House Price Boom Starts Again.......

ad9898_3

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So after pointing out that you would quickly resort to personal attacks, you fall right into character and resort to a personal attack.

Well done. Good job.

:T

See what I mean folks, for the first time ever, I'm using the ignore function, laughing at others mis-fortune or generally just trolling is something thats just not worth having to read past.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL no worries. I've asked the same thing twice before. His ability to ignore has been second to none those times.

I've answered you before.

High house prices are as good for owners of those assets as high gold prices or high share prices are for owners of those assets.

Houses are an asset class, like any other asset class. You might as well ask what is good about high gold prices, or high classic car prices, or high any other asset prices.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I've answered you before.

High house prices are as good for owners of those assets as high gold prices or high share prices are for owners of those assets.

Houses are an asset class, like any other asset class. You might as well ask what is good about high gold prices, or high classic car prices, or high any other asset prices.

So it's purely a selfish act then, as thes assets you refer to, are needed by families, for homes.

And thats the only good thing about high prices?

Cleaver

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Houses are an asset class, like any other asset class. You might as well ask what is good about high gold prices, or high classic car prices, or high any other asset prices.

Surely you can see the massive hole in your argument. You don't need to own gold or a calssic car, but it's in the interest of millions to own a house. To raise a family, for work-related reasons... to just live.

So, whilst I have no problems with people making money from anything (including housing), describing a house as "an asset class like any other asset class" is just plain wrong. People buy a share knowing it's a purely financial transaction. People buy a house to live in, in the main.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Cleaver wrote: »

Surely you can see the massive hole in your argument. You don't need to own gold or a calssic car, but it's in the interest of millions to own a house. To raise a family, for work-related reasons... to just live.

So, whilst I have no problems with people making money from anything (including housing), describing a house as "an asset class like any other asset class" is just plain wrong. People buy a share knowing it's a purely financial transaction. People buy a house to live in, in the main.

you need to live in a house. it isnt necessary to own it tho

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cleaver wrote: »

Surely you can see the massive hole in your argument. You don't need to own gold or a calssic car, but it's in the interest of millions to own a house. To raise a family, for work-related reasons... to just live.

So, whilst I have no problems with people making money from anything (including housing), describing a house as "an asset class like any other asset class" is just plain wrong. People buy a share knowing it's a purely financial transaction. People buy a house to live in, in the main.

Surely you can see the massive hole in your own argument. You don't need to own a house to live in one.

As the bears so often point out, you can often rent a house for far less than buying one, in monthly payment terms. In many places, you can rent a house for less than the cost of interest on a mortgage.

So when housing is available so cheaply to rent, why insist that it is a "right" for people to buy?

The UK already has one of the highest rate of owner occupiers in the world. Far higher than most countries in Europe. What makes you believe that more than 70% of people should be able to buy a house? Or that such a thing could ever be possible?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Surely you can see the massive hole in your own argument. You don't need to own a house to live in one.

As the bears so often point out, you can often rent a house for far less than buying one, in monthly payment terms. In many places, you can rent a house for less than the cost of interest on a mortgage.

So when housing is available so cheaply to rent, why insist that it is a "right" for people to buy?

The UK already has one of the highest rate of owner occupiers in the world. Far higher than most countries in Europe. What makes you believe that more than 70% of people should be able to buy a house? Or that such a thing could ever be possible?

Erm, how is renting "cheap" Hamish? Glad to see that your making an effort, but rentals went up aswell as houses, and I'd love to hear your idea of cheap, or "so cheap" as you put it.

the_ash_and_the_oak

kinda weird here but im agreeing w hamish. rents havent gone up much during the bubble (im still paying same as i did in around 2002). and theres no reason ownership stats should be higher than they are now (and are probably too high)

Cleaver

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Surely you can see the massive hole in your own argument. You don't need to own a house to live in one.

As the bears so often point out, you can often rent a house for far less than buying one, in monthly payment terms. In many places, you can rent a house for less than the cost of interest on a mortgage.

So when housing is available so cheaply to rent, why insist that it is a "right" for people to buy?

I never said there is some divine right to buy. Some will never be in a position to afford a house, and I have no problem with that. My argument was that you said a house is like 'all other asset classes'. And it simply isn't.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The UK already has one of the highest rate of owner occupiers in the world. Far higher than most countries in Europe. What makes you believe that more than 70% of people should be able to buy a house? Or that such a thing could ever be possible?

This might be the reason that people don't enjoy debating with you, as you seem to throw back arguments that were never there in the first place. I don't believe that 70% of people should be able to buy a house and I never mentioned any thing even close to that. Mainly because I don't think along those lines. Where did you pick that up from?

To reiterate, I wasn't happy with your ascertion that a house is an asset class like all other asset classes. Sure, property shares certain aspects with shares, gold etc. but the majority of people buy a house to live in, with the financial gains / losses being a distant second consideration. So, by that defininition, it's a completely different type of asset.

It's like saying shoes are an asset class like any other. Sure, you could buy rare trainers, or sell your old pairs on eBay. But most people buy shoes to wear on their feet to aid with walking, rather than as an 'asset class'.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Erm, how is renting "cheap" Hamish? Glad to see that your making an effort, but rentals went up aswell as houses, and I'd love to hear your idea of cheap, or "so cheap" as you put it.

The latest national average rental yield is 3.9%. The rent you are paying on a 100K property, is on average, £3900 per year, or £325 per month.

Hardly expensive.

And of course in the south, the rental yields are even less. Often as low as 3%.

However, it is the bears that frequently brag about how renting is cheaper than buying, so I'd suggest you ask one of them......

I personally believe renting is foolish. But there is no denying it is cheaper in monthly payment terms than buying in many parts of the country.