House Price Increases-what for?

Graham_Devon

Harry_Powell wrote: »

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

And what was out there about it? I see you missed that part?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

: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.....

Do it at 5%, the actual average. Not that many on 4%. It's not even available as a mortgage is it? I'm happy to be corrected, but not using interest rates which you simply cannot get for the "average" person.

Was the average house 50K in 1970? If not, do it at the actual average house cost if your going to use the mortgage costs at that time.

And please, use the average cost of a house when you could get an average mortgage at 4%.

Otherwise, your just plucking figures, as I was accused of.

Also, yes, wages have risen, of course they have. But you still had to buy that house in 1970 on the wages that were around in 1970! Same as you have to buy todays house at the wages around today.

Graham_Devon

Right, having looked myself, the average cost of a house in 1970 was actually £4,874.

http://www.quotesearch.co.uk/news/578/uk-house-prices-tracked-since-1970/

So Hamish, please use that against todays average house cost, and apply the 12% and 5% stuff.

Then tell me I'm wrong please. Please, as you say, DO use facts. Not figures plucked.

tara747

LydiaJ wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be worth owning if there wasn't HPI? Once you have finished paying it off, you can live in it for nothing. With rent, you have to go on paying for as long as you live there.

If there was no HPI, nobody would buy a house with a mortgage because it wouldn’t be worth paying interest. Everyone would just save up as close as possible to 100% of the value and buy outright, without worrying that house prices would rise too fast and become unaffordable. Why would you pay 2-3x the price of your house in interest if you didn’t have to???

Sorry if someone’s already said this, haven’t read the rest of the thread yet.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right, having looked myself, the average cost of a house in 1970 was actually £4,874.

http://www.quotesearch.co.uk/news/578/uk-house-prices-tracked-since-1970/

So Hamish, please use that against todays average house cost, and apply the 12% and 5% stuff.

Then tell me I'm wrong please

http://www.mortgageguideuk.co.uk/housing/uk-house-price-index.html

1975 is her and the "real term" cost.
You need average wage graham also in nominal terms can you supply that graham with a link.

Graham_Devon

I haven't got a link, would get one but got to dash.

If someone would like to use the real facts, as Hamish puts it, and then uses unreal facts, we can sort this sorry mess out.

Just need to use proper prices, against a proper rate at the time that house was priced.

No good just plucking 50k out the air then applying 4% against it to make your point.

Really2

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/hfrtable/up02040ab.PDF

Really interesting facts there.

looks like FTB multiple for loan is only 3X now, it was 2.5X in 1975.

edit, data only to 2001. But kind of shows average wage, average house price do not give the real details for the facts.

The fact seems to be the average wage for a purchase is over the national average wage.
Also the average FTB house is below the national average price.

Only referance I can see to average wage in 1975 was on HPC stating it at around £2K
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=107648

Graham_Devon

Right, cool.

So average wage was 2k, average house was £4874.

Average LTV was 2.4% (I think!), which looks about right.

Surely this kind of proves that it was cheaper to service the mortgage then, than it is now....all based on averages?

Average wage, 28k, something like that? Average house price £164,000 roughly.

Thats 5.8x. Even allowing for interest rates at 12% in the 70's, surely it was cheaper then to service the mortgage debt.

mewbie_2

Is the collection of motley trolls and aliases still trying to prove that houses are cheaper than they have ever been? Why on earth do they / it bother? If they are then f'ck off and buy some more. If they are not then !!!!!!.

JonnyBravo

mewbie wrote: »

Is the collection of motley trolls and aliases still trying to prove that houses are cheaper than they have ever been? Why on earth do they / it bother? If they are then f'ck off and buy some more. If they are not then !!!!!!.

Is this the post where mewbie has his usual rant at some bulls?
Seems they are winding him up into knicker wetting hysteria.