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.
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.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Private Rents in England "Unaffordable"
Comments
-
If building firms can't build at the moment because they can't sell their houses, fine.
They can stop building, go bust, release their landbanks and let someone step in that can build and sell at a price which is affordable.
Problem solved and no need for any financial wizardry or loose lending to fund the sale of an overpriced house."The problem with quotes on the internet is that you never know whether they are genuine or not" -
Albert Einstein0 -
Why has a thread on renting turned almost immediately into a thread on buying?0
-
If you want to enforce low prices with the supply at its current level you must stop people putting in higher offers - how do you do that?
Simple, keep a tight reign on lending. If they can't borrow the amount then they can't afford it.0 -
shortchanged wrote: »Simple, keep a tight reign on lending. If they can't borrow the amount then they can't afford it.
Much like what is happening now?
I thought the idea was to make house buying more affordable to more people.0 -
shortchanged wrote: »Simple, keep a tight reign on lending. If they can't borrow the amount then they can't afford it.
In other words, replace a situation where a minority of people can't afford to buy a house, with a situation where millions of people are prevented from buying houses.
Genius.“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: »In other words, replace a situation where a minority of people can't afford to buy a house, with a situation where millions of people are prevented from buying houses.
Genius.
Do you realise how silly you look when you type these sorts of things?
We know you want silly money being lent again, but look at the state of Europe Hamish.0 -
Just to remind you'all, over zealous FSA regulation has in large part lead to this inequity. The benefits of such tight regulation are minimal - the UK mortgage market was always orderly and repos proportionaly low. In return for little benefit, millions are unable to meet FSA lending rules and thus are forced to enrich landlords.
I'm going to keep saying this - one day you'll suddenly find this story unfolding in the media - I can see it now . "MILLIONS FORCED TO RENT UNDER TORIES", even though the FSA regulation damage was done by Labour (mind you Tory MP's I've written to have yet to recognise this ticking time bomb - a reflection of my prose no doubt - but I care not really as I earn more in tough times anyway).
Low growth also stems in large part from the inability of people to buy a home and bother investing in.
Do you remember the last correction. I do. The banks and building societies were lending 4x a mans wage and 2 x a women`s wage and then we had the correction. It then went back to the industry standard of 3 x a mans wage and 1 x a women`s wage.
It is always different this time NOT0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »The one I stated when I said it.
Can you confirm / clarify.
It seems your making a reference to the long term average, which only covers a certain period of time.
It's quite possible that this timeframe is an abnormality, hence as stated elsewhere, your wishing to make the comparison against the abnormal time when property was available to more.
Returning to the norm may unfortunately mean that less have the opportunity to be owners.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Can you confirm / clarify.
It seems your making a reference to the long term average, which only covers a certain period of time.
I really don't understand what needs conrfirming, clarifying, or how I'm making references to long term averages.
All I stated was...
I also gave my reasoning for that.Hamish, a 40% reduction in prices, from today (nominal) would mean the average earner could get a 4x average income mortgage.
What are you trying to make out of this? You always seem confused over anything I say as you try to twist it so much. I daren't really disagree with you as you'll simply go down the route of claiming I beat women again.0 -
Much like what is happening now?
I thought the idea was to make house buying more affordable to more people.
Once interest rates rise, combined with strict lending, then house prices will fall.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards