Britain 'can not afford another housing boom' - Minister

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I must say, this all smacks of the politics of envy.

I envy no one, especially FTB`s. I think you might like me to be envious of you (maybe that`s why you gave us a list of what was apparently on the Menu the other evening). I find it quite vulgar when people boast about their wealth and possessions, that is certainly nothing to be envious of.

A lot of what you post here smacks of the politics of greed.

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

See, this is the bit you don't get.

Aberdeen has the highest average income in Scotland, but house prices are still affordable and rent is much higher than mortgage costs. Mortgage rationing didn't effect us that much as we have far more high earners (who remained eligible for mortgages), which is why our prices have recovered fully and reached a new peak already.

Ending mortgage rationing won't make much of a difference to me.

It will make a huge difference to the hundreds of thousands of FTB's locked out of the market, and for whom saving a £40,000 deposit is an impossible dream as rent is higher than mortgage costs in their area.

I would have thought that FTBer only needs a deposit of half that amount, or thereabouts. What`s 15% of £120K ? Not £40K.

I think FTBers can get mortgages with a 10% deposit, but if they want a better rate, 20% will be required. What`s 20% of £120K ? No, it still isn`t as much as £40K.

Doesn`t sound as bad as you make out.

Come on Hamish, try harder.

poppycod

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why? Was it supposed to concern me? :rotfl:

Let's take a look at what he said......



Long term stability..... Sounds lovely.

Where do we sign up?



Better build some houses then. Three million or so in the next 15 years ought to do the trick.;)

Of course, that's now impossible seeing as Grant and his mates have launched the new NIMBY charter....

Wait..... I don't suppose a politician is saying one thing and doing another, are they?

Why, politicians would never do a thing like that.......




Now, where have I heard that before?

Oh yes.....

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."
Gordon Brown-1997



So basically, Grant thinks there will be no return to Labour boom and bust.

Nope.... Still sounds very familiar.

Sure I've heard it before.

I wonder where.....

"There will be no return to Tory boom and bust."
Gordon Brown--1997

It can be in everyones interests as much as you like.

But unless you build more houses, you may as well wish for world peace.:rotfl:

Anyway, back to all those "excluded" first time buyers.

I wonder what the real reason is?



Ah. Mortgage rationing.

Epic fail wookie.... Must try harder next time.:D

Epic fai;!?!?

People in glass houses....

You lead in the "epic fail" department by about 20 to 1. :rotfl:

DervProf

DervProf wrote: »

How about putting some money into the hands of businesses ? Remember those ? Before houses, businesses were the way most people made money and paid their way.

What a radical idea, eh ?

You might think the choice is between the property (prospective) owner or the banker. I obviously think a little more than you do.

I`m suprised Hamish hasn`t argued, or proved that this suggestion is wrong, or unworkable.

On second thoughts, I`m not suprised.

Percy1983

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ahhhh. I see.

So it's OK for lots of FTB's to be frozen out of the market.

So long as that FTB isn't YOU.

There is a big difference in our arguements here.

You want everybody born to late froze out of the market for your own selfish needs.

I want the financally inept froze out to bring stability to the market, yes this means I will be able to buy and other will be froze out.

Anyway in summary:

You want people punished for there date of birth.

I want people punished for there lack of financial awareness/control.

Which sounds a fairer system?

michaels

So who really wins and loses from mortgage rationing?

Many FTBs will be delayed in purchasing because of having to find a bigger deposit (exacerbated by student loans which I suspect are already one factor skewing the FTB ratio). Where renting is more expensive than buying this will also make them absolutely worse off as they will spend more years doing relatively expensive renting and less time owning.

If interest rates remain low with a subdued housing market and economy then it is likely that buying housing for renting out will remain more profitable than othe ruses for the capital thus investors with decent amounts of capital and long term investment plans will remain in a position to purchase rental (typically FTB) properties so prices will not fall too far so would be purchasers are unlikely to benefit from substantially lower prices resulting from the lending restrictions. Rents are unlikely to fall far as there remains an imbalance between supply and demand.

So my conclusion is that lending restrictions are likely to moderate prices but are unlikely to make it any easier for first time buyers to get on to the property ladder and may instead just encourage a shift back to i higher proportion of the population living in rented accommodation, the return to those with capital coming via rental returns compared to the situation with higher borrowing and ownership whereby the returns to capital come via bank deposits.

Cleaver

doire wrote: »

Ahhh but this surely government will have learnt a lesson after the biggest economic mess since the 1920's nearly ruined the country

For someone normally so pessimistic that's an incredibly optimistic view.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

There is a big difference in our arguements here.

You want everybody born to late froze out of the market for your own selfish needs.

I want the financally inept froze out to bring stability to the market, yes this means I will be able to buy and other will be froze out.

Anyway in summary:

You want people punished for there date of birth.

I want people punished for there lack of financial awareness/control.

Which sounds a fairer system?

There is a big difference in our arguments here.

You want everybody who lives in an area where rent is more expensive than a mortgage frozen out of the market for your own selfish needs.

I don't want anyone to be frozen out, and for anyone that can show some initiative and aspiration to be able to buy.

Anyway in summary:

You want people punished for the area they live in.

I want everyone to have an equal shot at buying a house.

Which sounds a fairer system?

carolt

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There is a big difference in our arguments here.

You want everybody who lives in an area where rent is more expensive than a mortgage frozen out of the market for your own selfish needs.

I don't want anyone to be frozen out, and for anyone that can show some initiative and aspiration to be able to buy.

Anyway in summary:

You want people punished for the area they live in.

I want everyone to have an equal shot at buying a house.

Which sounds a fairer system?

No you don't. Or why on earth do you post endless gloating posts about FTBs being frozen out, covered with gloating smilies?


You want house prices to go up, and couldn't give a damn whether FTBs could buy; on the whole you'd rather they couldn't, on cost grounds, because it suggests that the value of your house will have gone up.

Which is all you care about.


Do you really imagine there is a single FTB out there who thinks that you genuinely represent their wishes?

des_cartes

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

24 months from now, the first of the biggest generation in UK history, bigger even than the boomers, will start to reach the current average FTB age.

This demographic surge lasts for a decade, and will see the numbers of FTB age youngsters increase by almost 40% from todays annual level at it's peak.

Markets ration scarce resources through price. There is no other way.

Your "solution" seems to be to prevent people from buying houses by rationing mortgages through higher mortgage prices..... so that the same people aren't prevented from buying houses by rationing houses through higher house prices.

I take it you see the insanity of that approach?

Would you rather buy a house rationed through price affordability @200k or one rationed by mortgage availability @100k? I know which choice is the more insane.