How much should the average house price be?

Percy1983

Sibley wrote: »

I don't know why everyone thinks a FTB should be able to afford the average house.
They should start with a flat. Average houses should be seond time buys. That way they made a bit on their first purchase and can afford to trade up.

Banks could make mortgages over longer terms to help people wanting to leap frog the waiting game.

The problem is on one hand you want to keep house prices high and then you say FTBs should buy flats.

With house prices high FTBs have to wait longer to be able to buy, now the longer they wait the more the wants/needs from there first home will change.

eg, in my case if I could have bought when I was 18-21 a flat would have been perfect for my life but ws out of reach due to a low income fork being young and training for a higher income.

So now my better half and I (both 27) now have a very different point of view, why should we buy a flat now to only want to move in less than 2 years?

Personally I think prices around me are about right for local incomes in all honesty, but I do believe there is many parts of the country which are massively out of sync, to say an average is very hard unless I know the average wage using the median rather than mean average.

[Deleted User]

Without defining what the 'average house' is, i don't know how people can talk about an average house price.

DervProf

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Oh dear sibbers you really are a dimwit.

I thought you wanted average house prices at £175,000?

Yet you want people to "make a bit" on their first place which you say should be a flat? So you want flats to increase in price but not your "average house"??


And just before you play the "I meant they will pay off their mortgage a bit", what's the difference between that and saving and going straight in at the "average house" level if there is no HPI?

Can I have my thunder back please ?


Well said, BTW.

Conrad

smamst wrote: »

Multiples that mortgage companies sensibly should lend at 3.5x

Therefore 3.5x£25,000 = £87,500.

Why do you pre - suppose a single earner household? Dual income households are much more relevant now, and yes, even when babies come along most Women soon return to work, and yes the vast majority manage thier finances perfectly ok.

Where I am in the South East, completely ordinary couples make £80,000. For example a rozza with 17 yrs service makes £47k in the MET and his partner a civil servant makes £35k - just oridinary everyday folk.

Your ideals seem stuck somewhere in the long distant past.

Pete111

Conrad wrote: »

Why do you pre - suppose a single earner household? Dual income households are much more relevant now, and yes, even when babies come along most Women soon return to work, and yes the vast majority manage thier finances perfectly ok.

Where I am in the South East, completely ordinary couples make £80,000. For example a rozza with 17 yrs service makes £47k in the MET and his partner a civil servant makes £35k - just oridinary everyday folk.

Your ideals seem stuck somewhere in the long distant past.

I second this. Many white collar couples in their 30's in London will make 80k and plenty rather more than this

My PA and her boyfriend make 60k+ between them. They are both 25, in 'normal' jobs outside banking and looking at flats right now.

A 50k salary isn't very special these days - in London at least.

ukcarper

I'd like someone to tell me when the average house price was 3.5x the average salary of all employees.

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

Why do you pre - suppose a single earner household? Dual income households are much more relevant now, and yes, even when babies come along most Women soon return to work, and yes the vast majority manage thier finances perfectly ok.

Where I am in the South East, completely ordinary couples make £80,000. For example a rozza with 17 yrs service makes £47k in the MET and his partner a civil servant makes £35k - just oridinary everyday folk.

Your ideals seem stuck somewhere in the long distant past.

Do you know how much childcare takes out of wages, should one of the parents return to work?

What should happen if one of the couple finds themselves out of work, or unable to work? Happens everyday unfortunately. Should they always, and forever have taxpayer support? Or would it be better to forsee the possibility of this happening, and reduce the available debt in the first place?

crash123

Conrad wrote: »

Why do you pre - suppose a single earner household? Dual income households are much more relevant now, and yes, even when babies come along most Women soon return to work, and yes the vast majority manage thier finances perfectly ok.

Where I am in the South East, completely ordinary couples make £80,000. For example a rozza with 17 yrs service makes £47k in the MET and his partner a civil servant makes £35k - just oridinary everyday folk.

Your ideals seem stuck somewhere in the long distant past.

Nowadays you need both wages just to service the mortgage. if you only needed one wage you could spend more on nights out, holidays etc, yes helping the economy.

diable

Conrad wrote: »

Where I am in the South East, completely ordinary couples make £80,000. For example a rozza with 17 yrs service makes £47k in the MET and his partner a civil servant makes £35k - just oridinary everyday folk.

Not if Cameron and Clegg have their way, civil servants should earn an "average" wage ;o))))

Le_Chuck

Sibley wrote: »

Personally, I would like the average house price to settle at £175,000.

No more no less.

That would give everyone a chance and stop all this arguing.
I think we will arrive at that figure within the next 3-5 years.

I don't buy into all this 'real' term stuff. I just want to see the sign on the door. For sale £175,000+

People can get £25,000 deposit together and have £150,000 on a mortgage. Could be worse. With two wage earners in a house that could be paid easily.
Nobody is priced out.

Contradiction surely?
Only not priced out with 2 earners, where does that leave single earners?