People should buy a house to live in

Sapphire

leveller2911 wrote: »

Really?? In what way?.......

We are an island, we have finite land ,why should people own a "portfolio" of houses? if we had a surplus I could understand it,but we don't.

Particularly in the last 10yrs people borrowed against the perceived value of the house they did own to buy more and thus the poor old FTB got shafted because they couldnt compete.
The vast majority of the general public would love to own a "HOME" and stamp thier identity on it, but what we have had is nothing short of GREED and on a major scale.
I blame BTL but also the 2nd home owners who buy a house for the weekend,in the country ,generally speaking they are not contributing anything to the town or village and that is partly why in my area we have lost so many local shops and pubs.
The government had the oppotunity to hammer 2nd homeowners (rightfully so) with tax etc but they didn't and yet another NU Labour !!!!-up always a reactive government instead of pro-active....BUY A HOME ....................NOT FOR PROFIT !!!!!

This 'government' did nothing because most of its members speculate on property so it is in their personal interest for prices to go up. And they are still trying to prop up house prices, perpetuate the greedy and vacuous, 'me first' mentality of many people in this country. The 'government' has so much to answer for in so many ways – it is by far the worst this country has ever had.

I thoroughly agree that private property should be a home.

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Where are your stats then chucky? Or are you spouting Bull Sh*t as usual? Wheer are your stats chucky? Go on then, I have provided you with some, I challenge you to do the same!

So you are saying, not to use data that proves your argument is in fact, complete and utter B*llocks? Or do you choose to ignore the first rung of the ladder as unimportant?

Its also interesting to compare median salaries as computed by the nationwide are about as devoid of reality as they have ever been.

here you go, i'll use your stats if that's ok... i've not even gone to the salary part yet - look at how much it would cost to service a mortgage from your data...

1991 Average House Price = £53,635, 14% Mortgage rate - to make you look better it was a couple of % higher then too
Interest Repayment was £626 a month on 1991 average salary (however you'd like to calculate it - median, mode, mean)

2009 Average House Price = £154,066 , 4.64% Average SVR
Interest Repayment is £595.72 a month on today's average salary (however you'd like to calculate it - median, mode, mean)


are you going to tell me that £626 a month in 1991 was more affordable than having the same mortgage on an average house today of £595.72?

i'll accept your apology in advance.

Sapphire

themanbearpig wrote: »

Its funny how you say the younger generation have to "earn it", by paying extortionate property prices and university fees, as if you have been through the same hardship.

Hypocritically the baby boomer generation were happy to get educated at grammar schools and go to university with a grant, pay next to nothing for a house, but then decide to create a "fairer" society by burdening young people with £20,000 student debt before even earning a penny, and allowing a property bubble to develop.

Here we go again with the deluded mentality. The fact is that in the 'baby boomer' generation, far fewer people obtained university degrees, so the taxpayer was able to support them. Many more people went to work at the 'lowest' level in a company and worked their way up. A university degree is completely unnecessary for many professions for which on-the-job training is far more suitable.

Too many people are going to university these days and obtaining utterly useless degrees, then expecting to jump into highly paid jobs. Far better for them to learn a trade or skill on the job.

As for paying 'next to nothing for a house', many people of that generation skimped and saved, and initially bought a small flat, not a house, in their mid- to late twenties. You need to get your facts straight: life was very tough for many people in the '50s, '60s and even '70s, and they worked incredibly hard (without whining continuously).

mbga9pgf

You can kiss my hairy @rse before you will get an apology out of me chucky.

You are using figures that were for one or two quarters of the mortgage! Not the entire term! You cannot take one or two statistical blips and say housing as a whole was a load more unaffordable back then than it is now! You cannot take figures from the top of the market and directly compare them with 300 year record low interest rates, assuming a mortgage product realisitcally exists for the lay person on the street can afford with todays deposit requirements, and use those figures. Want to guess what affordability will be like for someone who can easily afford 4.6% rates if interest rates go up to say 9%? Will their mortgage be looking so affordable then?

As I have said, I have a deposit of 2X my salary (top 5% of earners in the UK) and still cannot afford anything LIKE I would have been able to do back in 1990. (Wrong types of houses being built perhaps?)

Tell me why my parents could afford a 4 bed detatched in the North west with over 1 acre of land in 1995 for less than 2.5X salary (only slightly above average) Whereas now, despite being in the top 5% of earners, I can barely afford a semi in the same area?

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

You can kiss my hairy @rse before you will get an apology out of me chucky.

ok, ok, no need for the apology... but you're now going back on yourself and agreeing with my initial point which you contested fiercely saying i didn't know what i was talking about...

chucky wrote: »

i'm sure you'll be telling us next that mortgage rates between 12% and 16% were affordable to all and that everyone could qualify to get a mortgage back in the "good old days"....

you know i'm right...

btw what you're trying to say about being able to buy a house is a totally different discussion and my arguments don't apply as much there...

lostinrates

mbga9pgf wrote: »

As I have said, I have a deposit of 2X my salary (top 5% of earners in the UK) and still cannot afford anything LIKE I would have been able to do back in 1990. (Wrong types of houses being built perhaps?)

Tell me why my parents could afford a 4 bed detatched in the North west with over 1 acre of land in 1995 for less than 2.5X salary (only slightly above average) Whereas now, despite being in the top 5% of earners, I can barely afford a semi in the same area?

We wouldn't be able to buy what my parents did either, despite DH's salary being comparitively higher than my dad's was. In fact, wecouldn't afford a flat in the old house (they/we lived in the whole house but asubsequent owner has converted it).

I wonder if the key might be greater range of income divide, not just average?

mbga9pgf

I think a lot of NIMBY whining and planning constraint has a part to play.

But no, I think the main player has definately been the formert unrestrained lending we experienced 2001-2007.

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-ftb-average-house-price-to-earnings-ratio.php


Before spouting about statistics, how about actually get some numbers together before you go and embarrass yourself hey?

i definetly didn't embarrass myself because i proved that my point was 100% correct.

a little pointer for you... try not to use hpc.co.uk as your source of data... it's doesn't provide balanced information...

mbga9pgf

How is a graph of official stats skewed?

wolvoman

mbga9pgf wrote: »

I think a lot of NIMBY whining and planning constraint has a part to play.

But no, I think the main player has definately been the formert unrestrained lending we experienced 2001-2007.

When my parents bought their last house in 1991 their household income was about £50k.
Wage growth over that time means the equivalent today of about £90k (give or take the odd £k that's close to my income).

Except the place I own is worth over £100k more than my parents' place. And I bought in Sep 2007. If I was buying now the gap might be even bigger.

This idea that it is harder to buy now is utter rubbish.