Are high house prices a good thing?

Emy1501

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Do you believe everything the politacl people tell you?
I've seen many a political pledge fail to materialise.

One of these was the governments targets of improving social housing.
Surely this has also increase house prices although failed to have the level of funding to achieve their targets.

You can rob from peter to pay paul but it does not necessarily alter the final situation i.e. house prices

1) If houseprices are affordable why do we need government FTB schemes? They are either affordable of they are not?
2) The scheme to pay your interest if you are out of work used to be base rate plus 1.5% its now at a rate of 6.08% meaning some people are not only getting the interest paid but the repayment too plus some. Whats that about?
3) Bank being forced to not repossess will not only affect those who really need it it will also affect the likes of the wilsons etc.
4) I got no doubt that these schemes are not having as much effect as they say they are but until the market is allowed to stand on its own two feet then we cannot say houseprices are based on affordability.

IveSeenTheLight

Emy1501 wrote: »

1) If houseprices are affordable why do we need government FTB schemes? They are either affordable of they are not?

I did not benefit from any government FTBer scheme, nor has any other owner I know.
What is the percentage of FTBers that need these schemes?

Emy1501 wrote: »

12) The scheme to pay your interest if you are out of work used to be base rate plus 1.5% its now at a rate of 6.08% meaning some people are not only getting the interest paid but the repayment too plus some. Whats that about?

Could you provide a link to this to verify what you are saying?
I doubt capital is being repaid but the percentage increased to cater for the recent increased in margins between the BR and the mortgage rate.
most likely the maximum rate of 6.08% is still only applicable to cover interest payments only.

Emy1501 wrote: »

3) Bank being forced to not repossess will not only affect those who really need it it will also affect the likes of the wilsons etc.

CML reduced the projected reposessions from 75,000 to 45,000 for this year.
I'm not convinced that 30,000 would have much of an impact to the overall house price.
This is only 1/2 a month of the current transaction level which is deemed to be historically low.

Emy1501 wrote: »

4) I got no doubt that these schemes are not having as much effect as they say they are but until the market is allowed to stand on its own two feet then we cannot say houseprices are based on affordability.

If this is the case, should the government offer social housing at all?
Why should this intervention be allowed to affect house prices? :rolleyes:

nearlynew

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

My grandmother-in-law bought her property outright and was not in debt.
As a result HPI, the property was able to be sold and provide a better level of care when she went into care.

Da Da Da............

............... HPI to the rescue.


Without it many people are doomed.

Emy1501

I did not benefit from any government FTBer scheme, nor has any other owner I know.
What is the percentage of FTBers that need these schemes?

Does not matter if price are affordable then we do not need these schemes. These schemes are helping keeping prices higher. The government needs all the money they can get they would not be spending a penny on helping FTB's if prices were affordable.


Could you provide a link to this to verify what you are saying?
I doubt capital is being repaid but the percentage increased to cater for the recent increased in margins between the BR and the mortgage rate.
most likely the maximum rate of 6.08% is still only applicable to cover interest payments only.

The info is on the net they have been talking about after the PBR.

CML reduced the projected reposessions from 75,000 to 45,000 for this year.
I'm not convinced that 30,000 would have much of an impact to the overall house price.
This is only 1/2 a month of the current transaction level which is deemed to be historically low.

90K were enough to crash the market in the 90's and the CML were predicting more than 100K in 2010. Do not know what effect it would have but it would have had an effect,



If this is the case, should the government offer social housing at all?
Why should this intervention be allowed to affect house prices? :rolleyes:

Social housing should be there to help people who would not be able to afford to buy or rent from the private market. This should not have any real bearing on the private rental or sales market. Social housing is normally built in areas where those who can afford to buy would not want really want to live anyway.
In my opinion the government should building affordable social housing.

tomstickland

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

People can borrow far more than they could then. Prices rose to meet the money supply. Borrowed money has to be paid back.

IveSeenTheLight

nearlynew wrote: »

Da Da Da............

Lovely level of conversation.
I get the same from my 9 month old son when he see's me.
Makes my day

nearlynew wrote: »

............... HPI to the rescue.


Without it many people are doomed.

Hmmmmm, are you understanding or in agreement then that HPI is a good thing?

nembot

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

There are far more people and houses now, think your analogy is flawed.

the_ash_and_the_oak

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Hmmmmm, are you understanding or in agreement then that HPI is a good thing?

HPI is more than just a good thing, its absolutely brilliant if you are an owner imo

nembot

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

HPI is more than just a good thing, its absolutely brilliant if you are an owner imo

Yes, it is that - but as others have posted, is it good for the economy as a whole?

chucky

nembot wrote: »

There are far more people and houses now, think your analogy is flawed.

but you've got more people that are able to buy than there are houses on the market :rolleyes:

you didn't think that one through did you