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

satchmeister

silvercar wrote: »

and the investors will plough in, again pushing FTBs out.

So high prices are there to help FTBs, I didn't realise that.

ILW

I would guess that the majority of people have a fair amount of equity in their homes. That is unless they bought between 3 and 6 years ago or kept remortgaging to buy cars and holidays. The former I would sympathise with, the latter I would consider it their own fault.

satchmeister

phil_b wrote: »

Parents want prices to drop eh... But I bet not one of them would sell their own home for anything less than market value.

Not relevant as their house is in an area that is immune from price falls. They expect prices to fall in the areas where their kids want to buy.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

carolt wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314121/Parents-want-house-price-FALL-help-children-property-ladder.html

Just to show that even those with lots of equity WANT falls.

I see you left out the important details, as always.

A third of middle-class parents are hoping house prices fall to help their children buy their first home.

So presumably Two Thirds are hoping they rise.:cool:

gauly

"Parents want a house price fall to help their children get on the property ladder."

It doesn't work that way though, does it? We've just had a house price fall and even less houses were built than normal, so by definition less people managed to get onto the property ladder, not more.

Those that do manage to get a house pay less money for it, which is a good thing. The recent house price fall meant that some people bought a house who wouldn't have previously been able to, but of course just as many people had the opposite experience. If nothing changes but the price of houses then they will no longer be rationed by price but by some other factor (mortgage rationing probably)

What we really need is an increase in the number of houses built. That would probably also have the effect of lowering prices, but whether it did or not, more people would end up with a house!

Really2

ILW wrote: »

I would guess that the majority of people have a fair amount of equity in their homes. That is unless they bought between 3 and 6 years ago or kept remortgaging to buy cars and holidays. The former I would sympathise with, the latter I would consider it their own fault.

6 years ago would be around 3m first time buyers.

Really2

gauly wrote: »

"Parents want a house price fall to help their children get on the property ladder."

It doesn't work that way though, does it? We've just had a house price fall and even less houses were built than normal, so by definition less people managed to get onto the property ladder, not more.

Those that do manage to get a house pay less money for it, which is a good thing. The recent house price fall meant that some people bought a house who wouldn't have previously been able to, but of course just as many people had the opposite experience. If nothing changes but the price of houses then they will no longer be rationed by price but by some other factor (mortgage rationing probably)

What we really need is an increase in the number of houses built. That would probably also have the effect of lowering prices, but whether it did or not, more people would end up with a house!

Totally agree, The irony is more owners have been able to get houses at a better price than FTBs since prices started to fall.
They also got the very best mortgage rates.

ILW

Really2 wrote: »

6 years ago would be around 3m first time buyers.

Against around 15-20m who were not.

Domthemon

Its a difficult one. I have always thought rising prices a bit of a con. Why? Well most people selling their houses in a boom want something bigger or better.

Your house is £100k, you have 50k to put into it, £50k mortgage. Your next house, ideally, is currently £150k, which would need £100k mortgage.

House prices double. Yours is now worth 200k and you are so chuffed. You sell it and get £150k back, 50k pays off the mortgage
150k House you are buying is now £300k, so you now need to borrow £150k mortgage it whereas originally it would have been a £100k mortgage previously.

It is all a big con really. Unless you downsize, get out and buy a boat on the canal or go into rented, I don't really see how rising prices help those making their way up the ladder. Perhaps I am missing something basic?

ILW

DomtheMon wrote: »

Its a difficult one. I have always thought rising prices a bit of a con. Why? Well most people selling their houses in a boom want something bigger or better.

Your house is £100k, you have 50k to put into it, £50k mortgage. Your next house, ideally, is currently £150k, which would need £100k mortgage.

House prices double. Yours is now worth 200k and you are so chuffed. You sell it and get £150k back, 50k pays off the mortgage
150k House you are buying is now £300k, so you now need to borrow £150k mortgage it whereas originally it would have been a £100k mortgage previously.

It is all a big con really. Unless you downsize, get out and buy a boat on the canal or go into rented, I don't really see how rising prices help those making their way up the ladder. Perhaps I am missing something basic?

I don't thnk you are, many just seem blinded by the idea of how much they are worth.