What is wrong with wanting cheaper homes

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Huh?

I have no idea what you are trying to say, or you are completely missing the point.

What has liar loans got to do with what I asked? I was asking Lydia a question, simply because I don't want to take what she said the wrong way before I proceed with what I wanted to say.

Bears have been saying for years that people who can't afford to buy a house unless they got upto their eyeballs in debt SHOULDN'T have been allowed to get a mortgage. You got your wish and stricter lending criteria has come in and now you're all wringing your hands and bleating about how cruel it all is that low paid people can no longer get mortgages.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

True.

I guess I should stop moaning and move to Manchester.

Bit of a killer on the old commute, but life is tough, and I do have a Blackberry, so I guess its horses for courses.

Plenty of I.T. jobs in Manchester Graham. You never know, you might find one challenging enough to get you off MSE during work time.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

Bears have been saying for years that people who can't afford to buy a house unless they got upto their eyeballs in debt SHOULDN'T have been allowed to get a mortgage.

You are making things up again to suit the argument you wish to have.

You are also (yet again) going against your own whinge that the term "bears and bulls" is getting tedious and ruining any debate.

But to address your accusation, what has actually been said is people should only be allowed to borrow what they could afford to repay, rather than borrowing in excess of the house value on high income ratios.

That's no different to that I have already said in direct response to Lydia when I said if someone simply can't afford a property, they can't have it. You haven't stumbled across something to start calling me hypocritical about. Sorry.

Saying someone shouldn't be able to buy a certain type of house in a certain area is somewhat different.

Without wishing to take Lydia the wrong way, (which I'm sure I possibly am, hence asking beforehand, but you have decided to step in and create a furore over something you werent involved in - something else you regularly complain of), there is a certain amount of housing snobbery I am starting to witness. Whether they be on here, in the media etc. It's very much as if people want to have their home as a status, and don't want someone else who earns less to be able to afford what they have. Especially now prices are falling, there seems to be (to me) an underlying "fear" that someone of a lower earning capacity may able to afford something "we" have. Noticed it on the news earlier tonight regarding the LR figures.

Hence questioning Lydai's statement about what someone should or shouldn't be able to purchase.

Jimmy_31

RenovationMan wrote: »

You said that unemployed people could not afford £30k homes. I'm agreeing with your point and I stated that perhaps unemployed people should not buy homes. If you think you will be unemployed soon then you also should probably not commit to a large financial transaction like buying a home. What's incorrect in that?

Which i said in response to you saying that people dont want to go on the first step of the housing ladder anymore, you might be surprised to find that thousands of them do.

Not everybodys sat around ignoring 2 bed terraces, most are out looking for a job.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are making things up again to suit the argument you wish to have.

You are also (yet again) going against your own whinge that the term "bears and bulls" is getting tedious and ruining any debate.

But to address your accusation, what has actually been said is people should only be allowed to borrow what they could afford to repay, rather than borrowing in excess of the house value on high income ratios.

That's no different to that I have already said in direct response to Lydia when I said if someone simply can't afford a property, they can't have it. You haven't stumbled across something to start calling me hypocritical about. Sorry.

Saying someone shouldn't be able to buy a certain type of house in a certain area is somewhat different.

Without wishing to take Lydia the wrong way, which I'm sure I possibly am, hence asking beforehand, but you have decided to step in, there is a certain amount of housing snobbery I am starting to witness. Whether they be on here, in the media etc. It's very much as if people want to have their home as a status, and don't want someone else who earns less to be able to afford what they have.

Hence questioning Lydai's statement about what someone should or shouldn't be able to purchase.

Whatever mealy mouthed wriggling you try and do Graham doesn't distract people from the fact that the bears (this is what you call yourselves, ridiculous though it is to those who know what 'bear' and 'bull' actually means) were insisting that people should be stopped from getting easy credit. You were saying that people should be stopped from getting homes long before Lydia said it on here. Now you're all wringing hands about it.

Lilac P is right. Some people should be protected from themselves. Some people should be prevented from debting themselves up to the eyeballs and ending up getting repossessed.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

Whatever mealy mouthed wriggling you try and do Graham doesn't distract people from the fact that the bears (this is what you call yourselves, ridiculous though it is to those who know what 'bear' and 'bull' actually means) were insisting that people should be stopped from getting easy credit. You were saying that people should be stopped from getting homes long before Lydia said it on here. Now you're all wringing hands about it.

Lydia is right. Some people should be protected from themselves. Some people should be prevented from debting themselves up to the eyeballs and ending up getting repossessed.

Ok. Again, I give in. Doesn't really matter what I tap into my keyboard does it? You'll simply tell me what I actually meant and make an argument out of it.

It's pretty pointless trying to tell you what was being said if this is all you are going to do.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok. Again, I give in. Doesn't really matter what I tap into my keyboard does it? You'll simply tell me what I actually meant and make an argument out of it.

It's pretty pointless trying to tell you what was being said if this is all you are going to do.

Now you know why people get frustrated with you Graham. What's up, can't take your own medicine? :rotfl:

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

Whatever mealy mouthed wriggling you try and do Graham doesn't distract people from the fact that the bears (this is what you call yourselves, ridiculous though it is to those who know what 'bear' and 'bull' actually means) were insisting that people should be stopped from getting easy credit. You were saying that people should be stopped from getting homes long before Lydia said it on here. Now you're all wringing hands about it.

Lydia is right. Some people should be protected from themselves. Some people should be prevented from debting themselves up to the eyeballs and ending up getting repossessed.

Thing is though RenoMan, when are you going to get it into your head that it is the high house prices that were caused by the lax lending etc that have now caused the problem we now have, not the fact the banks are now being more sensible with lending. Call it rationing if you like. The bottom line is there is a shortfall now between what people want to sell houses for and what most people are able lend. The result, the lowest level of house sales for ages.

Why do so many people deny that it is high house prices that are now the problem, nothing else, however banks should not in any way or form go back to any form of lax lending.

The problem is that many people have delusions of grandeur about their 'assets' now and seem totally unwilling to accept that the value of their asset is falling.

homelessskilledworker

RenovationMan wrote: »

So what are you saying, that they were wrong to buy a house and should have rented?

I'm not deliberately being obtuse, I just have no idea what point you're trying to make.

I am just saying there is no property ladder right now, and there is every lilelyhood that there will be no ladder in 15 years of waiting for some.
I am sure there are many who thought within a 15 year period they would end up after a handfull of moves in the house they aimed for to only find they are still stuck in the shoebox they started with.

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

Thing is though RenoMan, when are you going to get it into your head that it is the high house prices that were caused by the lax lending etc that have now caused the problem we now have, not the fact the banks are now being more sensible with lending. Call it rationing if you like. The bottom line is there is a shortfall now between what people want to sell houses for and what most people are able lend. The result, the lowest level of house sales for ages.

Why do so many people deny that it is high house prices that are now the problem, nothing else, however banks should not in any way or form go back to any form of lax lending.

The problem is that many people have delusions of grandeur about their 'assets' now and seem totally unwilling to accept that the value of their asset is falling.

Thing is though shortchanged, when will you get it into your head that your post makes no sense in the context of what we are discussing?

I'm the one agreeing with Lilac Pixie and saying that low paid workers shouldn't be loaned excessive amounts, Graham is the one who seems to be saying that it's unfair that low paid workers are being prevented from buying properties that are out of their financial reach. In this context your post is meaningless, because you're preaching to the Choir. Graham is the one advocating lax lending, not me.

The problem is that people don't want to buy a starter home and feel their first house should be a 3 bed semi but then baulk at the fact that a 3 bed semi costs more than a starter home.