House Price Increases-what for?

Graham_Devon

carolt wrote: »

Really is not the same as the others. The others may well be 1, or 2 at most.

Actually, no, looking again at the list - I think Jonny Bravo is separate. But the other 3 could well be identical.

Well they came on, said their piece (in agreement with chucky) and off they went again.

Pure coincidence!

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Really is not the same as the others. The others may well be 1, or 2 at most.

Actually, no, looking again at the list - I think Jonny Bravo is separate. But the other 3 could well be identical.

I think it was Professor plum, with the Candle Stick in the Lobby.;):)

carolt

chucky wrote: »

hahaha - why does it come to this when people get shown for their foolish and discredited posts... genius :beer:

Because thanking yourself so continually is making you look silly. I was tactfully trying to point this out.

BTW, if you're implying in some way I'm Graham, then you're truly bonkers.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

hahaha - why does it come to this when people get shown for their foolish and discredited posts... genius :beer:

Chucky.

If a house you bought today was 2x your wages and the house cost 165k, how much would your wage be?

If a house cost 2x your wages in 1970, and the house in 1970 cost 15k, how much would your wage be?

It wouldn't be 80k, I grant you. But it WOULD be the equivalent in terms of mortgage outgoings of 80k today.

That was solely my point. You haven't discredited it dear boy. You have stirred it, and done your best to make me out to be stupid.

Feel free to actually discredit it.

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

I think it was Professor plum, with the Candle Stick in the Lobby.;):)

these "people" are getting more and more desperate by the day...

Harry_Powell

No, I'm Spartacus! :rolleyes:

p.s. I thought it was refreshing on here that all the "Sockpuppet" crap had all stopped and we'd gotten back to arguing about the economy, HP and recession, seems a shame to resurrect it.

JonnyBravo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You miss the point again.

It was all logging in within 10 mins, logging on to this thread, to agree with you.

Purely co-incidental I'm sure.

Eh?

You don't read too well do you GD?
I disagreed with chucky and sort of sided with your point .... at least I thought it was your point about the amount you borrow being most important but was very confused by your argument about rates and LTV's.... your messaging was a little unclear to say the least..... clearly I'm not on your intellectual level :rolleyes:



All in all it's irrelevant which scenario one individual prefers..... if the popluation are largely prepared to borrow larger sums relative to earnings than they were in the past on the strength of the cost of borrowing being lower than in the past that will mean house prices will remain higher than they have in the past (again relative to vs average wages)

JonnyBravo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Chucky.

If a house you bought today was 2x your wages and the house cost 165k, how much would your wage be?

If a house cost 2x your wages in 1970, and the house in 1970 cost 15k, how much would your wage be?

It wouldn't be 80k, I grant you. But it WOULD be the equivalent in terms of mortgage outgoings of 80k today.

That was solely my point. You haven't discredited it dear boy. You have stirred it, and done your best to make me out to be stupid.

Feel free to actually discredit it.

But this is all irrelevant in the end.

What if, for example, food costs were 2x more expensive in the past (following on from something LIR is saying somewhere else on this board). That would now enable people who wanted to pay extra towards housing to do that etc etc.

I do agree a lower LTV is better for the individual but if the market has more people prepared to borrow 4x, 5x or 6x than it did in the past then house prices will be proportionally higher than they were all those years ago etc.

Graham_Devon

JonnyBravo wrote: »

But this is all irrelevant in the end.

What if, for example, food costs were 2x more expensive in the past (following on from something LIR is saying somewhere else on this board). That would now enable people who wanted to pay extra towards housing to do that etc etc.

I do agree a lower LTV is better for the individual but if the market has more people prepared to borrow 4x, 5x or 6x than it did in the past then house prices will be proportionally higher than they were all those years ago etc.

Yes, I agree.

But it's not irrelevant when you compare the two times, as chucky did, and said it was probably less affordable then as mortgage costs were higher, even though LTV's were around 2.5x.

This, is not true. It's more expensive today, even with lower rates, as the debt level you are servicing is much higher as a percentage of your income.

All this fuss is simply because I disagreed with chucky, and he now refuses to answer the above question I put to him! Because quite clearly he can see what I was saying and doesnt want to answer.

Harry_Powell

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Eh?

You don't read too well do you GD?
I disagreed with chucky and sort of sided with your point .... at least I thought it was your point about the amount you borrow being most important but was very confused by your argument about rates and LTV's.... your messaging was a little unclear to say the least..... clearly I'm not on your intellectual level :rolleyes:

It's terrible isn't it jonny when someone accuses you of being another poster? You simply cannot defend yourself because there is no way to disprove the accusation.

TBH, I like being accused of being users who are erudite and who have a good command of the English language, it makes me feel clever. Very complimentary.