Land reg, up 0.8% December

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

If the house price has falling in real terms it's obvious that the debt has fallen in real terms as have the repayments.

Absolutely not true.

Reason being, you need to refer to wage inflation to make that point, not general inflation.

General inflation over and above wage inflation (what we have now) makes your debt larger and harder to pay, as more of your money goes towards other goods.

In the 1970s there was general inflation CAUSED by wage inflation. Different times. Different outcomes.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Absolutely not true.

Reason being, you need to refer to wage inflation to make that point, not general inflation.

General inflation over and above wage inflation (what we have now) makes your debt larger and harder to pay, as more of your money goes towards other goods.

In the 1970s there was general inflation CAUSED by wage inflation. Different times. Different outcomes.

I refer you to my post 17

ukcarper

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I partly agree, but compared to the baby boomer generation difficult large debts are remaining difficult large debts for much much longer.

Baby boomers had all that lovely double digit inflation to clear their mortgages, that was a time when buying your own home was a no brainer.

It's wage inflation not inflation that makes difference as we are finding out.

Fella

ukcarper wrote: »

If the house price has falling in real terms it's obvious that the debt has fallen in real terms as have the repayments.

No what I mean is I don't get what that post is going on about i.e. I never argued that mortgage debt won't have fallen (in many cases anyway). That is utterly irrelevant to what I'm talking about - my post was about house prices falling in real terms which they have. Nothing to do with the general state of home-owners wealth.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seriously?

You want to visit one of the BTL threads, discussing how much the rent has gone up against incomes etc and how great it all is.

Come now Graham,
I am a BTL LL and you know I often dismiss "real term" considerations.
Sure it has some relevance, however I've always maintained you have to compare your apples with apples and not pears or oranges etc.

So let's drop this "BTL" pro Real Terms stereotyp, because it simply is not true.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Absolutely not true.

Reason being, you need to refer to wage inflation to make that point, not general inflation.

General inflation over and above wage inflation (what we have now) makes your debt larger and harder to pay, as more of your money goes towards other goods.

In the 1970s there was general inflation CAUSED by wage inflation. Different times. Different outcomes.

This looks like Devonian 'cake and eat it theory' - whatever makes the house price movement negative in 'real' terms (inflation, wage inflation, milk, chicken) cannot be used to argue that mortgage debt and monthly payments are also a lower value.

wotsthat

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Baby boomers had all that lovely double digit inflation to clear their mortgages, that was a time when buying your own home was a no brainer.

You're a boomer and aren't sat in your own house paid for by inflation so doesn't that blow a hole in your sweeping generalisation?

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So howcome real terms rises are perfectly OK?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

discussing how much the rent has gone up against incomes etc and how great it all is.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

all the posts from people suggesting how much they made over the boom? How much they have made on their BTL portfolio etc

Looks like you worked it out yourself. You seem to be stuck in a weird loop where because real terms falls benefit no one, it must be the same for rises, which as you discovered over the course of 2 posts isn't the case.

ukcarper

Fella wrote: »

No what I mean is I don't get what that post is going on about i.e. I never argued that mortgage debt won't have fallen (in many cases anyway). That is utterly irrelevant to what I'm talking about - my post was about house prices falling in real terms which they have. Nothing to do with the general state of home-owners wealth.

The way I see it is that most of us live in the real world and have to pay for the things we need out of the money we earn therefore real term falls are meaningless.

　

the_flying_pig

Fella wrote: »

Genuinely no idea what you're going on about.





Who are they "they" you're talking about? I'm a property owner who doesn't particuarly care what happens to house prices so I presume you don't mean me.

Yeah... Coming as it did from a man in his forties I thought that was near enough the most childish, silly posts I've seen.