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!
64% of FTB's have parental help
Comments
-
sorry but you are still comparing a time of lax lending to a time of sensible lending.
Just because more people got through with lax lending (and subsequently pushed prices up) it doesn't mean it is the correct way of doing things.
We don't have sensible lending today.
We have mortgage rationing, designed to prevent over a million people from buying, so as to shrink the pool of borrowers to match the available much smaller pool of lending.
And you can't fix a housing shortage through mortgage rationing.
That just ensures that house building falls to the lowest levels in a century, as we have seen, while rents rise to record highs instead.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
sorry but you are still comparing a time of lax lending to a time of sensible lending.
Just because more people got through with lax lending (and subsequently pushed prices up) it doesn't mean it is the correct way of doing things.
What do you think is the biggest obstacle to a FTB I believe it's the deposit.0 -
What do you think is the biggest obstacle to a FTB I believe it's the deposit.
Percy prefers it when a million or more FTB-s are prevented from buying and forced to enrich landlords.
He thinks that is an acceptable price to pay for preventing a few percent in HPI.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »The deposit is larger and therefore harder to achieve the higher the house price. You can't get away from this, no matter how hard you try.
Who's arguing that deposits aren't a function of price?
We're trying to work out why a bigger proportion of FTB's got help in 2012 vs. 2007.
Average house price 2007 = c£180,000 (NW)
Average house price 2012 = c£164,000 (NW)
Average deposit FTB 2007 = 5% (?) = £9K
Average deposit FTB 2012 = 20% (?) = £32K
One thing that stands out is that the average FTB in 2012 had to find an extra £23k for the deposit.
If you think this is because of house prices then please explain as prices seem to have fallen so wouldn't less FTB's need help?0 -
Try 2001 and come back.
And in 2007, the average deposit was 10%...just a little fact.
And you can get 10% now...just another little fact.
Your deposit choices do make your numbers look good though.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »And in 2007, the average deposit was 10%...just a little fact.
And you can get 10% now...just another little fact.
Your deposit choices do make your numbers look good though.
Who's arguing that deposits aren't a function of price?
We're trying to work out why a bigger proportion of FTB's got help in 2012 vs. 2007.
Average house price 2007 = c£180,000 (NW)
Average house price 2012 = c£164,000 (NW)
Average deposit FTB 2007 = 10% (?) = £18K
Average deposit FTB 2012 = 20% (?) = £32K
One thing that stands out is that the average FTB in 2012 had to find an extra £14k for the deposit.
10% deposits are available today but the average is 20%.
If you think this is because of house prices then please explain as prices seem to have fallen so wouldn't less FTB's need help?0 -
Try 2001 and come back.
We all know that anyone without a deposit could get a mortgage in 2007. Pointless comparison as you can't now! So of course the numbers needing help from parents would have been lower then....as you simply didn't need it!
You are trying to make out there is one issue. There are a variety of issues. High prices being one of them. That's blatantly obvious to all but the rose tint crew.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »We all know that anyone without a deposit could get a mortgage in 2007. Pointless comparison as you can't now! So of course the numbers needing help from parents would have been lower then....as you simply didn't need it!
Well we got there in the end. If it was that pointless why start the thread in the first place?Graham_Devon wrote: »You are trying to make out there is one issue. There are a variety of issues. High prices being one of them. That's blatantly obvious to all but the rose tint crew.
No I'm not trying to make out it's single issue. When comparing two pieces of data and noting a significant change over time then it's worth comparing how conditions have changed over that time. In this case prices are lower and deposit requirements are significantly. Which is more likely to have led to a rising proportion of FTB'S needing help?Graham_Devon wrote: »Try 2001 and come back.
Why?0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Percy prefers it when a million or more FTB-s are prevented from buying and forced to enrich landlords.
He thinks that is an acceptable price to pay for preventing a few percent in HPI.
I think its the only fair way, while there is limited stock the the most financially capable get the first go, somebody born 10 years later will have the same chance as it hasn't rocketed out of reach, the system you want and love involves ever increasing prices and those born earlier having a huge advantage of those born later.
In summary right now those who manage there finances well will be fine and those who don't will be locked out until they sort themselves out, you on the other had think that it should just be a bidding free for all and its just those for are born later who should suffer.Have my first business premises (+4th business) 01/11/2017
Quit day job to run 3 businesses 08/02/2017
Started third business 25/06/2016
Son born 13/09/2015
Started a second business 03/08/2013
Officially the owner of my own business since 13/01/20120 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Try 2001 and come back.
We all know that anyone without a deposit could get a mortgage in 2007. Pointless comparison as you can't now! So of course the numbers needing help from parents would have been lower then....as you simply didn't need it!
You are trying to make out there is one issue. There are a variety of issues. High prices being one of them. That's blatantly obvious to all but the rose tint crew.
2002 for you Graham didn't have 2001 earnings figures.
Median full time salary 2002 £20k average house price £120k, now £26k average house price £162k.
2002 deposit 10% £12k or 0.6x salary, now deposit 20% £32k or 1.2x salary.
Mortgage in 2002 £108k or 5.4x salary, now £130k or 5x salary.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards