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!
Many Upsizers gaining nothing from crash....
Comments
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Being born earlier means being born into a time when getting a mortgage was much harder than it was for the last decade
It was harder in a way, harder in that you could only get given a certain multiple of your salary. It's just a different way of looking at things. You could say the last decade has been harder to get a mortgage as you had to many times lie, and secondly, had to comit even more vast sums to get the same product as 20 years ago.
I'm starting to get bored of this. They were not for all that long.when interest rates were in double digits
This is so fairly spun, it's complete rubbish. You are comparing the absolute pinnicle of interest rates to the absolute lowest level. You know it's rubbish. Yet you keep banging on about it.when the percentage of disposable income required to service a mortgage was at 70%, not 39% like it is today.
Rubbish again. How can you say you had to work harder, then say only couples should be able to buy?! Is that not working double as hard to get the same thing?!Being born earlier meant buying a house when far less people were able to do so, and working far harder to get on the ladder to begin with, and sacrificing far more to stay on it when you finally got there.
I see you have now narrowed the timescale you are talking about to only the end of the 80's and the early 90's. Nice one.If you think for one second that those of us who bought back in the late 80's or early 90's had it easier than those who bought in the mid 2000's, you are sorely mistaken.
And this "home ownership at an all time high" you also cling on to like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Does that include people like you, who own 2 homes? Therefore, those 2 are classed under the "ownership"?0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Being born earlier means being born into a time when getting a mortgage was much harder than it was for the last decade, when interest rates were in double digits, when the percentage of disposable income required to service a mortgage was at 70%, not 39% like it is today.
mortgage rates were over 14% for at least 2 years. for at least 10 months they were at 15.5%.Graham_Devon wrote: »I'm starting to get bored of this. They were not for all that long.
they were in double digits for at least 4 years if not much longer
that may not be very long for you... but to me that's a long time...Graham_Devon wrote: »And this "home ownership at an all time high" you also cling on to like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Does that include people like you, who own 2 homes? Therefore, those 2 are classed under the "ownership"?
No - it's 70% Owner Occupiers.
not people with second homes but people that Own and Occupy the property.
is it that difficult to understand.
just because you don't like that facts, don't dismiss them but at least try to try to understand them. :rolleyes:0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Rubbish again. How can you say you had to work harder, then say only couples should be able to buy?! Is that not working double as hard to get the same thing?!
:rolleyes:
We were a couple. Both working full time. And it was a struggle, and that was almost 2 decades ago in one of the cheaper parts of the country.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
mortgage rates were over 14% for at least 2 years. for at least 10 months they were at 15.5%.
they were in double digits for at least 4 years if not much longer
that may not be very long for you... but to me that's a long time...
No - it's 70% Owner Occupiers.
not people with second homes but people that Own and Occupy the property.
is it that difficult to understand.
just because you don't like that facts, don't dismiss them but try to understand them. :rolleyes:
I've noticed Graham has a hard time understanding facts and figures. (Not meant as an insult BTW, just an observation);)“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
right........ the Land Registry has a vested interest... :rolleyes:
actually... let's say you're right about vested interest... do we now ignore the Halifax and Nationwide figures when they were negative for 15/16 months and pretend that house prices didn't drop in value? :rolleyes:
i'm sorry but the vested interest argument comes across a little bit simple...
Haha I'm sorry, I think I may have rushed my posts a little to quickly yesterday, being at work an all. The problem is both you and Hamish are clinging to statistics, what I'm trying to say is can someone please explain why they are blindly looking at meaningless statistics and not the fundimentals? Is is simply because that is where your hopes lay?
My first post was as as follows:
If a bank has £100 of cheap money to lend and house prices are £1 they can provide 100 mortgages.
If £90 of that cheap money has gone they can only provide 10 mortgages (where we are now).
When house prices come down to 10p then we will be back to where the bank can provide 100 mortgages again (the future only maybe not so much of a drop)
Get my meaning?0 -
What? You see this is where you let yourself down, you are desperate to hold on to price gains yeah? If you werent you wouldnt assume other people are desperate. This is very funny, I must admit I am enjoying it, but please don't show your hand so quickly.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Of course it's a "little bit simple".
Like all the other bear memes, it's desperation from those who see their dream slipping away, and need to cling on to these articles of faith.
Religion is the opiate of the masses. HPC is the opiate of the !!!!less, who made poor decisions early in life (not buying property) and now wish for the prudent ones, (those who planned properly and bought a house), to suffer so they can catch up.
I have no sympathy.....0 -
Haha I'm sorry, I think I may have rushed my posts a little to quickly yesterday, being at work an all. The problem is both you and Hamish are clinging to statistics, what I'm trying to say is can someone please explain why they are blindly looking at meaningless statistics and not the fundimentals? Is is simply because that is where your hopes lay?
My first post was as as follows:
If a bank has £100 of cheap money to lend and house prices are £1 they can provide 100 mortgages.
If £90 of that cheap money has gone they can only provide 10 mortgages (where we are now).
When house prices come down to 10p then we will be back to where the bank can provide 100 mortgages again (the future only maybe not so much of a drop)
Get my meaning?
"Clinging to statistics" eh?
Statistics, facts and figures..... Pesky little things that get in the way of perceptions and anecdotals.
Where would you prefer we got the evidence to back up our theories?
Start a poll on hpc perhaps?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Haha I'm sorry, I think I may have rushed my posts a little to quickly yesterday, being at work an all. The problem is both you and Hamish are clinging to statistics, what I'm trying to say is can someone please explain why they are blindly looking at meaningless statistics and not the fundimentals? Is is simply because that is where your hopes lay?
My first post was as as follows:
If a bank has £100 of cheap money to lend and house prices are £1 they can provide 100 mortgages.
If £90 of that cheap money has gone they can only provide 10 mortgages (where we are now).
When house prices come down to 10p then we will be back to where the bank can provide 100 mortgages again (the future only maybe not so much of a drop)
Get my meaning?
I do get your meaning but it seems remarkably simplistic.
If you're seriously suggesting this is the only force in play and the reason for price drops I'd like to add another equally simplisitic line to your argument.
Originally there were 100 houses for sale, they were bought by said 100 mortgages.
Now there are only 10 houses for sale. They can still be bought by said 10 mortgages.
Now don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting this is the true extent of things or the reason why prices won't drop, (I think they will this winter), just that I think your post is not particularly astute or indeed accurate.
Sorry.0 -
What? You see this is where you let yourself down, you are desperate to hold on to price gains yeah? If you werent you wouldnt assume other people are desperate. This is very funny, I must admit I am enjoying it, but please don't show your hand so quickly.
And yet you cannot see that your post smacks of being desperate to see price falls?
I find it only slightly amusing but I enjoy it all the same. Your hand is also plain for all to see, except the one holding it, it would seem.0 -
you've missed the point completely (again) and taken it on the usual Graham Devon tangeant...
Why do you continue to debate issues with that chump?
He is about to hit 28,000 posts.
No matter how much sense you speak he will continue to flap his fingers on his keyboard with nonsensical replies.
There must be other better threads/posters to contribute to/with?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards