Most are Priced out, will it ever change?

ukcarper

ninky wrote: »

there is a way everyone could have their own home and that's if we consider home ownership across generations. if each person reproduced by no more than their own number (and possibly some didn't reproduce at all) then over a couple of generations everyone could afford to live in their own home - assuming inheritance tax didn't take them several steps backwards and that each generation was happy to pass their property onto the next rather than battersea dogs home or some such. in some ways (although not all) rampant reproduction has led to housing poverty.

What about immigration

the_ash_and_the_oak

what about how do you pay the pensions of one generation without a larger generation below them?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Where did I say it spiked?

You are making things up.

why does this always happen to you Graham - always accusing others of making things up when you make stupid posts that get ripped to shreds each time... :rolleyes:

here you go

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Focusing on "its gone from 40% to 70%" without looking at any of the reasons associated with that rise is pointless, isn't it?

The council "overnight" owners are not going to be a small number of new owners. We had a good stock of council homes, turned into private homes.

a shift from 40% to 70% is certainly a sharp increase and a spike in those numbers.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

why does this always happen to you Graham - always accusing others of making things up when you make stupid posts that get ripped to shreds each time... :rolleyes:

here you go

a shift from 40% to 70% is certainly a sharp increase and a spike in those numbers.

And where did I say it spiked chucky?

Resorting to personal attacks yet again is getting boring. I am simply asking where I said it spiked?

If you read properly you will see I even talked of the 60's and 70's...so I was hardly talking about it suddenly spiking. I think most people will be able to see what I was say

Stop looking for things to take out of complete context only to start with abuse when your picked up on it.

My posts haven't even been ripped to shreds. But still, you insist on making this cr*p up.

This is you agreeing with what I was saying:

right to buy did not spike up owner occupier levels - it continued the increasing numbers. it made the increase a bit higher but in no way spiked it.

The bit you are having a go at me for, is sying it spiked. Which I never said, and you are now having to resort to personal stuff.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And where did I say it spiked chucky?

just for you, here's what spiked means:

an abrupt increase or rise: a chart showing a spike of unusual activity in the stock market; a sudden spike of electrical current.

here's what you said

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Focusing on "its gone from 40% to 70%" without looking at any of the reasons associated with that rise is pointless, isn't it?

that is an abrupt increase or rise, showing unusual activity. do you get it yet. please tell me you do

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you read properly you will see I even talked of the 60's and 70's...so I was hardly talking about it suddenly spiking. I think most people will be able to see what I was say

if you hadn't realised there was no Right to Buy in the 60s or 70s, it started in the early 80s... you still accusing me of making stuff up when you said it!?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Resorting to personal attacks yet again is getting boring. I am simply asking where I said it spiked?

why do you always do this when you're found out... is it your way of deflecting that you cocked up again and got it wrong? :rolleyes:

Graham_Devon

Keep editing my quotes into single sentences, deleting out what was said right after, or before, and yes, you can make it look like pretty much anything you want and turn it into pretty much anything you want.

Well done chucky. You win.

Can't be bothered playing that particular game.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Keep editing my quotes into single sentences, deleting out what was said right after, or before, and yes, you can make it look like pretty much anything you want and turn it into pretty much anything you want.

What a coincidence Graham's posts made no sense and now it's someone else fault (again)...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well done chucky. You win.

Win what!? You were actually playing a game all along?? That's a bit shallow isn't it... :rolleyes:

I was just stating the fact that your Devonian economic theory was all over the place (again)...

tommy75

Shall I book you two a room?

chucky

tommy75 wrote: »

Shall I book you two a room?

you're a good man Tommy :beer:

olly300

chucky wrote: »

if you hadn't realised there was no Right to Buy in the 60s or 70s, it started in the early 80s... you still accusing me of making stuff up when you said it!?

Not strictly true.

As you are in to property you would have watched one of the property programs last year which showed that in the 50s there started a precursor of RTB. However only a very few councils operated it, and most people where not interested in buying their council homes.