Why Are High House Prices A Good Thing?

michaels

Property is theft!

There can be no equality until the means of production are in the hands of the workers.

From each according to his ability, to each according to her ability to play the system by having many babies without being able to identify the father whilst also claiming incapacity benefit and working cash in hand...

Ps I thought I was feeling fairly chilled this afternoon but just noticed that my last 3 posts make me sound slightly to the right of Attila the Hun - hopefully just a funny five minutes brought on by all the excitement of having the board threatened.

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Home-ownership is bad. That's the main poroblem. It is something that we have been brainwashed with by successive Governments because it brings in a lot of tax.

Council tenants made the move away from social housing more pallitable to the electorate. Some tenants treated their homes with very little respect safe in the knowledge that any damage, whether intentional or not, would be fixed by the Council.

So, high prices are good for the Treasury. they are also good for home-owners who stay put. Other people who move more often will pay more tax than those that do not.

Rising prices gives home-owners equity which can be used to fund the next move, the next holiday, the next big telly or the next credit card bill. Rising prices encourages more people into the pyramid scheme. So, rising prices are good for the shallow, !!!!less, inconsiderate and gluttonous home-owner.

Why don't we treat cars the same? Why not let them increase at 15% per year?

Our love of high house prices is as irrational as ad44downey's bvenom towards BTL LLs.

GG

ILW

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

i could do it in 1 year

Any increase on 1 year?

StevieJ

Interesting that Pastures has banked all her loot from a house sale and now objects to paying more than 65k for a 4 bed

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

Any increase on 1 year?

At a challenge, take some risk though

PasturesNew

Dan: wrote: »

It really is not a lot, I could save it up in approx 2 years.

Well you just earn way too much then.

When I work, takehome pay is about £1000/month. So after bills etc there's about £100 leftover for "fun and emergencies".

£65k would probably be a lifetime of savings for me.

Dan:_4

ILW wrote: »

Any increase on 1 year?

A bank job?

Dan:_4

PasturesNew wrote: »

Well you just earn way too much then.

When I work, takehome pay is about £1000/month. So after bills etc there's about £100 leftover for "fun and emergencies".

£65k would probably be a lifetime of savings for me.

It would be a push, and I would have to not go out, and live on pot-noodles etc but I could just about make it.

I don't think I earn too much, but I do work in London.

PasturesNew

StevieJ wrote: »

Interesting that Pastures has banked all her loot from a house sale and now objects to paying more than 65k for a 4 bed

I banked it because it was there.

Having the house meant I could not afford a pension, or any holidays. I had no shiny stuff, no outings, no hobbies, no fun.

I'm happy for house prices to stay at their 2007 levels if that's what it takes to make you happy. It's the concept of them not moving much that's the important factor here ... except that at £200k for an average house it would mean singles were mostly unable to ever settle down.

Jonbvn

ILW wrote: »

Any increase on 1 year?

When I worked as a single expat and didn't have to pay for moats, duck houses and the mortgages of amnesiacs and had no overheads (except beer money), I saved about that much every 6-8 months.

inspector_monkfish

PasturesNew wrote: »

Well you just earn way too much then.

When I work, takehome pay is about £1000/month. So after bills etc there's about £100 leftover for "fun and emergencies".

£65k would probably be a lifetime of savings for me.

work harder then :D

only joking