Property has risen 6 months in a row & is set to rise by 7% next year!!!

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

can anyone explain if it's so hard to own property why the owner occupancy levels are at 70%?

surely if it was so unaffordable this would be much lower...

Sure.

Easy credit.

Hence we are one of the most indebted nations in the world.

This does not mean the house is affordable. It just meant the credit you could get and the multiples you could get were getting bigger along with HPI, and also the terms you could get were getting longer and longer.

If you were prepared to take on an interest only mortgage over 30 years and hope that HPI would sort you out, you could buy that unaffordable house. It was just made affordable by tweaking how you took the credit.

nearlynew

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sure.

Easy credit.

Hence we are one of the most indebted nations in the world.

This does not mean the house is affordable. It just meant the credit you could get and the multiples you could get were getting bigger along with HPI, and also the terms you could get were getting longer and longer.

If you were prepared to take on an interest only mortgage over 30 years and hope that HPI would sort you out, you could buy that unaffordable house. It was just made affordable by tweaking how you took the credit.

Correct.

Over the last 10 years, financial trickery has enabled many people who would not "normally" be able to buy a house to do so.
They are the ones who chirp most about "affordability" and how people have "missed the boat"

You wil find that most HPI cheerleaders fall in to this category.

They fail to recognise that the timing of their purchase is more down to luck than judgement and are now hoping for the next wave of HPI to bail them out.

ThrowingStonesAtYou

pickledpink wrote: »

PROPEERTY HAS risen 6 months in a row & is set to rise by 7% next year!!!

I thought sea levels were rising, not properties.

orangefender

ess0two wrote: »

So you dismiss the fact prices up north are way cheaper than down south,they just aint on par.
80-100k would get me a 3 bed semi up north,down south a portakabin probably.

Nope, I said that the difference between north/side isn't the problem.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This does not mean the house is affordable. It just meant the credit you could get and the multiples you could get were getting bigger along with HPI, and also the terms you could get were getting longer and longer.

so by increasing home ownership that nasty Mr Gordon Brown was doing something wrong then

so if you don't think the amount of credit was a good thing - the number of people owning property would be much less. this goes against the logic that everyone should be able to buy property... should home ownership only be allowed to the rich who don't need a mortgage?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you were prepared to take on an interest only mortgage over 30 years and hope that HPI would sort you out, you could buy that unaffordable house. It was just made affordable by tweaking how you took the credit.

i'm pretty sure that the majority actually the large majority of people did not buy property with a 30 year interest only mortgage and live in an affordable house. i'll actually take it further and say that nearly everyone didn't take out a 30 year interest only mortgage to buy property...

i'm very sure you exaggerated here...

Graham_Devon

I never said any of the stuff you are suggesting. Neither about Gordon or about how much credit is a good thing and only rich owning property (totally ignoring the fact that credit fuelled HPI).

I simply answered your question, which you have now turned into something completely different.

Once again, and for probably the 50th time. I never said anything about majorities, or that all people did it. I was just using the 30 year interest free mortgage (that was available, as we all know) as a simple example. Please don't turn that into something different also. If I wanted to go to extremes, I could have used a 35 year interest free 125% mortgage.

pickledpink

ess0two wrote: »

All depends which way it happens,i was 5yrs in a property before nippers came along.
Still biggest prob is north/south price differences at the mo.

There's always been a huge divide between the north and south. That's just a fact.

pickledpink

nembot wrote: »

Pickled, you are aware that the only reason why the market picked up this year was due to heavy intervention by the BOE and Government schemes?

Hope you don't lose too much value on your house next year, but then again - you'd need to sell it to actually have profit wouldn't you...

I don't agree......................there were lots of reasons why the market picked up this year - one of them being that people have to sell - and people are out there with money who need to buy.:money:

And don't worry about ME worrying anout MY house - I'm not worried one jot!:D I own it outright, so it's swings and roundabouts................:p As it happens, I don't want to move - I love it here! But it's nice to know that if I did ever decided to move it would bring me CHOICE. And choice is NICE!:A

pickledpink

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I never said any of the stuff you are suggesting. Neither about Gordon or about how much credit is a good thing and only rich owning property (totally ignoring the fact that credit fuelled HPI).

I simply answered your question, which you have now turned into something completely different.

Once again, and for probably the 50th time. I never said anything about majorities, or that all people did it. I was just using the 30 year interest free mortgage (that was available, as we all know) as a simple example. Please don't turn that into something different also. If I wanted to go to extremes, I could have used a 35 year interest free 125% mortgage.

Most homebuyers take out repayment mortgages - interest only mortgages are only taken out by a minority, or for a short period. But even for those people with interest only mortgages, say they did want to take one out over 25 years, their interest payments would be peanuts twenty years down the line - and that property would be worth 10 times what they owed on it. So they'd still be quids in.:money:

You can't have it both ways, Graham. You can't on the one hand say that all people should be able to afford a home of their own, and then in the next breath say that banks should tighten up their criteria on who they lend to.

It seems that you would like it if properties were all at 1970 levels. But that wouldn't work either, cos then EVERYONE would be rushing to buy the best ones and it would push the prices up again!!

Don't you agree?

Graham_Devon

Don't you agree?

Nope

pickledpink wrote: »

You can't have it both ways, Graham. You can't on the one hand say that all people should be able to afford a home of their own, and then in the next breath say that banks should tighten up their criteria on who they lend to.

It seems that you would like it if properties were all at 1970 levels. But that wouldn't work either, cos then EVERYONE would be rushing to buy the best ones and it would push the prices up again!!

Firstly, I'm not saying all people should be able to own, that's the very reason that I purposely said "within reason" in my above post.

Secondly, tighter lending will go hand in hand with lowering prices. People cannot afford today's properties at todays prices, not families anyway, we have multitudes of stories on here following this. Without parental help, it's almost impossible, especially in the south.

Thirdly, along with the paragraph above, I have said time and time again, second property ownership should be discouraged through taxe's. If BTL is all about the yield as the BTL landlords on here keep saying, they won't then have a problem with puniative capital gains on sale of their BTL. This would discourage what you say above, rich people just buying them up, which is what got us into this mess in the first place.

I know it's all la la fairy land stuff I'm talking, at least paragrapgh 3 anyway, because the government has too much VI to implement such a thing, but in reality, it's an easy solution to a massive problem.

All I'm saying is, make Homes, Homes. Homes which families are able to buy and provide for their kids. Will save an absolute fortune in social payments too, as people see they can actually do it themselves. We do have people on this forum who see homes as investments. I'm not sure they would continue to do so if they were taxed highly on gains on sales, even though they all say it's about the yield.