It doesn't matter what the government does - UK house prices will fall

Catapa

House prices in Britian are far too high, they have to come down! The main consequence of high house prices are young families living in smaller houses. High houses prices do not increase living standards or wellbeing, they only make the working class pay more interests for longer, a transfer from "have nothings" (or have little) to "have muchs". Not getting more houses built and not restricting lending to cool the market was one of the great failures of the Bliar/Brown administration.

Sibley

House prices in Britian are far too high, they have to come down!

Why? Because you want them to?

Sorry my old son. We ain't knocking a penny off.

paulmapp8306

Sibley wrote: »

Why? Because you want them to?

QUOTE]

No. firstly so the average wage earner can afford the average house (currently thats not possible), but more importantly for the country.

Lower prices, mean lower rent. Both mean a greater disposable income for joe public - which will mean more money spent in the high streets - and the economy improoving.

Quite how high - and higher house prices help the economy (which it seems the government wants) I have no idea.

Mallotum_X

Get-real-buy-real wrote: »

More like a stealth crash that most uneducated don't even notice.

If 2007 was the top and by 2017 prices are about the same then many on here will be saying see my house has retained its value all these years:rotfl:

When the educated know that house prices have in fact crashed.

Keeping the masses happy - somewhat politically important.

Plus it avoids banks having to write anything off their investments - polically crucial.

Aberdeenangarse

House prices are certainly falling now!

andybenw

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Keeping the masses happy - somewhat politically important.

Plus it avoids banks having to write anything off their investments - polically crucial.

Correct. Any political party must pander to voters. As the majority of home-owners (some foolishly if they wish to upsize but a huge amount will be fearing the spectre of negative equity) do not like price falls, then there will be a huge effort to keep them at the same level. Long term due to inflation we will revert to 'the norm' and with more regulation in place we will prevent a return to the reckless lending which has shoved everything out of kilter.

Some will regard government policy as fair. Some will not.

Regardless, it is happening. Plan your future on price stagnation.

ukcarper

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Sibley wrote: »

Why? Because you want them to?

QUOTE]

No. firstly so the average wage earner can afford the average house (currently thats not possible), but more importantly for the country.

Lower prices, mean lower rent. Both mean a greater disposable income for joe public - which will mean more money spent in the high streets - and the economy improoving.

Quite how high - and higher house prices help the economy (which it seems the government wants) I have no idea.

when has the average man been able to afford the average house as a first buy

paulmapp8306

doesnt matter whether its a fist buy or not really.

Im not saying whether they can, or cant. BUT surly using terms like "the average house" infers " that the "average earner" SHOULD be able to achieve it I guess.

By saying anything else, merly shows that the average home owner is infact no average at all - but above average. consequently pandering to home owners in an attempt to gain votes is actually pandering to the minority.

I guess more to the point - historically the average person could not afford a house. In fact even above average earners couldnt. However, at this point in history rental propery was the cheap option. Even free with the job in many cases. If you couldnt afford to own, you rented.

What has happened is that rental prices have risen to a point where the average wage earner cant afford those either without gevernment subsidisation (HB). This is mainly due to selling off government owned properties and not building more granted, however we cant continue to have average rents higher than the cost of servicing the average mortgage (meaning a mortgage is now the cheaper option) while that morgage remains out of reach of the average person.

There are only two ways to re-ballance things. either rents must fall drastically - allowing those that cannot afford to buy to be able to rent (subsidisation free) OR house prices must fall so the average wage earner CAN afford them.

In order for either to happen, new housing must be built on a massive scale. If there public funded and owned then rental prices wuill drop - if there privately funded and owned the house prices will drop.

This is not a matter of "Im a house owner so prices shouldnt fall" or "I want to own so prices must fall". Its a much wider social issue. Affordable housing must be provided, for all the peopl in this country - whether thats through cheap rents or cheap house prices is the descision that needs making really.

StevieJ

Get-real-buy-real wrote: »

More like a stealth crash that most uneducated don't even notice.

If 2007 was the top and by 2017 prices are about the same then many on here will be saying see my house has retained its value all these years:rotfl:
When the educated know that house prices have in fact crashed.

Strangely this was the viewpoint of the so called (moderate) Bulls who suggested that a soft devaluation of property was the likely and desirable method of correction, not so the Bears who were insisisting on a 50-70% nominal crash (one who shall remain without name, by Christmas ) Good to see that you have seen sense

ukcarper

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

doesnt matter whether its a fist buy or not really.

Im not saying whether they can, or cant. BUT surly using terms like "the average house" infers " that the "average earner" SHOULD be able to achieve it I guess.

By saying anything else, merly shows that the average home owner is infact no average at all - but above average. consequently pandering to home owners in an attempt to gain votes is actually pandering to the minority.

I guess more to the point - historically the average person could not afford a house. In fact even above average earners couldnt. However, at this point in history rental propery was the cheap option. Even free with the job in many cases. If you couldnt afford to own, you rented.

What has happened is that rental prices have risen to a point where the average wage earner cant afford those either without gevernment subsidisation (HB). This is mainly due to selling off government owned properties and not building more granted, however we cant continue to have average rents higher than the cost of servicing the average mortgage (meaning a mortgage is now the cheaper option) while that morgage remains out of reach of the average person.

There are only two ways to re-ballance things. either rents must fall drastically - allowing those that cannot afford to buy to be able to rent (subsidisation free) OR house prices must fall so the average wage earner CAN afford them.

In order for either to happen, new housing must be built on a massive scale. If there public funded and owned then rental prices wuill drop - if there privately funded and owned the house prices will drop.

This is not a matter of "Im a house owner so prices shouldnt fall" or "I want to own so prices must fall". Its a much wider social issue. Affordable housing must be provided, for all the peopl in this country - whether thats through cheap rents or cheap house prices is the descision that needs making really.

I think we all agree that more houses need to be built especially social housing but I can't see it happening in the near future and if ever with social housing.

Cheap rental accommodation was not always available in the past the only choice I had when I got married in the 70s was to save and buy a house or live with one of our parents.