What is wrong with wanting cheaper homes

HappyMJ

brit1234 wrote: »

One word "Cobblers"

How about the majority of this countries youth priced out of the housing market who work hard and want families?

It was a decade irresponsible lending, fraud, and too low interest rates which is bringing us to economic collapse.

There is only so long you can create an artificial boom in growth with nothing tangible holding it up before it bursts. We have suffered from fools economics for too long, don't believe me then check out the Austrian school of economics. The school which is finally now starting to win the economic debate

When you say youth who do you mean exactly. Low income earners with no deposit? They can buy the worst house in the worst areas with a small personal loan as a deposit and a small mortgage. At least near me they can. They are not priced out of the market. Location is very important to house prices they cannot expect to live in areas of high demand with minimal income.

sheffield_lad

HappyMJ wrote: »

When you say youth who do you mean exactly. Low income earners with no deposit? They can buy the worst house in the worst areas with a small personal loan as a deposit and a small mortgage. At least near me they can. They are not priced out of the market. Location is very important to house prices they cannot expect to live in areas of high demand with minimal income.

Totally agree with you, bet we see a thread soon why can't the out of work live in the nice areas. lol

MrRee_2

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Those wanting them cannot be to blamed for those who over borrowed and are now panic stricken that a crash is on it's way.

Sadly, you showed your complete ignorance rigth there ... so, this could never move on above the very low level you set it at - but, I shall try .....

1. Houses will NEVER drop below the price which would return a 7% yield to an investor - therefore a floor is set and no crash will happen.

2. Those who cannot play the game will rent from those who can play.

3. For some, renting will be their way through life - for others, buying their own place will be their reward for being a winner.

4. There is to be no crash.

5 There is to be no crash.

6 There is to be no crash.

7 There is to be no crash.

8 There is to be no crash.

9 There is to be no crash.

AND

10. There is to be no crash.

moneyinmypocket

^ excellent point happy mj - in the city I live there are houses for as low as 50k - owning a home isn't a right hence why we have always had those that have council housing, those that rent and those that buy. Even a couple on min wage could get a house if thy wanted too - I can find houses under 60k - it's just you have some people expecting to live in a dream home right off bat.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DervProf wrote: »

Now this is where the debate gets interesting.

It is indeed....;)

I do see why you are saying this Hamish, and no, most of us (even bearish types) don't want to see the misery you mention.

No, you do..... you just disguise it (or perhaps try to fool yourselves) by imposing some form of artificial morality on housing crashes as somehow rectifying an imbalance, so the horrible consequences become acceptable to you.

See next quote for the perfect example of this....

Here's the point though, I think that the problem is that we've allowed ourselves (through natural greed) to get to a position where "wealth destruction" needs to take place if we do want to achieve the not unreasonable goal of cheap(er) housing.

LOL.... See above.

Your reply is very revealing - "There is nothing wrong with wanting to see a large scale house building programme that would provide cheap entry level housing for those who need it." I think your next comment might be "but I don't want a house like mine (presumably not "entry level") to fall too much in price.

No it's quite simple really.

The big shortage is of entry level housing, therefore that's what should be built if we're to consider a national house building plan.

My houses are in locations where you can't build any more without demolishing existing surrounds (so no net gain) and are worth less than the cost of building identical ones (as I suspect are most houses greater than 100 years old), so it doesn't really matter what new builds you put up they're unlikely to impact on pricing for people like me who want to own old houses and wouldn't touch a newbuild with a bargepole.

However if you want to argue that point I'm quite happy to do so, and point out both that the negatives of a crash outweigh the positives, and also that you can achieve affordable housing without causing a crash and the horrible wider economic impacts that brings.

Too many eggs in one basket. Something needs to give, it is dangerous to continue to rely on property as the key to financial success. It is just as reasonable to desire cheap housing, as it is for cheap food or fuel. The fact that the UK economy has come to rely so much on it's property market is not something to be applauded (unless you have benefited from this increase in reliance). And those that do applaud, seem quite short sighted and selfish as far as I am concerned.

Same old same old, from people trying to frame the argument as a moral one instead of a factual one.

Land and houses are assets no different to any other asset.

You don't need to own a 4 bed detached house to have shelter from the elements, just as you don't need to own a classic car to have transport, or drink fine vintage wines to get drunk.

Now apply that same quote.....

"It is just as reasonable to desire cheap housing, as it is for cheap food or fuel."

..... to other asset classes, like shares, precious metals, classic cars, fine wines, etc, and see how ridiculous it sounds.

Generali

To me it makes most sense to let builders build more houses If that's what they want to do and let the market sort things out.

If people want to build houses and others want to buy them it seems dumb to stop them.

A._Badger

Generali wrote: »

To me it makes most sense to let builders build more houses If that's what they want to do and let the market sort things out.

If people want to build houses and others want to buy them it seems dumb to stop them.

Well, if we didn't mind the entire South of England ending-up looking like Slough.

I think there's plenty of sound justification for planning regulations.

brit1234

HappyMJ wrote: »

When you say youth who do you mean exactly. Low income earners with no deposit? They can buy the worst house in the worst areas with a small personal loan as a deposit and a small mortgage. At least near me they can. They are not priced out of the market. Location is very important to house prices they cannot expect to live in areas of high demand with minimal income.

No middle class 20-35 year olds with reasonable jobs who just want the chance to buy what their parents bought when they were that age. They are priced out of the market including those with deposits.

CLAPTON

A._Badger wrote: »

Well, if we didn't mind the entire South of England ending-up looking like Slough.

I think there's plenty of sound justification for planning regulations.

we indeed

just remind us

how big is the SE of england numerically?
how much is currently built on?


is a bit of extra building with all the extra jobs, better housing, cheaper housing, cheaper rents, cheaper mortgages payments worse than a small increase in built up areas?

A._Badger

CLAPTON wrote: »

we indeed

just remind us

how big is the SE of england numerically?
how much is currently built on?


is a bit of extra building with all the extra jobs, better housing, cheaper housing, cheaper rents, cheaper mortgages payments worse than a small increase in built up areas?

It depends what you mean by 'small' doesn't it?

Have you seen Ashford in Kent?