Who'd vote for lower house prices? Not many...

Gracchus_Babeuf

wotsthat wrote: »

Or downsize? According to Lloyds downsizers are driving the current sales volumes - not entirely convinced but according to them the average downsizer buys a new house and releases £100k.

Not sure they'd be voting for lower house prices (well not until they'd got the £100k stashed away).

Yes. And also if you plan to move to a cheaper part of the country - but many people don't do this even after retirement.
As an example, my 75 year old widowed mother-in-law doesn't want to move from her £390k detached house, despite the big equity that could be released if she moved to a retirement pad.

Gracchus_Babeuf

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

High house prices are fantastic for the country

Fantastic for whom? Not for first time buyers - or anyone who wants to trade up. It only benefits downsizers.

wotsthat

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

This goes back to the meaning of 'net worth'. If you are living inside a million it doesn't mean it's there for spending.

If your net worth is £1,000,000 based on your house value then you could sell it and move to a £500k house and spend the rest.

Net worth is net worth. Some are more liquid than others - so what?

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Yes. And also if you plan to move to a cheaper part of the country - but many people don't do this even after retirement.
As an example, my 75 year old widowed mother-in-law doesn't want to move from her £390k detached house, despite the big equity that could be released if she moved to a retirement pad.

The MIL is a poor example of why net worth is 'psychological'. Clearly she could release equity and spend it but chooses not to.

Turnbull2000

Massive turnout for a anti-development protest in Ponteland today, organised by the PGBG. Must have been hundreds of people, with placards installed along the streets in support of their cause. And these were all the exact demographic that tends to vote in numbers. I expect the councillors to take their side as usual - there's simply no alternative if they want to keep their job (and protect the value of their own properties of course).

I have to say, PGBG, Holystone Action Group (the coastal anti-development group) and the other major players are very well organised and vocal.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The rate they go up is crazy - in the last 30 odd years, they have increased 2.9% year on year above inflation. (Takes in increases and decreases.

That's ABOVE inflation as you point out.

Do you honestly not see the issue here!?

Thrugelmir

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Technically yes, but realistically this is not feasible unless you are planning to emigrate.

Many people face such an issue. Death, Divorce and Distress aren't reflected in the repossession numbers.

Graham_Devon

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

Massive turnout for a anti-development protest in Ponteland today, organised by the PGBG. Must have been hundreds of people, with placards installed along the streets in support of their cause. And these were all the exact demographic that tends to vote in numbers. I expect the councillors to take their side as usual - there's simply no alternative if they want to keep their job (and protect the value of their own properties of course).

I have to say, PGBG, Holystone Action Group (the coastal anti-development group) and the other major players are very well organised and vocal.

1m 25s into this video....

Check out the boomer protestors...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20051000

This report is only a couple of hours old, and it's yet another report stating more house building is needed.

But it took 14 years to get 2,000 homes signed off. The placard waving boomers are probably seething.

The report is mainly looking at a women who, amusingly, works for a housing association Monday to Friday, yet can't afford a house. She also works at the weekend in a pub. She's had to move back in with her parents due to rent increases.

When the housing association doesn't pay enough to pay for a house...surely something has gone wrong?!

As the report states, the average income in the area is £1,500 a month. The average rent, £900 a month. Insanity.

ukcarper

That report is in my local TV area it wasn't just boomers protesting Also young people on low wages have only rarely been able to rent a flat.

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

Someone with a net worth of £400k is richer than someone with a net worth of £250k. Liquidity is another matter.

Net worth counts for little in a fire sale situation. Cash is King.

Liquidity is what matters.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

That report is in my local TV area it wasn't just boomers protesting Also young people on low wages have only rarely been able to rent a flat.

Sure. Just saying what I see. Of course not EVERY SINGLE protestor are boomers.

I can see one single younger person in the film

I take it you feel it's perfectly fine that a person working for a housing association weekends and working at the weeks, can't afford to put a roof over her head?

What exactly should she be doing to enable her to do that?