Nationwide aug: + 1.3%

sabretoothtigger

Reducing in nominal terms only if your interest rate is below inflation, not everyone is. I suggest fixed rates which definitely are not now but are going to be half what inflation is in future

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

You might not have got a rise but plenty of people have and i believe the figures i used are accurate.

Yes, accurate if you spend 2 years buying white goods, TV's, Ipads, food and paying your bills.

Not quite so accurate if you don't furnish youself with new electronic gizmo's each year in order to bring your inflation rate down, and generally spend most of your disposable income on petrol, gas, electric, food and clothing....which is more in line with reality.

As I said, there are plenty of articles and figures around suggesting the true cost of living....not just the CPI or RPI measure, based on a basket of goods....a basket which isn't typical for the family to be buying each month.

Feel free to continue implying I don't understand, but quite clearly I do understand. You are just looking at 2 averages, not taking a blind bit of notice what makes up those averages, pretending the entire household income outside their (tiny) mortgage is spent on goods rising at 7% over two years and suggested they are better off. It's meaningless. Your example assumes no one saves a penny as it's all spent on inflationary goods....hence you can play on the percentages of your cherrypicked tiny mortgage amount and huge disposable income spend and come up with that you come up with.

I mean, seriously, only in your world would the average person have a mortgage spend of £333 a month, but a inflation attracting spend of £1,056 a month. It's a rose tinted nonsense cherrypicked to prove the point you want to be proven.

As I said....stick with reality....it serves you better.

Graham_Devon

Rinoa wrote: »

Quote of the week. :rotfl:

Only an MSE bear could argue that inflation reduces real house prices whilst leaving the real value of any outstanding mortgage unchanged.

I've never argued about real house prices....you have me mixed up with someone else.

Real prices are pretty much worthless, hence I never argue we should be looking at real prices over nominal. Is this yet another playing the man not the ball argument?

moneyinmypocket

Well there we have it folks, graham and his band of misery have been defeated. Hard working families are getting through this tough peroid, house prices are strong.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, accurate if you spend 2 years buying white goods, TV's, Ipads, food and paying your bills.

Not quite so accurate if you don't furnish youself with new electronic gizmo's each year in order to bring your inflation rate down, and generally spend most of your disposable income on petrol, gas, electric, food and clothing....which is more in line with reality.

As I said, there are plenty of articles and figures around suggesting the true cost of living....not just the CPI or RPI measure, based on a basket of goods....a basket which isn't typical for the family to be buying each month.

Feel free to continue implying I don't understand, but quite clearly I do understand. You are just looking at 2 averages, not taking a blind bit of notice what makes up those averages, pretending the entire household income outside their (tiny) mortgage is spent on goods rising at 7% over two years and suggested they are better off. It's meaningless. Your example assumes no one saves a penny as it's all spent on inflationary goods....hence you can play on the percentages of your cherrypicked tiny mortgage amount and huge disposable income spend and come up with that you come up with.

I mean, seriously, only in your world would the average person have a mortgage spend of £333 a month, but a inflation attracting spend of £1,056 a month. It's a rose tinted nonsense cherrypicked to prove the point you want to be proven.

As I said....stick with reality....it serves you better.

What percentage do you think the mortgage takes up of a normal persons take home pay.

Every bodies inflation rate is different but the fact remains that a 2% rise gives you a bigger take home rise that 2% and only outgoings after your mortgage are effected by inflation if the cost of your mortgage has not increased.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

What percentage do you think the mortgage takes up of a normal persons take home pay.

Every bodies inflation rate is different but the fact remains that a 2% rise gives you a bigger take home rise that 2% and only outgoing after your mortgage are effected by inflation if the cost of your mortgage has not increased.

The mortgage as a percentage of income is irrelevant if you are going to assume that ALL other income is spent in it's entirity to assume CPI inflation added on.

I'd suggest people don't spend their entire income out of their wages on CPI attracting goods. People have other debts (credit cards, loans, student loans) etc which do not attract inflation....This comes out of their disposable income and shelters a percentage of that income from inflation.

People save money each month which doesn't attract inflation.

You are left over with what they would spend on inflation attracting goods. You appear to believe, or for mathmatical purposes only (as it suits) appear to believe that someones entire income outside of their mortgage payment is spent on inflation attracting items.

That is the single biggest flaw of your argument. And to say I don't understand or need it explained to me is taking the buscuit when it's explained in the way you did.

It's quite simple really. Yes, inflation based on the CPI or RPI index will make your mortgage amount look smaller. But you have to look at that in relation to your other expenses going up. Every single article out there from right to left leaning to indepedant articles suggests were worse off overall due to lower wage inflation. The biggest culprits to this are the things we HAVE to buy each month....petrol / transport, food, domestic energy. Pulling inflation down, we have TV's and Ipads....something which the majority won't buy each month....not even every year. Therefore, that 7% average figure is on the low side when you measure what people spend their money on. I.e. weighting. If you don't buyan ipad, a new TV, and a DVD player one month, but do buy gas, food, petrol and clotes, your inflation reate will be higher than the official measure.

You are right in that if you JUST look at RPI / CPI and compare it to the mortgage payment, purely on statistics, the mortgage payment is smaller as a percentage. But suggesting that peope are better off since 2010....based on your workings out is just a farce.

Sorry for the aggressive tone, just so many jumped on the bandwagon to pretned I don't hae a clue again based on your figures, it was a little annoying. I doubt any of them will go a bit further like you have done and explore it....will just stick to the usual soundbites.

homelessskilledworker

wotsthat wrote: »

You're struggling with the data too. The graph is land reg data for Cambridgeshire - not bullconspiracy.com.

Nominal prices today look to be about £20k higher than 2005 and that's after your crash. Not quite the same(ish).

I have just had to check to see if the name of this board had changed to the HSW's personal circumstances board rather than a general discussion on the UK property market.

For a chap that only decided a few days ago to stop talking about me you are not doing a very good job, I think this is about the 5th post now in just the last couple of days:)

You really have an axe to grind mate:)


p.s not that you are interested in the facts, but I was unable to buy in 2005.

Rinoa

Graham_Devon wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17191691
And more locally.....House prices have fallen 33% in real terms in the UK since 2007.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've never argued about real house prices....you have me mixed up with someone else.

............

Graham_Devon

Wow rinoa, you have caught me out linking up to what an article stated. If you think that's me arguing real prices against nominal prices, you have much to learn my friend.

If you search a bit harder, you'll find me talking about real house pices when it comes to investments, as obviously real prices are what matters to an investment vehicle against others. But not when it comes to buying a house.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The mortgage as a percentage of income is irrelevant if you are going to assume that ALL other income is spent in it's entirity to assume CPI inflation added on.

I'd suggest people don't spend their entire income out of their wages on CPI attracting goods. People have other debts (credit cards, loans, student loans) etc which do not attract inflation....This comes out of their disposable income and shelters a percentage of that income from inflation.

People save money each month which doesn't attract inflation.

You are left over with what they would spend on inflation attracting goods. You appear to believe, or for mathmatical purposes only (as it suits) appear to believe that someones entire income outside of their mortgage payment is spent on inflation attracting items.

That is the single biggest flaw of your argument. And to say I don't understand or need it explained to me is taking the buscuit when it's explained in the way you did.

It's quite simple really. Yes, inflation based on the CPI or RPI index will make your mortgage amount look smaller. But you have to look at that in relation to your other expenses going up. Every single article out there from right to left leaning to indepedant articles suggests were worse off overall due to lower wage inflation. The biggest culprits to this are the things we HAVE to buy each month....petrol / transport, food, domestic energy. Pulling inflation down, we have TV's and Ipads....something which the majority won't buy each month....not even every year. Therefore, that 7% average figure is on the low side when you measure what people spend their money on. I.e. weighting. If you don't buyan ipad, a new TV, and a DVD player one month, but do buy gas, food, petrol and clotes, your inflation reate will be higher than the official measure.

You are right in that if you JUST look at RPI / CPI and compare it to the mortgage payment, purely on statistics, the mortgage payment is smaller as a percentage. But suggesting that peope are better off since 2010....based on your workings out is just a farce.

Sorry for the aggressive tone, just so many jumped on the bandwagon to pretned I don't hae a clue again based on your figures, it was a little annoying. I doubt any of them will go a bit further like you have done and explore it....will just stick to the usual soundbites.

I can’t see what you are going on about if you spend 50% of salary on things that do not increase loans etc and get a rise all of that rise is available to spend on things that have increased so if you get 2% rise you have 4% to spend on thinks that are effected.