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

Graham_Devon

moggylover wrote: »

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?

I do believe in a free market and letting market forces reign.

That's not where we are though. Property has been bolstered up by stimulus. Such as halting of reposessions, mortgage guarantee, forced lending in return for QE etc.

What we have at the moment is the housing market, and more importantly, investments, being sheltered by way of spending money we will ALL have to pay back through high taxes and lower services.

That's not in any way a free market. Neither is saving the banks (not that I don't see the importance of that).

IF we had let market forces run, I think we would be in a position now, where the market was sorting itself out. Those unable to cope with the conditions would have failed. Same with homebuyers unable to cope. There would have been a lot of pain, yes. But we would have also been at a point now (I believe) where the market has found it's own level.

We cannot have that position at the moment as everything that can be done to keep the market up, is being done.

If you are trying to figure out why I'm reluctant to get into a supply and demand argument with chucky, stick around long enough, or have one yourself with him and you will see

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Those unable to cope with the conditions would have failed.

The only things that have helped owners is low IR but that would have happened anyway because it was a response to the recession.
Also owners can claim housing benefit if entitled but that is the same as those who rent, so again not aimed at owners and was around pre crash.

The only thing aimed at the housing market was the stamp duty threshold and in reality that will have caused a blip the start of this year but should be out of the system by the end of this month.

So what conditions have really changed for home owners?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

The only things that have helped owners is low IR but that would have happened anyway because it was a response to the recession.
Also owners can claim housing benefit if entitled but that is the same as those who rent, so again not aimed at owners and was around pre crash.

The only thing aimed at the housing market was the stamp duty threshold and in reality that will have caused a blip the start of this year but should be out of the system by the end of this month.

So what conditions have really changed for home owners?

Low IR's has helped.

One of the biggest things that has helped is the lack of negative equity to more home owners. That's been helped by extra lending requirements put on banks, enabling more to get mortgages, enabling more houses to sell while at low supply, pushing prices up.

Also the halting of reposessions also helped those who may have been reposessed. Also the extra months before looking at reposessions for those unable to pay their mortgages has helped. Also the lowering of the time that it takes for benefits to cover the interest on your mortgage.

The stamp duty thing has done little compared to most of those.

And I know the rest of the stimulus was NOT direct. Have said that about 5 times on other threads. But it did help indirectly. No real point in ignoring all the said stimulus just because it wasn't directed at the housing market. It's helped the market massively, indirectly or not.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you are trying to figure out why I'm reluctant to get into a supply and demand argument with chucky, stick around long enough, or have one yourself with him and you will see

if you could answer the question you would but unfortunately the answer is one that makes your argument wrong...

here it is again for you to avoid

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?

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

lostinrates

Of all the things that make me most cross about housing costs today IR is pretty low on the list.

chucky

moggylover wrote: »

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?

this is my point all along that Graham was contesting

the ratio of cheaper priced properties is very small probably non-existent compared to the same ratio 10 years ago. this pushes up the prices in the rest of the housing market, which is your point above.

the reason for this is the lack of affordable property at entry level. if there was enough property at this level prices would not have risen as quickly.

abaxas

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's helped the market massively, indirectly or not.

Hmm, I'm not sure that keeping people who in homes they cant afford can be classed as helping.

Graham_Devon

abaxas wrote: »

Hmm, I'm not sure that keeping people who in homes they cant afford can be classed as helping.

It means it's not a reposession.

One other thing I missed was the sell and rent back scheme, for those who did face real reposession. This is a new thing at reposession point, and over 90,000 people used it in 2009, according to the BBC (which I wrote about a while ago). That's another 90,000 less repo's.

I#m not saying any of this is particularly wrong. I'm just explaining my answer to moggylover

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It means it's not a reposession.

One other thing I missed was the sell and rent back scheme, for those who did face real reposession. This is a new thing at reposession point, and over 90,000 people used it in 2009, according to the BBC (which I wrote about a while ago). That's another 90,000 less repo's.

I#m not saying any of this is particularly wrong. I'm just explaining my answer to moggylover

Were they all repos though or was that total including people retiring etc.

AFAIK a lot of pensioners look in to them.
Can't see it being a good option for many who are near repo as it would be a lot less than market value?????

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Were they all repos though or was that total including people retiring etc.

AFAIK a lot of pensioners look in to them.

They were specifically talking about reposessions, was on radio 5 on the way home from work about a couple of months back.