Support grows for 70% crash

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh look, Julie has run out of extremist scenarios so is now copying Hamish.

Graham, you are dodging any difficult questions by inserting sarcastic personal comments. It's a deflection technique because you're in an argument in which you're clueless. So don't be surprised if people react by doing the same.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

Falls would be great but I am more than happy with stagnation for a few years.

with less disposable income due to tax rises and inflation eating at the dispoable income too while your paying for a house at the same price...

you haven't thought this one through have you...

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Graham, you are dodging any difficult questions by inserting sarcastic personal comments. It's a deflection technique because you're in an argument in which you're clueless. So don't be surprised if people react by doing the same.

I've answered everything you have asked me to answer.

I just didn't choose to answer with the options you gave me.

And erm, hello? Who started the sarcastic personal comments with the "oh look, a shiny thing"?

Was that me? Oh no, that was you who took it upon themselves to start.

So do me a favour, !!!!!!.

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

with less disposable income due to tax rises and inflation eating at the dispoable income too while your paying for a house at the same price...

you haven't thought this one through have you...

by definition if I buy ths week those sames factors will affect my ability to pay in the future so I ahev to consider them however I look at it.

Its more a case of I am in the clearing debts/saving deposit phase right now, so for prices to stay where they are will help instead of my deposit needed being an increasing target.

I probably could get a house right now but it would put me in a tricky situation if things do go wrong, so I am getting myself into a good position before I jump in.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

by definition if I buy ths week those sames factors will affect my ability to pay in the future so I ahev to consider them however I look at it.

it allows you to pay over pay that disposable income that would be paid in extra tax or eaten up by inflation.

it's not a one size fits all statement but for those hoping for stagnation the argument doesn't stand up as good... you only beneifit if you see large drops as in over 10% per year.

nollag2006

It's amazing how quickly the bears have run from the 70% figure.

I set up a poll earlier today on 2010 HPI, and not even a single person has voted that a 70% fall is credible.

baby_boomer

chucky wrote: »

and your post accurately reflects on the percentage of property that was owner occupied in the 1950s - just 30%, now it's close to 70% which tells us it's easier to buy now than it would have been then

I agree that there were obstacles in the 1950s e.g. no mortgages for women & having to save with the building society to build up your credit-worthiness.

But it doesn't account for everything by a long chalk. The culture carried over from the deflationary 1930s & the life & death uncertainty of the war years was not conducive to home ownership - therefore people didn't look to own their own home. My grandfather, a foreman who bought his own house in the 1930s, was regarded as mad by his fellow workers!

And there are significant new obstacles in the 2010s. Student debt hitting £35K+ (which has barely impacted on the housing market yet). The growing baby_boomer landlord class looking for retirement income & putting up prices for first time buyers. Banks & BSs not wanting to take any risks with their lending in the credit crunch aftermath as they seek to rebuild capital and repay the government.

The home owner ratio will decline from 70% to less than 60% over the next two decades. Thatcher's "home owning democracy" revolution will be undone.

[Deleted User]

baby_boomer wrote: »

I agree that there were obstacles in the 1950s e.g. no mortgages for women & having to save with the building society to build up your credit-worthiness.

But it doesn't account for everything by a long chalk. The culture carried over from the deflationary 1930s & the life & death uncertainty of the war years was not conducive to home ownership - therefore people didn't look to own their own home. My grandfather, a foreman who bought his own house in the 1930s, was regarded as mad by his fellow workers!

And there are significant new obstacles in the 2010s. Student debt hitting £35K+ (which has barely impacted on the housing market yet). The growing baby_boomer landlord class looking for retirement income & putting up prices for first time buyers. Banks & BSs not wanting to take any risks with their lending in the credit crunch aftermath as they seek to rebuild capital and repay the government.

The home owner ratio will decline from 70% to less than 60% over the next two decades.

That all sounds reasonable to me. But the point being made was that at this point in time it's easier for a couple on average wage to buy a house than it was in the 50's. It will indeed get harder as house prices continue to climb. And I suspect that will result in a drop in the home owner ratio. But there's a way to go before it's as hard as it was in the 50's.

Of course, what we need to see is what options are going to be available for those that can't buy. Both government and builders are offering part-buy part-rent schemes. I don't know how good they are? If I were to rent I think I'd rather rent from the council - espeically as they'd probably at some point give me the option to buy.