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.
Home Ownership to fall to 63%, lowest level since 80's
Comments
-
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.
Oh, your at it again
Correction number 47: Servicing the debt on existing mortgages is cheaper than at any time since 1999.
Considering you are the one who complains of mortgage rationing and penalising FTB's with higher interest rates, I'm surprised you try to suggest new buyers (buying the house today) will enjoy average mortgage rates. Because, put simply, they won't.0 -
Aye, houses were more affordable a decade ago.
http://anmblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c565553ef0133ed0d1a76970b-500wi
looks like it doesn't it0 -
Aye, houses were more affordable a decade ago.
looks like it doesn't it
But strangely, less affordable than 2004 to 2007 when mortgage rates were significantly higher than now, and they were selling hot cakes!
Something doesn't compute.....
Is this because someone forgot that any sensible 'affordability' measure would take into account:
1. Cost of the house (compared with salaries).
2. Cost of servicing the loan on a house.
3. Affordability of the necessary deposit.
4. Ability to obtain the mortgage in the first place.
By the same logic - the cost of running a 10 year old BMW 'M' for a 17 year old has never been lower, because they cost less than they used to - innit?0 -
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »But strangely, less affordable than 2004 to 2007 when mortgage rates were significantly higher than now, and they were selling hot cakes!
Something doesn't compute.....
Is this because someone forgot that any sensible 'affordability' measure would take into account:
1. Cost of the house (compared with salaries).
2. Cost of servicing the loan on a house.
3. Affordability of the necessary deposit.
4. Ability to obtain the mortgage in the first place.
By the same logic - the cost of running a 10 year old BMW 'M' for a 17 year old has never been lower, because they cost less than they used to - innit?
TBF thats sort of my argument.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.3K Spending & Discounts
- 240.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.6K Life & Family
- 254K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards