What price is worth paying for cheaper housing.....

FATBALLZ

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

With population growing at 400,000 a year, the only way to avoid massive HPI is to build a few million more houses in the relatively near future.

And the only way to avoid housebuilding on a massive scale is to avoid population growth.

But population growth is only partially from immigration, and the other part from increased life expectancy and birthrate.

So to avoid it, you need to force people to die sooner, and breed less.

Not to mention, without population growth, taxes would need to double to fund the pensions liability.

So I guess you could have cheaper houses, if you were willing to ban immigration, euthanise the old, sterilise the young, and pay twice the taxes you do now.

Which all seems a bit self defeating, really..... Not to mention more expensive than just paying the going rate for a house to begin with.

I think you missed your calling as a pyramid scheme salesman. House prices, population/pensions, you seem to truly believe the systems work. Unless of course you are a pyramid scheme salesman.. in which case.. good to see somebody follow their dream.:money:

sjaypink

treliac wrote: »

Surely, if it's stretched out too far, it becomes much the same as renting.

There doesn't seem much point in struggling to pay a mortgage for years and years and years, only to have the govt pinch it all back for care home fees or having achieved home ownership at long last...... to have to hand it all over in the form of an inheritance gift.

This is very true.... :cool:

LizzieS wrote: »

3. Income being sufficient to afford houses, be from direct income (earnings) or top-ups from the Government (tax credits)

There seem to be the general opinion that next year public sector jobs will be cut (further), and that TCs will be reduced also...

...I just don't fall for this Housing shortage argument. If the money if not there to buy then its not there, end of (IMHO ).

Mr.Brown_4

What price is worth paying for cheaper housing.....

Hamish my friend, I am often at fault for not taking your posts seriously, and generally trying to undermine them and avoid the real and pertinent questions they raise. On this occasion however I have spent some time thinking about your post and endeavouring to supply a genuine answer which has had some thought behind it.

My answer is... 70% less than current prices.

Procrastinator333

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

With population growing at 400,000 a year, the only way to avoid massive HPI is to build a few million more houses in the relatively near future.

If your suggestions are the ONLY way to avoid hpi, then in effect you are saying that the ONLY driver of house prices is popluation growth.

If that is true, why did prices crash in the first place and why is there not a linear relationship?

System

Ever seen that film groundhog day? It's a bit like here. Could we include a Hamish FAQ at the top of the forum?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

If your suggestions are the ONLY way to avoid hpi, then in effect you are saying that the ONLY driver of house prices is popluation growth.

Population growth is one, and the trend towards smaller households (from people that already have equity, such as divorcees) is another.

If that is true, why did prices crash in the first place and why is there not a linear relationship?

If you remove 70% of the mortgage funding from a market, it will crash. No matter how big the shortage.

If you restrained mortgage funding, it would, temporarily, restrain prices. But only until people saved up enough to pay more, and then it would start climbing again.

The market rations limited supply through price.

Or to put it another way, supply and demand always match perfectly, only the price changes.;)

It is impossible for prices to rise in the absense of a shortage.

If you want to artificially control prices, through lending constraints, price caps, etc, then the market will find another way to ration limited supply. Waiting lists, for example. Like the 30 year waiting lists that already exist for social housing in some areas.

bernard_shaw

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It is impossible for prices to rise in the absense of a shortage.

What rubbish.

ukcarper

treliac wrote: »

Surely, if it's stretched out too far, it becomes much the same as renting.

There doesn't seem much point in struggling to pay a mortgage for years and years and years, only to have the govt pinch it all back for care home fees or having achieved home ownership at long last...... to have to hand it all over in the form of an inheritance gift.

Not really I've only ever had 25yr mortgages but I've had a mortgage for just under 38yrs I think so long as you can pay for it before you retire it’s ok. I feel a lot better about retirement knowing I won’t have to pay any rent.

Procrastinator333

ok, so you worded your first post badly, fair enough.

So now, please correct me if wrong, your argument is that house prices are solely a function of the number of households (population and house size trend) and the availabilty of mortgage lending?

EDIT: and if you do see other variables, what are they?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Population growth is one, and the trend towards smaller households (from people that already have equity, such as divorcees) is another.



If you remove 70% of the mortgage funding from a market, it will crash. No matter how big the shortage.

If you restrained mortgage funding, it would, temporarily, restrain prices. But only until people saved up enough to pay more, and then it would start climbing again.

The market rations limited supply through price.

Or to put it another way, supply and demand always match perfectly, only the price changes.;)

It is impossible for prices to rise in the absense of a shortage.

If you want to artificially control prices, through lending constraints, price caps, etc, then the market will find another way to ration limited supply. Waiting lists, for example. Like the 30 year waiting lists that already exist for social housing in some areas.

Procrastinator333

Just wanted to give this a bump in case MCtavish missed my question.....