Parents want a house price FALL to help their children get on the property ladder

carolt

MadnessOfHPC wrote: »

If I interviewed 1000 set of parents and only 1 couple said they thought house prices should fall to help their children onto the ladder then you could STILL produce a thread title like 'Parents want a house price fall to help their children'. However, knowing the OP and their secret agenda I believe this thread and its title disingenuous and misleading to other posters. I therefore table that this thread be locked down.

You don't 'know' me, and my 'agenda' is hardly secret.

You, however, are a blatant sockie, and should be banned.

At least have the courage to post under your usual username.

Despicable individual.

carolt

MadnessOfHPC wrote: »

Sorry to rain on your parade but I have no other account here and admin are more than free to check IPs. In fact I'd gladly welcome it as it'd put an end to your baseless unfounded allegation.

Rubbish.

You're Hamish.

And I'm sure admin have better things to do.

dopester

CLAPTON wrote: »

two people
mr flash and mr sensible
both have similar incomes and their family situations are similar
both decide to buy a property

my flash mortages himself to the hilt and buys a nice detached house
my sensible is worried about the financial risk, unemployment etc and so borrows cautiously and only can afford a terrace


sadly a few years later both suffer employment problems

mr flash get his interest paid for by the taxpayer (it's cheaper paying the mortgage than kicking the family out) and so continues to enjoy his detached house
mr sensible can just about afford his smaller mortgage so he little or no support from the tax payer

what lessons can be learned by people considering buying a property?

And Mr Renter, who baulked at the asking price of the terrace in 2004... worried about the mortgage commitment into the future, can just be stomped upon, due to all the efforts and schemes given to support those who over-borrowed for both terraces and flashy homes. Or those who've MEWed for the good life.

SMI for 12 months or so would be good. After that, the government should be looking at a variety of other routes, such as buying out the mortgage owner and taking over the asset at a decent price. The tennants can stay there, paying rent and so on.

silvercar

dopester wrote: »

And Mr Renter, who baulked at the asking price of the terrace in 2004... worried about the mortgage commitment into the future, can just be stomped upon, due to all the efforts and schemes given to support those who over-borrowed for both terraces and flashy homes. Or those who've MEWed for the good life.

Did Mr Renter do his research? Mr Renter would know that, should he ever be in a position of no job and no money, he could rely on the state paying his rent for ever.

SMI has come and it will go at some point, whereas some form of housing benefit will always be around.


Mr Renter chose not to buy, even knowing that repo rates are very, very low. So Mr Renter is risk adverse and would rather be happy knowing he has his savings in his bank, so will never have to rely on living at benefit levels.

You paint a picture of home owners being worry free. The fact is that with no job and no savings you are surviving on benefit levels and have to maintain your home. I know people who are finding this difficult. A boiler breaks down and thats £200. A lock snaps, another £50.

satchmeister

silvercar wrote: »

Did Mr Renter do his research? Mr Renter would know that, should he ever be in a position of no job and no money, he could rely on the state paying his rent for ever.

SMI has come and it will go at some point, whereas some form of housing benefit will always be around.


Mr Renter chose not to buy, even knowing that repo rates are very, very low. So Mr Renter is risk adverse and would rather be happy knowing he has his savings in his bank, so will never have to rely on living at benefit levels.

You paint a picture of home owners being worry free. The fact is that with no job and no savings you are surviving on benefit levels and have to maintain your home. I know people who are finding this difficult. A boiler breaks down and thats £200. A lock snaps, another £50.

Home 'owners' should be worry free, they have an asset that doubles in value every seven years and if they can't afford the interest because they have no job the governement will pay. Then when they get a job they can restart paying the interest and reap the benefits of the seven-year HPI.

PhylPho

satchmeister wrote: »

Home 'owners' should be worry free, they have an asset that doubles in value every seven years.

Best bit of news I've read for ages.

Like umpteen thousand others, we bought our current house in 2005. So we and others like us with purchases dating from January-June 2005 now have only a relatively short time to go before our 100% return on capital invested (we have no mortgage) materialises -- in our case, £400k pocketed for our £200k outlay.

So much for all the cynics and moaners out there who say the future is going to be hellish as the nation struggles towards economic recovery. Whereas 2012 will instead be A Very Good Year as by that time I will have racked up £2,381 every month for the past five years without lifting a finger and be able to come on MSE and boast about how clever I am.

Unless there's a slight flaw in the math, somewhere?