If single FTB could afford 2-3 bed houses would it cause HPI.

Graham_Devon

No

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Older built property is far more spacious than modern. When I got divorced I bought a 1 bed coach house, big rooms plenty of space. Had as much square footage I would say as a new built Wimpey three bed terrace. Suited me at the time as didn't need empty bedrooms.

Very true. Probably something I have missed out on. Thinking back to my mum and dads old place, it had cupboards, land, big rooms etc, dining room etc.

Now it seems to be kitchen / diner instead.

My own place has 2 bedrooms, but not a single cupboard bar one tiny thing under the stairs. So you have no where to put anything at all. Hence 1 bed would be a complete nightmare, my second bedroom allows for storage of things such as ironing board, hoover etc, and my office. Even the warddrobe in the main bedroom is taken up by the boiler.

It seems stupid, but you think "well where can I put the hoover". There is no where for such items at all, apart from sat in the corner of a room.

I'd love a Victorian property. Not sure I would like the heating bill though!

Really2

Yes

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, agree.

The point is though that A) I'm not sure why this is aimed at single people....as if couples could jump into 3 beds it would be the same situation. There just seems to be a bit of single bashing "they can live in a box" type assumptions going on today here.

The discussion seems to be solely aimed at bashing the single buyer, and the simple assumption that the single buyer is A) actually single and not got a partner and is going to stay single because they are at the point of purchase.

.

Oh !!!!!! grow up!!!!

It is not about bashing singles there are only 3 of us in a 5 bed house so I am hardly on to talk am I.....

I am asking if this will possibly cause HPI..

I could ask the same if every couple purchased a flat would it do the same.
Or if every old person purchased a BTL with there equity.

It is based on what some have said they will do if you are single don't feel bashed.

I think fair play if you are single and get a three - 4 bed place. I am asking will it have repercussions to other buyers.
I think it as been said older people have priced people out of the market in the past, why cant i ask will the same happen again without being a "SINGLE BASHER"

I feel sorry for you if you can not debate without felling there is an underlying tone, I have not bashed anyone. Read all the posts.

mbga9pgf

No

you could argue a single person buying a 3-4 be was greed etc.

How many well-paid singlies would go to the bother of buying a 3-4 bed? I wouldnt. I would get a 2 bed flat in an inner city area near work, like most did prior to the boom. Why bother with the maintanance that a 3-4 bed demands? It just wouldnt happen.

would not everyone being paid over £25K completely blow out the water everyone below (EG the haves and have nots)?

Well, surely if people worked hard at school, strived for an education and worked their nuts off at work and are rewarded for it, why are they less entitled than someone who works part time and earns less? Surely that is the point of going to work. You are rewarded for it.

How do you expect someone on less than 25K to afford a house in the current climate? What happens if they want 2 kids, but can barely afford a 2 bed flat? Hardly just is it? Hardly great for their kids, either.

I agree with the sentiment, far too many tat flats with thin walls with dubious quality construction. All to do with that fat pr*ck prescott and him limiting house sizes. You find very few newbuild 3 bed houses with a decent garden. I would go further actually, you will find NO newbuild houses will a decent garden, full stop.

Really, as to HPI due to distribution, just wait till the boomer generation pop their cloggs, there will be plenty to go around if you study the UK demographic graphs. Besides, now prices are collapsing and personal pensions are a fraction of what they used to be, I dare say a fair few will be downsizing at some stage, especially once the kids have flocked the nest.

Really2

Yes

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Point proven about the bashing.

You could say that about ANY person who has more rooms than you want them to have.]

I would prefer to call it freedom of choice if you have the funds to carry out your choice.

Graham !!!!!! read my other post, you could say the same of anyone single couple, goat.

I just cant do a poll or situation for everything i just pulled an idea from your poll saying you think a single person should be able to buy the same as a couple.

I Agree but what will be the repocution of that AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJERFGJERAI{Ghweri[ghwrgh-erger#gherguie

I am going mad

Really2

Yes

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Well, surely if people worked hard at school, strived for an education and worked their nuts off at work and are rewarded for it, why are they less entitled than someone who works part time and earns less? Surely that is the point of going to work. You are rewarded for it.
.

Agree in part but it is still a simple fact half of the full time works are on less than that.

So basicaly can we avoid HPI or is it by only stoping the poorer owning?
Would that be a step back where the rich are landlords and the poor never own.
pre 1960s?

Graham_Devon

No

Really2 wrote: »

I am going mad

I'll drink to that!

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd love a Victorian property. Not sure I would like the heating bill though!

Shame the majority have been modernised and all their features and soul stripped out.

mbga9pgf

No

Really, show me a single house in a decent area a young couple on less than 25K could afford now anyway! Compare that to what those on less than the average salary could have afforded in 1999!

They couldnt. The point of multiple control would prevent housing getting completely out of reach of those 50% on less than 25K, without relying on devisive and pointless HPI to get there!

If prices fell 50% from peak, are you saying that would put those on lower salaries in a worse situation than now? I understand what you are saying, my view would be that in the short term, it would price lower paid members of society out, yes. But the subsequent price correction would put them in a much better situation for them to buy.

Really2

Yes

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'll drink to that!

Now graham,

Strip out all the other stuff.

What are going to be the effects of the current climate after falls.
Who will be able to afford to buy.
What will it mean for the next generation.
Can we avoid HPI with our current housing stock.
Will certain stock outperform others

the single part is irrelevant you can pretend giant lizards will be buying if you like:)

Really2

Yes

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Really, show me a single house in a decent area a young couple on less than 25K could afford now anyway! Compare that to what those on less than the average salary could have afforded in 1999!

They couldnt. The point of multiple control would prevent housing getting completely out of reach of those 50% on less than 25K, without relying on devisive and pointless HPI to get there!

I agree it would set a limit for a minimum wage for ownership.
I don't think personaly HPI can be put done just to a multiple. Many people can aford higher multiples as disposable incomes are higher than the past.

i have no Idea if they will bring in a 3.5X multiple. But it is stil fairly irrelevent to the question as we had a housing boom in the 70's