Most are finding life far worse, so what do we need, higher house prices!!

ukcarper

PasturesNew wrote: »

When I bought my house 10ish years ago, the one I really wanted cost £85k more. It now costs £750k more than what I sold my house for.

Without HPI I could have worked towards paying down the first house and getting another mortgage on the one I really wanted. No chance of that with such an increase in value having occurred over that time.

Have house prices really gone up 9x in 10 years where you are where I am they have only gone up 5x in 25 years.

PasturesNew

ukcarper wrote: »

Have house prices really gone up 9x in 10 years where you are where I am they have only gone up 5x in 25 years.

2nd home owners/holiday let speculators. Beachside.... so yes.

The one I wanted was £175k, now it's £1million.

Next door sold in 1996 for £145k and by 2010 was demolished/redeveloped and sold as eight new build beachside flats (for holiday lettings) which sold at £350k, £340k, £330k, £380k, £360k, £360k, £720k, £760k. So that is £3.6 million.

ukcarper

PasturesNew wrote: »

2nd home owners/holiday let speculators. Beachside.... so yes.

The one I wanted was £175k, now it's £1million.

Next door sold in 1996 for £145k and by 2010 was demolished/redeveloped and sold as eight new build beachside flats (for holiday lettings) which sold at £350k, £340k, £330k, £380k, £360k, £360k, £720k, £760k. So that is £3.6 million.

Not exactly typical then.

IveSeenTheLight

Percy1983 wrote: »

That doesn't quite work, as in I can use my family as an example,

If everybody has 2 children the number of houses needed remains, the only factor is how many gnerations are alive at any one point. (Yes I know the average is more than 2 children). So if one household becomes 3 this then means another 2 less households are made elsewhere as in both cases me and my bother are with women form other households. Not an exact science but more accurate than 1 becomes 3.

I can understand that, however it becomes an ideal society where everyone has a partner.

Unfortunately stats can show increasing divorces and increasing time before settling down this current generation as opposed to those in the past

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That cannot be argued in monerty terms.

But you don't know their personal circumstances. The interest only mortgage which they had no way of paying off, as the endowment wasn't even close to paying it off and would have provided a shortfall of around 60% at the end of the mortgage.

They didn't move because they WANTED to move. They moved because their interest only mortgage was forcing their hand.

Without HPI, yes, they would have been a little stuffed. But they loved that house. Sudden illness scuppering any plans, and an interest only mortgage and they had to go.

It was only a 3 bed house. Nothing spectacular. Downsizing from that is limited.

Now, they have a shedload of money in a house, are in retirement, but don't really have the means to go on holiday. All the money is in the house.

Are you now depicting a different scenario?

Your previous one was that you parents owned outright and were looking to upsize

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It was hard work with my parents. They own outright, no mortgage, ONLY due to the boom. They were able to sell up and move and buy outright, due to near 600% increase on previous family home in 10 years. (53k bought, sold 293k)

It's only recently I have been able to tell them, if they want to move up a little bit (which they do) they want house prices to fall as much as possible.

Dad got it pretty much straight away, but mum was hard to convince. All she could see is if the house went up in value she now had 210k instead of 200k. 210k buys more than 200k, right?

Trying to tell her the next house was now 250k instead of 230k and she now needed 40k cold hard cash instead of 30k cold hard cash for the move was frustrating to say the least.

Took a long time for her to see she's actually worse off if house prices rise. Didn't even get round to stamp duty and higher legal fee's every time prices rise.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Are you now depicting a different scenario?

No. I'm unsure what you are having issues with.

IveSeenTheLight

PasturesNew wrote: »

Falling interest rates mean that savers have less money to spend on stuff.

I would be spending £700/month on stuff if rates were back where they were in 2007. Stuff like: renting an overpriced flat.

Which is the majority and which is the minority? Savers or debtors.
Which sector benefits the economy most with regards to interest rate.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No. I'm unsure what you are having issues with.

I don't have issues, just don't understand your point.

They want to upsize, are in retirement but don't have the means to go on holiday as all the money is in the house.

Sounds like not an ideal situation to upsize to me.

If they / your so sure of falls, will you be recommending the STR?

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I don't have issues, just don't understand your point.

They want to upsize, are in retirement but don't have the means to go on holiday as all the money is in the house.

Sounds like not an ideal situation to upsize to me.

If they / your so sure of falls, will you be recommending the STR?

Ahhh, so your issue is understanding the term "want to".

mcc100

RenovationMan wrote: »

Falling interest rates mean people have more money to spend on other stuff.

Really ?????

As there are more savers than borrowers in this country then the opposite is true .......