Straw that broke the camels back?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You don't need to go back too far in time to test this theory. What happened last time house prices fell significantly?.

You mean the 90's?

Look what happened after. Transactions increased. It led the way to the boom, which, based on loose lending, rocketed.

Look at what's happened in America. Hardly fantasy to suggest what I did, America is living proof of my "fantasy".

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

It was a long winded way of saying that new build houses are poor value for money because of all these costs.

CIL and affordable housing levies have nothing to do with 'damage' caused.

New houses owners will pay council tax for 100 years... that is sufficient for the community to pay for any additional infrastructure necessary.

'Responsible' lending rules stop lots of totally credit worthy people affording property to the detriment of both themselves and the community

Stamp duty is a tax on mobility and a disincentive to people moving both up the chain and downsizing to the loss of both the individuals and of society in general.
You may consider 10k, 20k, 25k etc as 'slightly' but poorer people than you would maybe feel differently.

If a new developer wants to shoe horn in a large developmenbt into a poorly serviced site, with poor communications, road network and dangerous junctions. I don't see why, the tax payers being impacted, should foot all the bill for that development to connect to the rest of the world .

Surely if people were creditworthy and asking for sensible finance they would meet the policy. I do accept that having had lax regulations for close to 30 years it is a shock to the system.

1% Stamp Duty above £125K up to £250K is hardly penal in the scheme of things. I have said it should be more progressive to smooth over the upshifts. Over £500k doesn't appear on the horizon for most people. What would replace it if removed? Where should we raise the lost revenue from?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You mean the 90's?

Look what happened after. Transactions increased. It led the way to the boom, which, based on loose lending, rocketed.

Look at what's happened in America. Hardly fantasy to suggest what I did, America is living proof of my "fantasy".

I remember the 90's. If you look at historic house price vs. wages graphs you'll see that they were a sweet spot for buying a cheap house. Despite the cheap price tags they weren't exactly flying off the shelves.

To be honest I was thinking about the 2007/8 falls. According to your theory when does the rocketing start?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I remember the 90's. If you look at historic house price vs. wages graphs you'll see that they were a sweet spot for buying a cheap house. Despite the cheap price tags they weren't exactly flying off the shelves.

To be honest I was thinking about the 2007/8 falls. According to your theory when does the rocketing start?

What's the point in talking about the 2007/8 falls?

The whole point of this thread is suggesting they need to fall further. I was describing what may happen if they did.

You called this a "fantasy". The point I'm making can be, and is being proven right now though. Look at the 90's. Look at America.

Looking at the 2007/8 falls is a bit silly really, as the whole point of this thread is suggesting they didn't fall enough and need to fall further.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What's the point in talking about the 2007/8 falls?

The whole point of this thread is suggesting they need to fall further. I was describing what may happen if they did.

You called this a "fantasy". The point I'm making can be, and is being proven right now though. Look at the 90's. Look at America.

Looking at the 2007/8 falls is a bit silly really, as the whole point of this thread is suggesting they didn't fall enough and need to fall further.

I thought you had a theory that house price crashes lead to future booms. Didn't realise that we had the wrong sort of falls in 2007/8.

It's very complicated.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If a new developer wants to shoe horn in a large developmenbt into a poorly serviced site, with poor communications, road network and dangerous junctions. I don't see why, the tax payers being impacted, should foot all the bill for that development to connect to the rest of the world .

Surely if people were creditworthy and asking for sensible finance they would meet the policy. I do accept that having had lax regulations for close to 30 years it is a shock to the system.

1% Stamp Duty above £125K up to £250K is hardly penal in the scheme of things. I have said it should be more progressive to smooth over the upshifts. Over £500k doesn't appear on the horizon for most people. What would replace it if removed? Where should we raise the lost revenue from?

It's in the communities (taxpayers) interest to allow more housing to be built.
The rediculous levies ensure few (taxpayers) will wany to buy.
If that's you find that a good thing then fine; personally I consider it a bad choice.

Pendulums swing; and have swung to far as to what is creditworthy.

We agree a little about stamp duty.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I thought you had a theory that house price crashes lead to future booms. Didn't realise that we had the wrong sort of falls in 2007/8.

It's very complicated.

You are being difficult for the crack of being difficult here.

Clearly I was describing falls to natural level. That's not what happened in 2007/8 and that's why we are why were here now.

The very fact you won't take on what I said about the 90s and America leads me to believe you haven't got an argument, so are simply going to play on words to make some kind of vague non-point.

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

I thought you had a theory that house price crashes lead to future booms. Didn't realise that we had the wrong sort of falls in 2007/8.

It's very complicated.

Is very complicated. . As there's a runaway loco coming down the tracks. As people haven't woken up to reality yet. Too interested in the narrow short term view. Rather than the longer term macro view.

townendwig

Interesting to find this thread, I came on here to see if anyone else had noticed this, as I couldn't believe what I heard on Talksport of all places..

I swear I did a bit of a comedy double take at the radio yesterday (might have been thursday) when the newsreader was rattling through the headlines and came out with something along the lines of:

Critics are out against George Osborne's plans in the budget to give £120bn to help the housing market, saying it will make housing even more expensive.

Severely paraphrasing, but It was the first time I'd heard higher house prices referred to as a bad thing ie 'more expensive' rather than joy for homeowners etc.

A definite shift in sentiment from where I'm sat, I could not believe it. It stuck in my head like a thorn, it was that foreign to hear, and even the lady reading it out sounded like she didn't quite understand the concept as she was reading it out.

Just thought I'd share that, as it baffled me a bit, hence I came here to see if I was imagining things! Interesting to read the assertions on this thread that something similar is happening across the main news outlets?

The bit I cannot get my head around, is that this sort of scheme - ie taxpayers money backstopping mortgages is nothing new, but in the past it has only ever been heralded in the news as helping people to get on the ladder etc.so why is this latest scheme suddenly being reported as a bad thing??

It is the sentiment change which is interesting, if you believe this represents one, which I do. It was subtle but I picked up on it for sure.

Graham_Devon

townendwig wrote: »

It is the sentiment change which is interesting, if you believe this represents one, which I do. It was subtle but I picked up on it for sure.

Probably a combination of risking tax payers money, risking another crisis and the coverage of Cyprus at the moment.

Were announcing high risk policies in order to inflate a market at the very same time that Cypriot banks are shut and they are being blackmailed, due to too much risk and inflated markets.