Support grows for 70% crash

Percy1983

You are still missing my point, I am not in a bad situation and will be able to get a house, I built debts up and am now paying them (thankful I got that out of my system before buying a house).

As it is I will be able to buy a house, but that doesn't make the system right, currently I am at the mercy of if prices go up/down as I am not in a position to buy right now.

But due to my age and wages from my early days even if I was 100% debt free I wouldn't be able to afford a house anyway as the earliest I could have been able to look would have been 2005.

So in summary I am more than happy to say the reason I can't afford a house right now is due to a wild youth (mars bars and loose women). My point is I am lining my finances up to buy and I don't agree that I should have to pay through the nose to get something which generations before me haven't had to do to the same extent.

As for negative equity, if its somebody who has bought in the last few years, then sorry they will just have to live in the house the picked, but how many people in negative equity are there due to borrowing against the value of there ever increasing house price to buy nice cars, speed boats, loose women and mars bars?

The end of there day there would be a lot more houses to go round if there wasn't wall the buy to let bulls around, they are actually causing more demand for houses.

As much as I doubt 70% will happen a big part of me hopes it does just to see what happens to all the bulls when there market goes as the poor can now get there owm mortgages instead of paying one for the bulls.

So just to repeat I am not froze out of the market and I don't need prices to fall to buy, but I am fighting for all those who are froze out. Its nothing personal against the bulls but they must see they are part of the problem.

chucky

nearlynew wrote: »

why would I do that then?

because that's what the HPC cult wants you to do - you're a HPI cheerleader so you wouldn't understand...

you're a multiple property owner and are addicted to HPI

nearlynew

chucky wrote: »

because that's what the HPC cult wants you to do - you're a HPI cheerleader so you wouldn't understand...

you're a multiple property owner and are addicted to HPI

Have you been drinking?

chucky

nearlynew wrote: »

Have you been drinking?

no not yet - but i will be tonight!!! :beer:

you cannot hide away from being a HPI cheerleader who owns multiple properties.

nearlynew

.............. If you say so.

Graham_Devon

nearlynew wrote: »

That is my whole point. They should be repossessed.

Instead they are being propped up by funny money in an attempt to maintain high prices.

What you cannot explain is why it is ok for one group of people to be able to "own" a house when they can't afford it...

While on the other hand saying those who are priced out are just part of the group of people who, historically, can never afford to buy.


ps I own 2 houses, not 4

Me, me sir!

Cus reposessions will force prices down.

People priced out will force prices up in the long run.

Chucky didn't want to say it, so I thought I may aswell, though I fear I will be missing the point....the point that won't be explained.

julieq

It's a dumb question really, because it's presenting a completely false set of alternatives.

"Should" is a leading word. It implies a moral imperative. If borrowers are defaulting on debt, it's up to the lender to work out whether they exercise sanctions against them. It's a commercial issue, not one of morality.

Were the banks to flood the market with repossessions, they'd simply be cutting their own throats. It's really not going to happen.

They may take the view that they want to cut forward risk by stopping lending to groups proving to be higher risk in the new circumstances they find themselves in, but that doesn't mean there's any reason why they'd take a hard line on existing defaulters at a time when the default rates are low anyway.

Is it "fair" that one group has benefitted from lax lending and a soft line on repossessions while others in substantially the same position can't buy? Maybe not, but that's how it is. It matters not a jot whether I or Chucky or anyone else agrees with it on a moral basis, that's how it is. Life is sometimes unfair.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

It's a dumb question really, because it's presenting a completely false set of alternatives.

"Should" is a leading word. It implies a moral imperative. If borrowers are defaulting on debt, it's up to the lender to work out whether they exercise sanctions against them. It's a commercial issue, not one of morality.

Were the banks to flood the market with repossessions, they'd simply be cutting their own throats. It's really not going to happen.

They may take the view that they want to cut forward risk by stopping lending to groups proving to be higher risk in the new circumstances they find themselves in, but that doesn't mean there's any reason why they'd take a hard line on existing defaulters at a time when the default rates are low anyway.

Is it "fair" that one group has benefitted from lax lending and a soft line on repossessions while others in substantially the same position can't buy? Maybe not, but that's how it is. It matters not a jot whether I or Chucky or anyone else agrees with it on a moral basis, that's how it is. Life is sometimes unfair.

I agree.

But to be fair, that wasn't an answer to the question posed. The question was about being against reposessions.

[Deleted User]

Percy1983 wrote: »

So in summary I am more than happy to say the reason I can't afford a house right now is due to a wild youth (mars bars and loose women). My point is I am lining my finances up to buy and I don't agree that I should have to pay through the nose to get something which generations before me haven't had to do to the same extent.

On another thread I've demonstrated that you can still buy a house similar to my 'first rung' on the property ladder even if you're on minimum wage. It might not be to your liking but that's what most of the generations before you had to do. It's not always been as easy as you think.

I've also explained that my parents (married in the 50's) had to live in a rented room for 10 years while they saved up a 50% deposit on a house. They were only allowed to borrow 1.5% of the man's wage back then. Both my parents were Civil Servants so not exactly on poverty wages.

It hasn't been as easy as you think in the past. In fact, just over Christmas my cousin and I were talking about how our grandparents scrimped and saved and how it's gotten easier for each generation since then. The youngest generation (my neices and nephews who are in their early 20's) are doing the best of all of us. Of course, they don't realise that!

As for negative equity, if its somebody who has bought in the last few years, then sorry they will just have to live in the house the picked, but how many people in negative equity are there due to borrowing against the value of there ever increasing house price to buy nice cars, speed boats, loose women and mars bars?

This is fair comment. A lot of the reason why young people today *THINK* that they should be able to by a 90k house as a first time home is because that's what has been happening very recently. But people have been living outwith their means and that can't be sustained. You can't expect to have what they have had.

Tell us about your parents, grandparents. Where did they live? How long did it take them to buy their homes. That's more realistic than looking at the yuppy generation or later.

roswell

surely thier is more support for 100% crash than a 70% crash ...............