58% of properties can be bought by "average income"

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is getting a little silly, and somewhat, desperate.

you mention desperate so i'll reply to that - if anyone is desperate it is your good self Graham. you've only been able to afford to buy half a property as the other half was too expensive as you were priced out.

do you think anything will improve in the next 10-15 years with regards to house prices. they won't so you'll be even further away from buying a bigger home.

so if anyone is desperate it is you........

but i do understand why you did say it - it was because it was a way of deflecting and avoiding answering this question...

chucky wrote: »

what do you think will happen to house prices if you increase the supply?

if simplified the questions so it narrows down your answer for you

do you think house prices will rise?
or
do you think house will go down?

lemonjelly

chucky wrote: »

shared ownership is a good concept.

Speaking as one who was a part cog in selling these, I really do think personally that shared ownership (specifically flats) is not a good idea. I have yet to make a decision on shared ownership houses (I had reduced involvement in these), but my experience with shared ownership flats, people who took them on, & the service these people recieved convinced me to never even contemplate one. & if any friends did, I would advise them not to in the strongest possible terms.

lostinrates wrote: »

Lots of our friends are youngish....approaching middle? professionals in Bath and Bristol and feel priced out. Most don't own.

Many many young people feel priced out. Single people feel completely priced out (& it isn't too long ago that 1 sole wage was used for assessing mortgage entitlement). Some of these will have resigned themselves to a life of renting, or a life of few/little ties.

I know people who have watched HPI with feelings of fear & despair as they've watched their chances of owning fall. & this relates to professionals with owning ambitions.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

you mention desperate so i'll reply to that - if anyone is desperate it is your good self Graham. you've only been able to afford to buy half a property as the other half was too expensive as you were priced out.

do you think anything will improve in the next 10-15 years with regards to house prices. they won't so you'll be even further away from buying a bigger home.

so if anyone is desperate it is you........

but i do understand why you did say it - it was because it was a way of deflecting and avoiding answering this question...

I don't think you understand the meaning of desperate.

However, you have succinctly demonstrated it to all of us.

What a pointless, meaningless attempt to try and pull someone on a forum down.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't think you understand the meaning of desperate.

However, you have succinctly demonstrated it to all of us.

What a pointless, meaningless attempt to try and pull someone on a forum down.

so you've avoided answering the question again

but i do understand why you did say it - it was because it was a way of deflecting and avoiding answering this question...

chucky wrote: »

what do you think will happen to house prices if you increase the supply?

if simplified the questions so it narrows down your answer for you

do you think house prices will rise?
or
do you think house will go down?

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

so you've avoided answering the question again

Yes....because when you first asked it I stated:

Didn't bother with the rest of the supply demand stuff, as it's a never ending circle.

I'm not getting into a never ending circle argument with you on the same topic yet again. I have already stated why I have declined to answer it, so was not deflecting or ignoring that you asked it.

I'm also not going to get into a never ending circle on why I won't answer it.

This is my second decline. Take it or leave it, but feel free to make it into something more than me simply declining to answer, as I'm sure you will

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes....because when you first asked it I stated:

I'm not getting into a never ending circle argument with you on the same topic yet again. I have already stated why I have declined to answer it, so was not deflecting or ignoring that you asked it.

I'm also not going to get into a never ending circle on why I won't answer it.

This is my second decline. Take it or leave it, but feel free to make it into something more than me simply declining to answer, as I'm sure you will

it's a simple answer - it's either Yes or No.
the only reason that you're avoiding answering it is because it goes against what you like to preach on this board.

here it is just to remind you that you're avoiding the question and that's why you put the desperate comment previously.

so you've avoided answering the question again

but i do understand why you did say it - it was because it was a way of deflecting and avoiding answering this question...
[QUOTE=chucky;30848743]what do you think will happen to house prices if you increase the supply?

if simplified the questions so it narrows down your answer for you

do you think house prices will rise?
or
do you think house will go down?

[/QUOTE]

don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to criticise Hamish for avoiding questions but you do is so blatantly?

lazer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Quote:
Perhaps the best prospects for buyers are well away from London and the southeast. Research for Zoopla, a property website, has found that affordability has been improved by an earlier fall in house prices and lower mortgage rates, so 58% of properties in the UK can be bought by average-income earners, compared with 34% in 2007.

The most affordable city in the UK is Bradford, where 82% of homes are in this category, followed by Hull (81%), Stoke (80%), Birmingham and Coventry (both on 78%). London comes a long way behind on just 32%. Go north, young man (and woman).

Can someone please clarify this for me, when the article states that 82% of homes in Bradford can be bought by average income earners, does this mean average income earners in Bradford or average income earners in the UK?

dazeruk

lazer wrote: »

Can someone please clarify this for me, when the article states that 82% of homes in Bradford can be bought by average income earners, does this mean average income earners in Bradford or average income earners in the UK?

From the article

'We calculate the affordability rate using median incomes and average house prices in each geographic area along with prevailing mortgage rates.'

So they use the median income of people in Bradford compared to average house prices in Bradford.

moggylover

lemonjelly wrote: »

Speaking as one who was a part cog in selling these, I really do think personally that shared ownership (specifically flats) is not a good idea. I have yet to make a decision on shared ownership houses (I had reduced involvement in these), but my experience with shared ownership flats, people who took them on, & the service these people recieved convinced me to never even contemplate one. & if any friends did, I would advise them not to in the strongest possible terms.



Many many young people feel priced out. Single people feel completely priced out (& it isn't too long ago that 1 sole wage was used for assessing mortgage entitlement). Some of these will have resigned themselves to a life of renting, or a life of few/little ties.

I know people who have watched HPI with feelings of fear & despair as they've watched their chances of owning fall. & this relates to professionals with owning ambitions.

I think the scariest part of the rampant price rises is that it is not just those on minimum wage or little above that can no longer afford to buy, but also those on fairly decent "middle income" wages who would not usually have ever needed to look for a FTB type property because their joint incomes would have made that 3 bed, suburban semi very nicely affordable thank you.

Do we really want a return to the situation where only a very small percentage of the population owns property and the rest of us need to be very grateful to them for renting us their slums?

moggylover

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes....because when you first asked it I stated:

I'm not getting into a never ending circle argument with you on the same topic yet again. I have already stated why I have declined to answer it, so was not deflecting or ignoring that you asked it.

I'm also not going to get into a never ending circle on why I won't answer it.

This is my second decline. Take it or leave it, but feel free to make it into something more than me simply declining to answer, as I'm sure you will

Graham, I think you have made some very good points on here, and I do agree with your feelings on housing completely.

However, I do find it at variance with your previously stated very strong beliefs in allowing market forces free reign, and wonder how you settle this difference in your own mind? Is it that you see housing as a separate and "special" entity that needs more regulation or do you think that it is both housing, and lending for investment in BTL property that needs to be "controlled" and not allowed to go with the market flow?