64% of FTB's have parental help

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

My point is that you don't seem to have a point. But I expect my point is pointless.

Well as I do have a point, it does appear rather pointless to state your point believing it is indeed pointless.

Tancred

We got £100k from our parents. Only way to buy in the south-east.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well as I do have a point, it does appear rather pointless to state your point believing it is indeed pointless.

What is your point then? And are you going to present any data to back it up?

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

What is your point then? And are you going to present any data to back it up?

The point of the thread is, well, the article.

This other point that people are banging on about....well, I have no idea what that's all about in truth.

All I asked was that, after wotsthat presented data for the absolute pinicle of the boom to suggest prices were more achieveable today...he looked at 2001.

It was just a random year which I picked because it was midway between a low and a high. If I wanted to prove a point or something about house prices I'd have picked a few years earlier as they were even cheaper. Therefore, I don't really have any point to prove, though wotsthat seems somewhat convinced I do.

Wotsthat has since suggested I have an agenda I am hiding, and asking for my point. I've said I'd not got one. Yet he's said it 3 or 4 times since and others have caught on, including yourself, who probably doesn't have the foggiest either as to what I'm supposed to have done.

The clincher seems to have been that I have claimed housing was more affordable when it was cheaper. Others are claiming this is not the case as you cannot use percentages, you have to use numbers. Or something like that.

If you have the foggiest idea of the point I'm supposed to be proving, could you let me know? I doubt you do, just as I don't....so not sure why I'm getting hounded for data to back up a point I'm not even aware of.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All I asked was that, after wotsthat presented data for the absolute pinicle of the boom to suggest prices were more achieveable today...he looked at 2001.

The data was presented by you. i.e comparing 2007 to 2012. That WAS the point.

You thought 2001 might be 'interesting' only after it was explained what the posted data meant (and you didn't like said explanation). Because I didn't research it for you and you weren't happy with UKCarper's research your point was proven - and you didn't present an argument or data - and, come to think of it, you didn't make a point either!

Oh hang on....and we're not talking about deposit requirements rather than prices being the likely reason a bigger proportion of FTB's needed help in 2012 vs 2007...oh I get it..you bad man.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

The data was presented by you. i.e comparing 2007 to 2012. That WAS the point.

You thought 2001 might be 'interesting' only after it was explained what the posted data meant (and you didn't like said explanation). Because I didn't research it for you and you weren't happy with UKCarper's research your point was proven - and you didn't present an argument or data - and, come to think of it, you didn't make a point either!

Oh hang on....and we're not talking about deposit requirements rather than prices being the likely reason a bigger proportion of FTB's needed help in 2012 vs 2007...oh I get it..you bad man.

Didn't agree, you mean?

If the data meant what you stated it meant, howcome NO article on the web describes it your way?

You are correct in one aspect, no, I didn't make a point...so I'm not sure wht data I'm supposed to back that up with. Well done for catching on!

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If the data meant what you stated it meant, howcome NO article on the web describes it your way?

I'm just awesome I guess.

Lots of people want to believe that high prices not deposit rules are the reason for a bigger proportion of FTB's needing help in 2012 vs 2007 and so don't look past the narrative. Most people aren't that inquisitive and keep their BS detectors set to gullible.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are correct in one aspect, no, I didn't make a point...so I'm not sure wht data I'm supposed to back that up with. Well done for catching on!

Well I'm glad we cleared that up. Let's not mention 2001 again - I did once but I think I got away with it.