We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Here`s the thing......
Comments
-
Hamish, fill yer boots !
You seem to have your finger on the pulse, and you believe that HPI will be back on the agenda in the not too distant. OK, you`ll have to put up with accusations of greed from the likes of me, but think of all that lovely £££.
And if you have answered ciscokid`s question, well done.
BTW. Is it as cold in Aberdeen as it is down here in the heart of England ? I couldn`t be bothered to go out today, car is in a block of ice (again).30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
Is it really that difficult to understand...? You made a point about mortgage availability diving 70% "overnight" and that it had no affect on the housing market (your bull argument). I was essentially asking you if you think that all those mechanisms that have been put in place to bail out the banks have had something to do with that.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »When have I said that?
Do all those people go back to work on the same salary? If not, what affect does this have on the wider economy in terms of spare cash used to fund something other than mortgage debt?HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »SMI--
There has been an increase of people on SMI, as you'd expect in a recession, but the total numbers are still relatively low. Not to mention, 75% of the people who lose a job are back in full time work within 6 months, and 90% within a year. So the time limited expiry of SMI only affects a tiny number of people.
Do you know what the "tiny number of people" is?
Are you for real? SMI bails out the banks, hence I agree with you, it creates moral hazard. Social housing is entirely different, though housing benefit has it's own problems that I won't go into here.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »And if you want to claim SMI creates moral hazard, then you also need to look at the fact we pay rent for the unemployed as well. So unless you want to abandon the safety net for everyone, it would be unfair to penalise homeowners over renters.
Your argument about penalising homeowers is unbelievable - what ever happened to personal responsibility?
What is your definition of bad for the housing market? (This is a rhetorical question).HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Public sector job losses---
It was going to be 490,000, but because the economy has been performing better than expected, it is now estimated 160,000 less jobs will go, so 360,000 in total. And almost all of those will be through natural attrition..... The government already loses 300,000 people a year to retirement, so will still be hiring over a million people in the next 5 years.
Regardless, the OBR is forecasting private sector job growth of 2.5 million over the term of the parliament.
2.5 million more jobs in the private sector, 360,000 less jobs in the public sector.
Total job growth = 2.14 million.
Perhaps you'd care to explain the mechanism through which you think job growth of 2.14 million over the next 5 years is bad for house prices?
I hope the OBR is right. I am wondering what wages and so on will be like though, and what mortgage lending will be like etc.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Bank bailouts--
What about them? The government is already in profit from the deal, based on the current share prices.
LOL, give me a break. Just taking RBS as an example, what happens if the government try to sell the public shares on the open market - supply and demand and all that.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Low interest rates--
Here to stay for many years..... I doubt we'll see 5% base rates in the next decade, and most economists agree we'll be unlikely to see much more than 3% in the next 5 years.
The low base rate now has little significance to mortgage rates now, based on historical averages. It was/ is only there to bail out banks, and rob more savers. Truly a moral hazard... so yes, I agree low base rates for a long time.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Mortgage funding--
More of an issue.... But as supply is so short we've already seen that the market can sustain prices on lower volumes, and there's nothing to indicate that won't continue. Regardless, soaring rental yields are already starting to attract securitised funding for BTL lending through specialists such as Paragon. And this will continue as rents rise still further.
The market has been propped up, with some serious government intervention, and the prudent getting well and truly shafted in the process. Props to Labour, and now the Tories for kicking that can way down the road, a lot of people thought it wouldn't work.
How big are the LTVs for new BTLs?
One final question, why is HPI good?0 -
the.ciscokid wrote: »One final question, why is HPI good?
Because it prices out the young and makes the boomers richer. That benefits us all of course... oh wait I was born too late.Have my first business premises (+4th business) 01/11/2017
Quit day job to run 3 businesses 08/02/2017
Started third business 25/06/2016
Son born 13/09/2015
Started a second business 03/08/2013
Officially the owner of my own business since 13/01/20120 -
Originally Posted by HAMISH_MCTAVISH
75% of the people who lose a job are back in full time work within 6 months, and 90% within a year. .
Please please please provide proof of this? I have asked you before and still haven't had an answer.0 -
Because it prices out the young and makes the boomers richer. That benefits us all of course... oh wait I was born too late.
Why are you so anti boomers as most of you bears keep telling us the equity in our homes is only real money when we sell most of us don't sell because we have to live somewhere and if you think all BTLs are boomers you are mistaken.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Public sector job losses---
It was going to be 490,000, but because the economy has been performing better than expected, it is now estimated 160,000 less jobs will go, so 360,000 in total. And almost all of those will be through natural attrition..... The government already loses 300,000 people a year to retirement, so will still be hiring over a million people in the next 5 years.
Thats a lot of smoke, and I like your use of mirrors.
The 300,000 people a year you cite as being lost to retirement....get this....they get REPLACED. That's how the world keeps turning. If these 300,000 a year who retired didn't get replaced, we'd be into negative numbers of employees by now.
But that's not the case is it, these jobs get replaced by new workers. Older workers retire, younger workers come into the workplace, UK wheels keep turning.
You are trying to suggest however, that the removal of 360,000 jobs is no different to what happens each year as people retire.
That, is completely wrong. If you are not trying to suggest this, then I don't see your point about 300k retiring anyway.
On a personal level, I'm glad to see you twisting your argument and figures to such extents. It shows you feel the need to twist figures to this extent to back up your argument.
300,000 people retiring each year is VERY different to 360,000 job CUTS.
One is cuts.
The other is natural retirement and re-hiring.
Yours,
Mr Muddle (no doubt that's who I am now for stating the above?)0 -
Why are you so anti boomers as most of you bears keep telling us the equity in our homes is only real money when we sell most of us don't sell because we have to live somewhere and if you think all BTLs are boomers you are mistaken.
Not interested in the anti-boomer thing, but the point you make is important from a health of the economy point of view. If all this money is tied up in a house, and people who do buy have to take out so much debt to pay it, then everything else in the economy suffers as people have no spare cash to buy stuff.
The UK economy was starting to become a one trick pony in this sense, everything revolving around debt/ dodgy financial products, and selling houses to each other.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Thats a lot of smoke, and I like your use of mirrors.
The 300,000 people a year you cite as being lost to retirement....get this....they get REPLACED. That's how the world keeps turning. If these 300,000 a year who retired didn't get replaced, we'd be into negative numbers of employees by now.
But that's not the case is it, these jobs get replaced by new workers. Older workers retire, younger workers come into the workplace, UK wheels keep turning.
You are trying to suggest however, that the removal of 360,000 jobs is no different to what happens each year as people retire.
That, is completely wrong. If you are not trying to suggest this, then I don't see your point about 300k retiring anyway.
On a personal level, I'm glad to see you twisting your argument and figures to such extents. It shows you feel the need to twist figures to this extent to back up your argument.
300,000 people retiring each year is VERY different to 360,000 job CUTS.
One is cuts.
The other is natural retirement and re-hiring.
Yours,
Mr Muddle (no doubt that's who I am now for stating the above?)
Hi there Muddles old pal...
Thought you'd gone off on holiday, as your mate Graham had almost been sensible for a while.
Glad to see things are back to normal.
Cheers
Hamish.
PS
The OBR is forecasting private sector job growth of 2.5 million over the term of the parliament.
2.5 million more jobs in the private sector, 360,000 less jobs in the public sector.
Total job growth = 2.14 million.
That's more job growth than we've seen in a very long time, and hopefully is simple enough even for the great Muddly one to understand.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Hi there Muddles old pal...
Thought you'd gone off on holiday, as your mate Graham had almost been sensible for a while.
Glad to see things are back to normal.
Cheers
Hamish.
PS
The OBR is forecasting private sector job growth of 2.5 million over the term of the parliament.
2.5 million more jobs in the private sector, 360,000 less jobs in the public sector.
Total job growth = 2.14 million.
That's more job growth than we've seen in a very long time, and hopefully is simple enough even for the great Muddly one to understand.
Mr Muddly understands you ignored pretty much all I said and simply stated what you've already stated several times which had nothing to do with my post
0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Mr Muddly understands you ignored pretty much all I said and simply stated what you've already stated several times which had nothing to do with my post
Apparently not.
Lets try again.
There are two ways public sector job cuts could impact the housing market.
1. Mass redundancies. People can't pay their mortgages. etc
2. Less employment overall than there is at the moment.
If people leave the public sector to retire, that has no impact on house prices.
If people leave the public sector to go to another job elsewhere, that has no impact on house prices.
If the total number of jobs in the economy increases, because more private sector jobs are created than public sector jobs are lost, then there is only upwards pressure on house prices.
Your argument seems to revolve around the fact that only 2.15 million jobs will be added instead of 2.5 million jobs.
Which translates to house prices will only rise a lot instead of rising an awful lot.....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards