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.
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.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.
Home Ownership to fall to 63%, lowest level since 80's
Comments
-
I waited for this to come on for ages on the news through all the droning on about Libya, and in the end all it was was 10 seconds of a teacher moaning and a boring interview with Will Hutton.
Thank god for Homes from Hell re-runs.0 -
how come when apparently houses are the most affordable for a decade?, or will you now concede that, that stat was flawed as we told you?0
-
how come when apparently houses are the most affordable for a decade?,
Because it makes no difference how affordable mortgage payments are if you can't get a mortgage.“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 -
how come when apparently houses are the most affordable for a decade?, or will you now concede that, that stat was flawed as we told you?
It's strange isn't it, I mean it's not as if we were in difficult economic times and the banks were wary of lending is it? Maybe we should pop down to Earth and see what's happening there, obviously on this planet in a boom there is no logical explanation (are you the guy who put that device on someone's false leg by any chance?)Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Because it makes no difference how affordable mortgage payments are if you can't get a mortgage.
Oh, did the penny drop after the argument you put forward the other day, which was the complete reversal of what you just said?
Well done.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Because it makes no difference how affordable mortgage payments are if you can't get a mortgage.
The point that was put forward to you on a number of occasions, which you conviently wouldn't have.0 -
chucknorris wrote: »It's strange isn't it, I mean it's not as if we were in difficult economic times and the banks were wary of lending is it? Maybe we should pop down to Earth and see what's happening there, obviously on this planet in a boom there is no logical explanation (are you the guy who put that device on someone's false leg by any chance?)
what are you on about?0 -
The National Housing Federation said the number of property owners will drop to just 63.8% as house prices soar, compared to 72.5% in 2001.
With current 'net migration' figures, how could it be any different? The population of UK has mushroomed recently, immigration being by far the largest reason (and not birth rate). Immigrants are not known for their propensity to buy houses.
So if we accept the NHA's figures, how much of this is down to housing costs? 5%? 10%?
Notice the "weasel words" [will drop to just 63.8% as house prices soar] and NOT will drop to just 63.8% because house prices are soaring...
It's like saying "The number of murders will increase from 250 to 280 as the cost of guns decreases." Probably true that (a) murders will increase, and (b) cost of guns will decrease, but if the population increases by a factor of 280/250 then that's the real reason, and not the declining cost of guns.0 -
The point that was put forward to you on a number of occasions, which you conviently wouldn't have.
Nope.
Houses in 1999 weren't affordable without mortgages either.
The fact is that when you take the average house price, the average income and the average mortgage rate into account, houses today are cheaper than at any time since 1999.
Which is why it's such a shame so many people are being excluded from ownership by mortgage rationing.“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: »Nope.
Houses in 1999 weren't affordable without mortgages either.
The fact is that when you take the average house price, the average income and the average mortgage rate into account, houses today are cheaper than at any time since 1999.
Which is why it's such a shame so many people are being excluded from ownership by mortgage rationing.
twisting things? as I've never claimed that. Houses were cheaper in relation average earnings in 1999, therefore easier to get on the property ladder & easier to buy a nicer house. Mortgages aren't being rationed, houses are too expensive.
and its not the 'average income' compared to averae house price, its 'average income of some one who can afford a mortgage' which is a very different thing0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.4K Spending & Discounts
- 241K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.7K Life & Family
- 254.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards