Private Rents in England "Unaffordable"

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

I've already explained why I posted.
I felt I was witnessing a transparent (and often seen) method of muddying the discussion and wanted to draw attention to the same.

GD seems to agree.

For my part I reserve the right to comment on tactics I believe to be facetious, unfair or detrimental to sensible discussion. Regardless of how nicely they are dressed up.

I really don't see why the below questions are "muddying the discussion"
They are a direct, on topic queries related to the discussion that related to Graham stating house prices needed to drop 40% in order to be in line with 4 x the annual wage.

I also do not see how they can be construed as "facetious, unfair or detrimental to sensible discussion.

Had the queries been answered, possibly we could have moved on to the next open stage of discussion.

Maybe anyone else on the forum who believe house prices need to drop 40% to be in line with 4 x annual salary would like to take up the option to put their point accross

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Thank you Graham, I wasn't sure what statement you were.

I would like to ask some further questions: -

Why do you think property should be affordable at 4 times an average single income (not mean male which is what the indexes are usually based against)?
It has been discussed before that part time, low income earners are generally not house buyers

What do you think needs to happen to ensure that house prices do drop 40%? and do you think that is likely?

If prices were to drop 40%, how do you think that would impact current home owners (on average)?

What is the likely outcome for a government that oversea a 40% reduction in property prices?

Finally and yes I am talking historically and hypothetically, how much x income has house prices on average been throughout the time that peole have paid for home ownership i.e. not self built from own sourced materials

For clarity, the above questions were asked in relation to the below post

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hamish, a 40% reduction in prices, from today (nominal) would mean the average earner could get a 4x average income mortgage.

I'm not talking about the male full time highest average wage possible, I'm talking about what people actually earn on average.

I'm not talking two full time wages, as people cannot earn two full time wages and raise a family in general, so there is no point in going there.

I'm talking borrowing 4 x standard 1 wage income. Which is how it used to be. 40% would certainly help, but this is all based on national averages, so isn't all that useful.

I'm not saying that 40% falls will, or should happen. However, I am describing to you the neutrality point where houses become "do-able" with hard work for the average family, and also allows to save for pensions / a holiday with the kids, and a slightly, just slightly, better standard of living, which helps the country massively. It's no good suggesting people should live 8 to a house. All you are suggesting is we reduce our quality of life, to prevent house prices from falling.....thats just plain stupid.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I really don't see why the below questions are "muddying the discussion"
They are a direct, on topic queries related to the discussion that related to Graham stating house prices needed to drop 40% in order to be in line with 4 x the annual wage.

I also do not see how they can be construed as "facetious, unfair or detrimental to sensible discussion.

Had the queries been answered, possibly we could have moved on to the next open stage of discussion.

Maybe anyone else on the forum who believe house prices need to drop 40% to be in line with 4 x annual salary would like to take up the option to put their point accross



For clarity, the above questions were asked in relation to the below post

What happened to leaving it there?

As I've noted you could have put forward your own arguments in a cohesive clear manner.

Instead you elected to respond with significant list of questions.

We've seen this before.

chewmylegoff

can someone start a sticky thread where people can have pointless off-topic arguments with geneer so we don't end up having 5 pages of irrelevant slanging matches about who is the biggest toss pot in every thread.

oh hang on, this board serves that purpose to the rest of the forum doesn't it...silly me. perhaps a filter to divert all geneer's posts, and any responses to them, into a black hole?

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

What happened to leaving it there?

As I've noted you could have put forward your own arguments in a cohesive clear manner.

Instead you elected to respond with significant list of questions.

We've seen this before.

I was leaving it there in relation to the pointless discussion that was occuring with you.
You have clearly stated you are not interested in discussing the topic being dicussed.

I then asked if there was anyone else on the forum with the same view that could pick up the bat.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Maybe anyone else on the forum who believe house prices need to drop 40% to be in line with 4 x annual salary would like to take up the option to put their point accross

Mallotum_X

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I was leaving it there in relation to the pointless discussion that was occuring with you.
You have clearly stated you are not interested in discussing the topic being dicussed.

I then asked if there was anyone else on the forum with the same view that could pick up the bat.

Give it a rest.

What is it with some people having to be a last word freak on here. Ignore him if you dont like what he says.

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

can someone start a sticky thread where people can have pointless off-topic arguments with geneer

Exactly, if everyone could try to discuss the topic at hand it would be usefull.

p.s. I admit I have succomed in the past to getting drawn off topic with geneer, however I am trying to keep on topic and in line with the discussion.

IveSeenTheLight

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Give it a rest.

What is it with some people having to be a last word freak on here. Ignore him if you dont like what he says.

I have done in the past.

P.s. I'm trying to open the discussion up to others to put their point accross

P.P.S. I'll start a new thread (let this one drop off) to see if there is anyone who believes there needs to be 40% drops in house prices that are willing to discuss the topic further.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I was leaving it there in relation to the pointless discussion that was occuring with you.
You have clearly stated you are not interested in discussing the topic being dicussed.

Again, what happened to leaving it there?

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Exactly, if everyone could try to discuss the topic at hand it would be usefull.

p.s. I admit I have succomed in the past to getting drawn off topic with geneer, however I am trying to keep on topic and in line with the discussion.

Yes. Funny how you guys always end up berating yourselves for "letting yourselves fall to geneers level".

Allthough the thing you can't quite compute is that you often somehow manage to fall to my level before I do.