House prices - Statistics

brit1234

Batchy wrote: »

The only people who want a crash is FTB's so they can bag a bargain.

:mad:

No I want prices to crash so I can afford a ftb property like most over first time buyers. It is nothing about grabbing a bargain its about unsustainable price rises putting any property out of reach.

Your comment is insulting, I hope this wasn't your intention.

Pimperne1

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer, cus selling one house cheaper is going to send the housing market into a downward spiral.

Utter nonsense ISTL, and you know it.

You've said before that landlords provide a service, and help out those who can't afford to buy a property. If this is really so, why don't you help them out more, and stop charging them rent to live in your place?

Not so good when the boots on your foot, is it?

To be fair ISTL didn't have the cheek to say he hoped rents would fall after he had been a major beneficiary of high rents though.

Cleaver

Chris2685 wrote: »

I think you outline it perfectly.

FTB's want prices to drop
Upsizers want prices to drop, but at the same time don't want THEIR OWN property to drop
Landlords want prices to rise, because that means rents will also rise AND their asset grows in value
Top rungers want prices to go up up up

You missed out another catagory.

80% of the general public: don't really care that much because it's not really much of a concern to them. They don't track prices, they don't really keep abreast of Nationwide reports and shrug their shoulders at the ups and the downs of the housing market. Most probably feel that their house will go up in value over the long term, but aren't really that bothered.

My Dad would be classed as a 'top runger', and he really couldn't give a t*ss about the price of his house (just as an example).

Cleaver

Batchy wrote: »

The only people who want a crash is FTB's so they can bag a bargain.

brit1234 wrote: »

:mad: No I want prices to crash so I can afford a ftb property like most over first time buyers.

Isn't this the same thing?

Pimperne1

nearlynew wrote: »

I own 2 houses but I think prices are too high and want them to fall


(which they are doing)

How far would you like them to fall?

Graham_Devon

Malcolm. wrote: »

Cus if you don't charge for the service, you can't afford to provide it.

It's not rocket science Graham.

Not that simple either is it.

I can afford to provide services for nothing.

I don't.

Would be silly to do that wouldn't it really. Could turn up to work a day for free, but why would I?

ISTL is asking nearlynew to sell at a much reduced cost rather than the market value at the time, just to make a lone standpoint about the market, which will make no difference to the market at all.

Realise this is all the bulls have at the moment, but come on, bit desperate isnt it?

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not that simple either is it.

I can afford to provide services for nothing.

I don't.

Would be silly to do that wouldn't it really. Could turn up to work a day for free, but why would I?

Of couse you can't afford to provide 'services' for nothing. If you did provide services for nothing you'd run out of money, thus this is the very definition of not being able to afford something.

I swear sometimes that you could start an argument in an empty room Graham. And still manage to confuse yourself.

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

Of couse you can't afford to provide 'services' for nothing. If you did provide services for nothing you'd run out of money, thus this is the very definition of not being able to afford something.

I swear sometimes that you could start an argument in an empty room Graham. And still manage to confuse yourself.

ISTL works I assume.

He could probably manage two mortgage payments, and allow his tennants to live rent free. This isn't his only income stream. It's a pension setup, as he's said before.

Or are we all suggesting ISTL is on the breadline, and could not possibly have a void in rental?

My point was he could probably, lets face it, do without the rental income and keep the 2nd home. He was basically asking nearlynew to do the same thing.

Theres no real need for the last sentence. It's a debate board. I'm not looking for an argument, just making a point. It only becomes an argument when you got those kind of holier than thou responses.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

ISTL works I assume.

He could probably manage two mortgage payments, and allow his tennants to live rent free. This isn't his only income stream. It's a pension setup, as he's said before.

Or are we all suggesting ISTL is on the breadline, and could not possibly have a void in rental?

My point was he could probably, lets face it, do without the rental income and keep the 2nd home. He was basically asking nearlynew to do the same thing.

I've not read the debate between nearly and ISTL. You said:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not that simple either is it.

I can afford to provide services for nothing.

But this isn't true is it? Presumably you'd run out of money very quickly doing this, thus you can't afford to provide services for nothing.

Pimperne1

Malcolm. wrote: »

It makes sense to me Graham.

I give to charities because I think they deserve and need the monies more than me.

Why not sell a second home to a deserving couple (or cause) at below market value.

Or is NN too obsessed with wealth accumulation?

To be fair to Nearlynew his point could be that he is prepared to make the sacrifice if everyone else is. He should be commended for this (although having significantly benefited from the HPI in the first place does put him on a slightly better footing than anyone else who has started from scratch - if he has also managed to silt some equity away in the bank too then Weh Heh).