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

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

no Graham, you don't understand or you don't want to understand because a person you categorise as a 'bull' points it out.
this is why people laugh and mock you.

the reason that people on the 'average salary' or below 'average salary' cannot afford property is because there is not enough lower priced property that fits their income bracket/multiples.

this is because the properties that were in this bracket 10 years ago have moved up in price and new property has not been built to replace them in these lower price brackets. this is fact.

this is the demand and supply issue that you miss on countless occasions.

the average salary affordability issue is a red herring

You don't half state the obvious chucky. ALL property has moved up in price.

THAT's the problem. Though you seem to be spinning it into something different. Or at least, trying to.

I do so wish that for once you could discuss amicably instead of merely chucking insults in every post.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You don't half state the obvious chucky. ALL property has moved up in price.

THAT's the problem. Though you seem to be spinning it into something different. Or at least, trying to.

you still don't get it... plus i can't see any insults there.

not building lower priced property means that those coming new onto the market cannot find enough cheap property and chase the price up of the cheaper properties on the market.

all they are doing is moving the first rung higher and higher each time whilst salaries only move with inflation.

IveSeenTheLight

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

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

Whether this is true or not, the average property should be able to be purchased with the average income, end of.

If there was more supply, then maybe they would be affordable to 100%.
Until the supply / demand balance is re-addressed, then your swimming against the tide.

Build more properties to cope with the demand and see the 58% rise.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

you still don't get it... plus i can't see any insults there.

not building lower priced property means that those coming new onto the market cannot find enough cheap property and chase the price up of the cheaper properties on the market.

all they are doing is moving the first rung higher and higher each time whilst salaries only move with inflation.

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.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

it's built in the wrong areas and adjacent to existing properties so the same prices will be the same or higher.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

that would be stupid and is a stupid reply.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

shared ownership is a good concept.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

the answer is to increase the supply of property or reduce the demand for property by capping rents.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

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: »

it's built in the wrong areas and adjacent to existing properties so the same prices will be the same or higher.

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

But the bit I have quoted....

This is because there is absolutely no point building some houses in the middle of nowhere. I won't bother going into the reasons why, such as work, transport, schools etc.

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

Night.

DaddyBear

silvercar wrote: »

A lot of the 130 properties under 190k will not be FTB properties.

Maybe, but a lot of the properties above £190k are first time buyer properties.

silvercar

DaddyBear wrote: »

Maybe, but a lot of the properties above £190k are first time buyer properties.

In Bath they are probably second home properties rather than FTBs.

You may call them FTB properties, but it may be that some people start off tiny and get to these as their second home.

lostinrates

silvercar wrote: »

In Bath they are probably second home properties rather than FTBs.

You may call them FTB properties, but it may be that some people start off tiny and get to these as their second home.

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

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

Are. We. Really. Having. This. Pointless. And. Unsolvable. Debate. Again.

Someone. Please. Shoot. Me.

I'll make a suicide pact with you, if that helps.

I don't think its stupid and pointless, as it happens, but I wish someone would show a whole new perspective on it every now and again. I do think its discussed stupid and pointlessly though..hence pact..