference to those already in house trading up, little difference to tose trading down, and it makes it a complete nightmare for all those trying desperately to put a roof over their heads and it makes it a nightmare for those left with no choice but to rent and live their lives to work to pay the damn rent.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No.

Whatever the price, it doesnt matter. They can still downsize and still take some money from the pot.

Its the same as making 200k profit on a 3 bed, and then trading up to a 4 bed, and realising thats 200k has made no difference, as the 4 bed has risen too.

It's not like you can downsize and suddenly magically keep your full 200k. My parents have just done it. Would have been lovely if they could have downsized and paid 1997 prices, but unfortunately, smaller houses rose in price too.

Now I could degenerate and say your reply is not of decent reasoning, but I wont

To explain:
If there is a 2 bed property worth £100k and a 4 bed property worth £200 k and both have increased 100% in the last ten year (all hypethetical figures.) Then you are downsizing from a property worth £400k to a £200k property

Therefore you have £200k for the pension fund.

If both properties only rose 10%, you'd only have £110k after downsizing

Therefore inflating house prices is good for those downsizing, but not for those moving to a larger property.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Now I could degenerate and say your reply is not of decent reasoning, but I wont

To explain:
If there is a 2 bed property worth £100k and a 4 bed property worth £200 k and both have increased 100% in the last ten year (all hypethetical figures.) Then you are downsizing from a property worth £400k to a £200k property

Therefore you have £200k for the pension fund.

If both properties only rose 10%, you'd only have £110k after downsizing

Therefore inflating house prices is good for those downsizing, but not for those moving to a larger property.

That really is a tiny number of people you are talking about.

All good though, one pensioner can sit pretty while someone else slaves away to afford the high house prices. A nice just situation that one.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That really is a tiny number of people you are talking about.

All good though, one pensioner can sit pretty while someone else slaves away to afford the high house prices. A nice just situation that one.

It was a simple answer with just reasoning to a simple question, thats all

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I honestly know no one, bar GP's who earn this. Even my business manager does not earn 35k a year. The nurses are on about 24k a year.

I can honestly see what you are saying. But in good faith, can you say these wages are actually realistic?

Personally, I earn above the full time male average, most engineers I know do

the_ash_and_the_oak

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Personally, I earn above the full time male average, most engineers I know do

pretty sure engineers earn more than average salary in perhaps all regions of UK imo

IveSeenTheLight

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

pretty sure engineers earn more than average salary in perhaps all regions of UK imo

Well to be fair, not all engineers will earn above the Full time Male average of £36k, especially those who have just graduated

The point was the doubt that people earned that amount and you have thankfully backed up my point that there are people earning above the average, hence why it is acceptable to compare mean average wages with mean average house prices.

the_ash_and_the_oak

agree w that. and the people that earn above average salaries prob correlate to the people who buy above average houses imo