House Price Increases-what for?

Graham_Devon

You ressurecting all the socky stuff Harry?!

Harry_Powell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You ressurecting all the socky stuff Harry?!

Er, no. You did that when you said I was Jonny and the rest, can you not remember, it was only a few posts ago?

JonnyBravo

Harry_Powell wrote: »

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.

Not really no.

You've accused me of being various people, eg StevieJ the other week, and I've consistently claimed you're one person in particular.

There are worse things to go through in life.

As an aside I'd say you're a reasonably intelligent chap whether you are DD or not, So I'm happy for you to see it as a compliment.

Graham_Devon

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Er, no. You did that when you said I was Jonny and the rest, can you not remember, it was only a few posts ago?

I've consistently said you are DD. No one else.

You I believe have called me Carol, !!!!!!, Wookster etc. It's only when it relates to you you try the serious "this stuff is so tedious" rubbish

Harry_Powell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've consistently said you are DD. No one else.

You I believe have called me Carol, !!!!!!, Wookster etc. It's only when it relates to you you try the serious "this stuff is so tedious" rubbish

When did I call you any of those?

(also replying to Jonny's post here, as it saves time)- True, though that was just my cack-handed way of showing you what it feels like to be accused of being someone else, I offer my apologies. I agree that there are worst things in life, and it is nice if you're compared with someone who you actually quite admire (I like both yours and DD's posts/style/humour) but it does get tedious after a while, especially when a hapless idiot like Devon uses it as a 'get out of jail' card in a discussion when you've backed him into a corner with the force of intellectual debate.

I'm surprised to see carolt resort to it because I think she's brilliant in a discussion/argument and doesn't need to resort to that tactic. I sometimes chime into one of her arguments just to feel the sting of her tongue. I'm a bit masochistic that way

Graham_Devon

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Devon uses it as a 'get out of jail' card in a discussion when you've backed him into a corner with the force of intellectual debate.

Hehe, both the last times you thought you did that you ended up apologising

Remember the "girl at work" saga?

I may be hapless. But, at least I don't just resort to insults time after time

Harry_Powell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hehe, both the last times you thought you did that you ended up apologising

Remember the "girl at work" saga?

I may be hapless. But, at least I don't just resort to insults time after time

Graham, I've no idea what you're talking about (as usual) and so I'm going to stop responding to your posts now and go back to ignoring you as I did before. As I said earlier in this thread, I only 'popped' in because what you were saying was so totally 'out there', even for you that I made an internet version of an involutary exclamation of disbelief (a bit of a cross between a cough and a laugh with a fair bit of choking added in).

Graham_Devon

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Graham, I've no idea what you're talking about (as usual) and so I'm going to stop responding to your posts now and go back to ignoring you as I did before. As I said earlier in this thread, I only 'popped' in because what you were saying was so totally 'out there', even for you that I made an internet version of an involutary exclamation of disbelief (a bit of a cross between a cough and a laugh with a fair bit of choking added in).

So out there?

What was "so out there" about it?

It was only "out there" it you couldn't figure out what was being said. If it was so out there, surely chucky could have wiped the floor with my post towards him by now? But he seems to have declined the invitation.

Sure, I could have explained it a bit better, but I didn't really feel the need to.

Harry_Powell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sure, I could have explained it a bit better, but I didn't really feel the need to.

You hardly ever do, that's the point Graham. Why bother to post at all if you're not going to take the time to try and create a decent, coherent post?

You seem to just 'dash' of a post with little consideration for it's content. Take a little time to consider what you're saying, do an arithmetic check if you're providing numerical information and if you're going to accuse someone of calling you '!!!!!!?', 'Wookster' or whatever, check that you're accusing the correct person. It takes a moment to do a search on here and find a previous post.

Anyway. :lipsrseal

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.
.

:rolleyes:

Not quite Graham.

A 50K house at 12% twenty years ago would cost you £6K in interest in a year.

A 150K house today at 4% will cost you £6K in interest in a year.

And of course your wage is much higher now than 20 years ago as well.....

So "the cost of servicing the debt" has fallen as a percentage of income, not risen.

And the statistics prove it. The average mortgage payment today is just 30% of net income, versus a long term average of 37%, and a peak of 68% in the early 90's.

And now that we've explained the facts, along with some hard numbers to back it up, no doubt your head will explode and we'll all be subjected to endless "oh look, a shiny thing" moments......