House Price Crash within 2 years???????

talksalot81

MickKnipfler wrote:

was that last comment aimed at me?

I was specifically aiming at no one - it was in response to several comments all of which are from people with no interest in contributing beyond insults.

wxmlad wrote:

i doubt that houses prices will be half price in 2yrs , i think the majority of the people in the country will be in negative equity. ull be still saying the same in 10 yrs ' oooooo wait till 2020 we'll be able to get a 5 bed mansion for £50k'

The interesting thing is that we would have a huge shift in opinion if we had a prolonged period of decline. All those currently bullish would forget the history of growth and you would find the sheeple would tend towards exactly your view. Those who would now be predicting a growth would be the former HPC crowd!

cwcw wrote:

Only a 2.1? Why not a 1st?

Well frankly an undergraduate degree of any kind does not demonstrate you to be special. There are many many people who have exactly the stated qualifications but have barely worked a full day in their lives and have little motivation to change. Even a PhD is no guarantee. Some subjects students will work 10 hours a day for 3 years, other subjects will have students doing nothing of the kind. Really the principle doesnt work because we have no qualification which quantifies both skill and work ethic for the masses. The problem with our current economy is that buying a house has little to do with either of these factors, mostly it has to do with the date of your birth.

BTman

advent1122 wrote:

If people will pay £200K for a one bedroom flat THEN one bedroom flats will cost £200K.
Simple really.

You mean if a bank will lend £200K (based on current affordability)for a one bedroom flat THEN one bedroom flats will cost £200K.

All this easy credit has to dry up soon...

daveb975

cwcw wrote:

Only a 2.1? Why not a 1st?

I wonder if there is a slight possibility that even ukbondraider did not get a 1st?

CB1979_2

Hey I want a Ferrari, but can only afford a VW Golf.

I could CHOOSE to go and buy a Ferrari, but I'll stick to what I CAN afford.

simple really, (now I think this is the 30th time, and someone WILL listen! lol) if you can afford the home nice, if you can't tough.

not saying you shouldn't be able to own your own home, but if you can't you can't.

if you're not prepared to get a huge mortgage for your home (if that's what it needs) then don't come moaning about it.

if you're that desperate for a home, there's plenty sub-£30k up in Middlesborough.

oh and I still reckon the Boyfriend is waiting to cop off with a better bird!

Graham_Devon

Everyone talks about how an average wage should be able to buy an average house. If I had my way and could influence the economy a better more fairer criteria for being able to buy a house would be that only people with straight A's at school and a 2.1 at uni can be able to buy a house. Why??

Because in my opinon everyone should earn the right to buy a house and not expect it. Wouldnt we all love to see all the school drop outs stay in rented acommodation all their lives?? OK maybe a bit extreme but its a different flavour to the constant average wage vs average house whinging.

:rotfl:

Extremism!

Ok, should I not be allowed to have bought my house at 25? Sure its shared ownership, but that's only because no one would give a single bloke a 230k mortgage.

I left school at 16. Did a GNVQ because I had to, not because I want to.

I now run my own business (hence why I can't get a mortgage easily).

I pay my mortgage, I pay my bills, I pay my tax.

I take nothing from the government apart from a reduction in council tax.

So, on your theory, I should not be allowed to buy....but only rent from someone else who went on to further education?

Those who did go to uni only came out last year, out of the 3 I know, one has a house (rich parents). One is living with her parents and works in BP as a till operator and another works for the council as a gardner and studied business law. Oh, and theres another one, shes actually a doctor of something, and she works as a receptionist.

I left school, got my head down, worked to get where I am. Should I not be able to go to work to buy my own house? Should I not be able to better myself because I didnt pay to go onto uni?

mystic_trev

daveb975 wrote:

I wonder if there is a slight possibility that even ukbondraider did not get a 1st?

No - but he's got an "O" Level in Woodwork!

Guy_Montag

CB1979 wrote:

if you're that desperate for a home, there's plenty sub-£30k up in Middlesborough.

oh and I still reckon the Boyfriend is waiting to cop off with a better bird!

Actually there's no properties sub-£30k on Rightmove in Middlesbrough, there are 10 sub £50k. But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

CB1979_2

ah sorry, sub-£50k.

there's a few more sites out there other than rightmove as well

scorpio_princess

cwcw wrote:

Fair enough, although a tad hyperbolic.


Fascism
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Maybe just a tad But the fact is the poster I was referring to WOULD be a raging fascist given half a chance, judging by his 'if it were up to me' opinion. I know it's all hypothetical anyway (despite his obvious sense of self-importance) because i've got more chance of celebrating my 30th birthday on Mars than him becoming Ruler of England :rotfl:

Having said all this, I think this guy just likes to write unpopular stuff just to provoke a reaction, so I shall leave it at that now!

tawnyowls

Amitoocautious wrote:

My god, so how is it not greed for the "haves" to own properties and rent them out etc to the "have nots" just because of how old they are, personal situation etc meaning that they got on the ladder at the right time. I seem to remember a thread saying you had multiple problems or maybe i am wrong so if you have even one does that make you greedy?

I absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately, I think it's so far gone now that without rules to change how many properties people can own, even a crash won't stop it. I am constantly shocked when I hear about people owning hundreds of properties (there's one couple who, last time I read, owned over 450 and were buying one a month!). Property isn't like other commodities - if you wanted to buy a particular pair of shoes but couldn't afford them, you could just buy a cheaper pair; you wouldn't have to move to a different area of the country just to buy them. I have nothing against people owning a small number of other properties and renting them out (for many people, it's their pension), but who needs hundreds? Or even dozens? What that does is stop other people being able to buy their own home, so they have to rent - the rental yields go up, thus encouraging the buy-to-letters to buy yet more properties, which stops yet more people buying, up goes the rental yields, etc; it's a vicious circle. Even if there is a crash, the BTLs will have made so much money that they'll be able to buy yet more property at cheaper prices, and even though the rental yields might go down because other people will be able to buy (if they can beat the BTLs to it), the prospect of capital growth will make it worth the BTLs' while to hang onto their property. If things get serious, the little guys (Ma and Pa with their one house that's their pension) might not be able to afford to keep up the payments, but the big boys will just sell a few of their massive pension portfolios to keep themselves going and then buy again when rental yields rise.

We are creating a new generation of landowners, and squeezing the little people out. This cannot be right, and as pointed out by others, it's a serious disincentive to work hard and 'better yourself'. At a town meeting recently, one of the speakers suggested there should be a cap placed on the number of properties any one person is entitled to own, and the response was almost unanimous agreement (most reckoned no more than 10) . If that were evern to happen (unlikely with this government, who have succeeded in making Animal Farm a reality), it would be interesting to see if the government's stance that only a small percentage of property is rented would actually be true; their other numbers (eg on mass immigration, currently estimated by other groups at over 600,000/year, were wrong by a factor of 40)