Are high house prices a good thing?

Wookster

The likes of Hamish will tell you that rising house prices make people feel rich and encourage them to MEW their property to buy cars, second homes in Bulgaria, go on holidays and so on.

What he forgets to say is that just because they feel rich, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are rich... just indebted.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

No, high house prices are a bad thing. They mean that money that could be spent on the productive economy isn't there to be spent You hark on about the good old days when a single income could buy a property, but if I recall corectly money wasn't spent in the economy back then, people made do with a lot less, bought second hand furniture / hand me downs etc and saved before they bought any major purchase (TV's, cars sofa's etc), they mean that people have to pay off huge debts just for one of the basic necessities of life people have always had to pay a huge proportion of their income if they wanted to become owners, it prevents ordinary hard-working families from starting a family when they would wish No it doesn't, did it stip you? Did it stop me? Your a renter and I'm an owner. Also seems there are stats showing an increase in births in recent years, not a decrease, whilst encouraging others to have children they don't really want , because a life on child-related benefits is the only way they can imagine to ensure a secure roof over their heads with house prices at those levels I don;t see what this has to do with house prices, you are now referring to social housing, it reduces mobility how? owners previously would have had to sell if they wanted to move. Is it so much different. Of course there is now the option to rent out the owned property so arguably mobility is increased in recent years but this has nothing to do with house prices , it makes us less competitive with other countries Is house prices competing with other countries? I'm sure people have posted facts that places such as Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong etc are more expensive than London and also less space in the properties., it means we have to pay higher wages so lower wages and lower house prices does that differ to the disposable income?, it creates programmes like 'Location, Location, Location' :rotfl:, it creates more estate agents how did people buy property when house prices were lower? and makes them even more obnoxious, it increases the divide between generations and social classes... always been there carolt, just look back 50 - 100 years to see social differences between owners and non owners. House prices were far lower then too etc etc.

I could go on but I'm bored now, so I'll let someone else take over. (Yawn smiley.)

Hi carol, I've raised some alternative views to your points

IveSeenTheLight

PeoplesChampion wrote: »

What ever you or I think- It will not change house prices - its all to do with the supply (being to low)- and the demand (being high) This is the situation we have to live with

:T
Well said

IveSeenTheLight

ss70 wrote: »

Homes are not affordable to average wage and therefore it is not a good thing.

Yet we are statistically at the highest percentage of homeowners in recorded history.
Property therefore must have been less affordable or home ownership less desireable in previous years

Emy1501

PeoplesChampion wrote: »

What ever you or I think- It will not change house prices - its all to do with the supply (being to low)- and the demand (being high) This is the situation we have to live with

Is it? maybe you could explain what happened in late 2007 and 2008 until the market was propped up by the government who claim that their direct help kept 200,000 in their homes? Also before I read the lack of credit argument there was way more credit available up until octover 08 than there is now.

HPI has been personally great for me but to the economy unless people have missed the whole credit crunch, recession thing then its clearly not good for the economy as a whole.

IveSeenTheLight

A roof over your head is arguable one of the most important things required in life along with food and water.
Why shouldn't these be financially valued as such?

IveSeenTheLight

Emy1501 wrote: »

Is it? maybe you could explain what happened in late 2007 and 2008 until the market was propped up by the government who claim that their direct help kept 200,000 in their homes?

I thought the government schemes to stop reposession was reported that few had benefited, certainly not the 200,000 the government had projected it would save.

To you have facts as to how much was actually prevented from reposession?

Emy1501

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I thought the government schemes to stop reposession was reported that few had benefited, certainly not the 200,000 the government had projected it would save.

To you have facts as to how much was actually prevented from reposession?

The quote comes from GB at the labour conference. As of yet not heard or seen anyone argue against it. As for repossessions, the CML forcasted about 75K this year and have greatly reduced this figure and they have reduced their figure for next year by alot too. This will also not include those who would have been forced sales etc who will now be allowed to stay in their homes.

IveSeenTheLight

Emy1501 wrote: »

The quote comes from GB at the labour conference. As of yet not heard or seen anyone argue against it. As for repossessions, the CML forcasted about 75K this year and have greatly reduced this figure and they have reduced their figure for next year by alot too. This will also not include those who would have been forced sales etc who will now be allowed to stay in their homes.

Please look up the facts for the amount the government scheme has saved.
I think you'll be surprised with the actual figures.

You rightly state that the CML have reduced their projection from 75,000 to 45,000. So that could be seen as 30,000, but this is not solely from the government scheme to stop reposessions, much of this will be down to lower interest rates.

Emy1501

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Please look up the facts for the amount the government scheme has saved.
I think you'll be surprised with the actual figures.

You rightly state that the CML have reduced their projection from 75,000 to 45,000. So that could be seen as 30,000, but this is not solely from the government scheme to stop reposessions, much of this will be down to lower interest rates.

We are not talking about government schemes etc. Clearly low interests, QE etc have had an effect. Also the CML were forcasting about 105K repossesssions next year now its about 55K.

The figures are not from me they came from GB's mouth himself and as noone has argued the fact from what I can see we have to take it that without these really low interest rates, QE, forcing banks not to repossess etc up to 200K people who would have had to sell have been kept in a home.