We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
House buying dreams are dying
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »Should and Shouldn't are strong words.
I've asked this before, but why shouldn't someone be able to afford a house if they are on a certain wage? It's a market. Not a rule.
Supply and demand GD, supply and demand.
If there's not enough supply, then demand is contrained.
The OP link refers to 5 million would be but can't buyers.
Is there are surplus of 5 million homes?:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »As you point out rates are the lowest they have probably ever been.
For YBM not you .
Anyone entering into a long term commitmnent should ensure they are able to cope with an increases in that rate. It is sure to happen. If they can't afford a 3-4% hike should they be entering into the commitment?
You could get a 10 year fix.
This takes away the concern over rate rises.
Likelyhood is that after those 10 years, you would be able to afford higher rates:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Supply and demand GD, supply and demand.
If there's not enough supply, then demand is contrained.
The OP link refers to 5 million would be but can't buyers.
Is there are surplus of 5 million homes?
Does it say 5 million specifically, or just 'millions' ? 5 million sounds a hello of a lot, and would have to include great swathes of those who have as much chance of getting and affording a mortgage as QPR do of being in the Champions League next season. Even 2 million sounds a lot if it's really 'millions'.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Does it say 5 million specifically, or just 'millions' ? 5 million sounds a hello of a lot, and would have to include great swathes of those who have as much chance of getting and affording a mortgage as QPR do of being in the Champions League next season. Even 2 million sounds a lot if it's really 'millions'.
Did you not read it?
It's the first sentenceThe number of people who own their own home has fallen to a 24-year low – and 5million people who want to buy a property can’t afford to.
P.S. mind you, the articles author tweet statement is "Trust me. I'm a journalist."
https://twitter.com/etansmallman:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Did you not read it?
It's the first sentence
P.S. mind you, the articles author tweet statement is "Trust me. I'm a journalist."
https://twitter.com/etansmallman
No because there was no space between the 5 and million it escaped me on the first reading. I don't believe it anyway -- how do they know how many it is ?No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Random musing...
If there are more people renting than home owners, the politics will change dramatically as the parties pander to the largest group.
Interesting times.0 -
Random musing...
If there are more people renting than home owners, the politics will change dramatically as the parties pander to the largest group.
Interesting times.
there used to be more renters than owners so there must have been very powerfull forces to overcome the politicians and get to where we are now.0 -
The trends for the under 30yo have been changing well over a decade ...and it looks like they were well under way before the Labour party were elected as suggested.
If we have 2m at Uni which is also treble in a decade you're bound to have a different set up from years ago...
Houses are more affordable outside the SE of England but until borrowing conditions change we'll see young people struggle to buy.
0 -
The trends for the under 30yo have been changing well over a decade ....
Interesting graph, however does it affect the voting population much?
I find it interesting that there has been a decline even from 1997 when we cam out the last bottom of the house price cycle.
Could this be an indicator that through the ages, even when property was considered to be cheap, the demographics of youth choosing to buy have lowered.
Are the percentage of youth decreasingly being able to save for a deposit since 1997?
this graph certainly appears so.
You can't argue that property has been overpriced throughout this period, which therefore questions the under 30's desire to be homeowners.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards