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

nembot

I could just about afford my own house with using 3½ multiple, ten years after I bought originally and I'm an above average earner.

58% MY A R S E....

moggylover

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

I'm pretty sure that we can all understand why the banks were not allowed to fail: problem is we don't seem to understand the importance of restraining them for the future so clearly;)

With regard to people getting help in keeping their houses, and the market being propped up. Put yourself in the position of having worked hard and climbed the ladder a bit, got yourself a decent position and started a family and then, due to the gross dishonesty and stupidity of the bankers, the company you work for goes bancrupt and you end up redundant. In view of the fact that the banks got a bail-out despite being to blame for their own problems, would you not have felt somewhat aggrieved at loosing everything, your home included, when tax-payer money was being used to bail out those whose personal wealth means that they were not suffering at all (and still are not) for the incompetence and lack of moral fibre.

I wouldn't have a tiny smidgeon of sympathy for the BTL bunch in this situation, but the ordinary house owner like you or I? Yes, he does deserve help, and the tenants of the BTL landlord deserve some as well.

It is extremely easy for people like myself who already own their home outright or who have been buying for some years without remortgaging to the hilt, or for those who still want to buy a house, to talk about a need for rationalising house prices: not so much fun for those who would have to loose the homes they have worked hard for in order to bring about the price drops;)

I certainly cannot bring myself to wish ill-fortune on one lot of decent, ordinary and hard working people to fuel the desires of another lot of decent, ordinary and hard working people! Especially not since it would probably be the extremely rich and the BTL brigade who would be best able to buy up those cheap properties and add to their "portfolios" in any event;)

Personally, I think we need a far more radical approach to ensuring there is affordable housing for all (not necessarily all owned) but then I'm a socialist and I believe that we all have a right to be decently housed: as a capitalist you will see it as a privilege due to some but not others;)

moggylover

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Absolutely no one has said that. I have even stated up above that it was indirect, and that it is pointless simply excluding it because it was not direct support.

Could argue till the cows come home on this one, but although it was not direct, it HAS had a huge impact, some of the impact being directly intended, such as "lend more".

But the amount of lending is still way down on peak, and the terms are far more difficult to satisfy so I don't think the effect of this will have been massive.

I keep seeing all the talk about house prices holding on or going up again. When I look at the market around here (and I admit it is probably not representative of all of the Country) what I see is houses still on the market that were there 5 years ago, and much of what was on the market last year when I was looking to move still on the market. Some have reduced their prices and sold: many are still as overpriced as they were pre-crash and have not. Estate agents are being honest that it is still extremely slow around here, although not quite so bad as last year and year before, and that people buying are looking for a very sensible price on the property. I suspect that is going on in all but the most over-populated areas across the Country.

moggylover

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Mortgages are still freely available.

Without Government intervention, ie bank support both HBOS and RBS would have collapsed causing chaos in the UK lending markets.

This wouldn't have just applied to mortgage lending.

This wouldn't just have applied to the UK either;)

ukcarper

moggylover wrote: »

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?

That won't happen though because there is a pool of privately own houses and the the price will remain at a level to support those.

nickj_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You don't get it.

They have been building cheap property for years. But it's still not cheap.

What are you suggesting here chucky? They should start building even smaller FTB type properties? Cram even more on to a plot? That way they can be a little bit cheaper?

We already have shared ownership, to give cheaper properties. These too have inflated along with the rest.


So what exactly are you suggesting here? As "build cheaper properties" just aint gonna work, as you well know, as they will always be priced by the market.

And purplease, don't just come back with the "supply / demand" line.

the starter homes a few doors up from my house are 2 bed with a living room and kitchen diner , thee living room is about 10ftx10ft , you can get a sofa and tv and maybe 1 armchair if lucky and that is it , the dining area you can get a small table and nowt else - these houses atm are going for around £180k - they are nothing special .
if they are to build houses in areas where average or less earners want to live then the houses will have to be even smaller if poss , maybe they could make them with a hole in the bedroom wall so when you're in bed you can lie out straight with your feet outside the house

Graham_Devon

nickj wrote: »

the starter homes a few doors up from my house are 2 bed with a living room and kitchen diner , thee living room is about 10ftx10ft , you can get a sofa and tv and maybe 1 armchair if lucky and that is it , the dining area you can get a small table and nowt else - these houses atm are going for around £180k - they are nothing special .
if they are to build houses in areas where average or less earners want to live then the houses will have to be even smaller if poss , maybe they could make them with a hole in the bedroom wall so when you're in bed you can lie out straight with your feet outside the house

That's the same as mine. You could fit a 2 seater table into the "dining" area. 4 seater would be a PITA as you would have to keep squeezing past.

Only have a sofa in the living room, can't fit a chair too

Mine was £135k early 2006.

Thrugelmir

moggylover wrote: »

This wouldn't just have applied to the UK either;)

Which other countries does it apply to?

moggylover

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Which other countries does it apply to?

Ours were not the only banking institutions at threat of going down, nor the only ones bailed out. Furthermore, most of the banks had a lot of involvement in international transactions and had several banks all failed at the same time the knock-on would likely have been a bit like watching dominoes fall;)

We are long past the days when each bank was capable of standing alone and affecting only its own solvency.

Thrugelmir

moggylover wrote: »

Ours were not the only banking institutions at threat of going down, nor the only ones bailed out. Furthermore, most of the banks had a lot of involvement in international transactions and had several banks all failed at the same time the knock-on would likely have been a bit like watching dominoes fall;)

We are long past the days when each bank was capable of standing alone and affecting only its own solvency.

Bailed out more than others. I think your underestimating how big the 4 major banks are, and the effect that the demise of RBS and HBOS would have had on London as a financial centre.