People will adjust their spending habits in order to afford their mortgage

OffGridLiving

shortchanged wrote: »

So having the view that all people should waste less of their money on housing costs is a selfish view is it?

That's a strawman argument if I've ever seen one.

Percy1983

shortchanged wrote: »

So having the view that all people should waste less of their money on housing costs is a selfish view is it?

OffGridLiving wrote: »

That's a strawman argument if I've ever seen one.

I am confused, so....

Its selfish to want housing costs to be reasonable and stay reasonable for future generations.

Its not selfish to want prices to rocket so you can cash in more equity later in life all funded by the young.

Please explain the how that works... anybody?

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am confused, so....

Its selfish to want housing costs to be reasonable and stay reasonable for future generations.

Its not selfish to want prices to rocket so you can cash in more equity later in life all funded by the young.

Please explain the how that works... anybody?

The point is some people want a crash and that is selfish I would also agree that people wanting prices to rocket are also selfish.

I think most people would be prefer prices to be reasonable the problem is how some people want to achieved it.

OffGridLiving

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am confused, so....

Its selfish to want housing costs to be reasonable and stay reasonable for future generations.

Its not selfish to want prices to rocket so you can cash in more equity later in life all funded by the young.

Please explain the how that works... anybody?

Come on Percy, you're young enough to be part of the internet generation. You know how to use google to look up the word "strawman argument". Everything with then be explained.

Go on then, I'll do it for you:

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

And if you're still in the dark, basically no one said "that all people should waste less of their money on housing costs is a selfish view ".

shortchanged_2

OffGridLiving wrote: »

That's a strawman argument if I've ever seen one.

Oh it's started. The good old strawman.

Couldn't keep it under wraps any longer then renoman?

Cornucopia

shortchanged wrote: »

So having the view that all people should waste less of their money on housing costs is a selfish view is it?

Not at all. Apart from the word "waste", obviously.

The problems are:-

- What is "affordable"?

- How do you achieve that without damaging the interests of existing owners and the economy.

- Housing will increase in cost by at least the rate of inflation, in the long-term. There is also re-investment of gains as people move from property to property.

- I'm all for addressing the issues through the provision of more housing, and more affordable housing. Anything else could be dangerous to people who don't buy, even though they could; people who already own; and the economy.

OffGridLiving

shortchanged wrote: »

Oh it's started. The good old strawman.

Couldn't keep it under wraps any longer then renoman?

Troll.

........................................

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

The point is some people want a crash and that is selfish I would also agree that people wanting prices to rocket are also selfish.

I think most people would be prefer prices to be reasonable the problem is how some people want to achieved it.

The simplest and most effective way to achieve a reasonable price is to allow the market to decide the reasonable price. That would be the price at which people could afford houses without schemes and subsidised mortgages.

People, like myself, want the schemes to stop. These schemes generally just push the cost of housing up, as is starting to be evidenced.

The basic issue here is that if you remove these schemes, the market falls, and you are then classed as wanting people in negative equity and losing their homes.

But that's not what I want to see. What I want to see is an end to the continued introduction of new ever expanding schemes. The schemes already in place may now have to stay as there would be too many victims if they were pulled.

But that doesn't mean to say I want to see more and more ever expanding schemes swalling more and more people whom would also be in trouble should the music stop.

We dont need to see, for instance, mortgage guarantees for everyone come January 2014. Just as we don't need to remove all existing scheme forcefully. Just let the market find it's way. You will end up with that resonable price, though of course some will suffer in the process. But others are suffering now because of the schemes. Someone always suffers if you meddle with markets.

OffGridLiving

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The simplest and most effective way to achieve a reasonable price is to allow the market to decide the reasonable price. That would be the price at which people could afford houses without schemes and subsidised mortgages.

People, like myself, want the schemes to stop. These schemes generally just push the cost of housing up, as is starting to be evidenced.

The basic issue here is that if you remove these schemes, the market falls, and you are then classed as wanting people in negative equity and losing their homes.

But that's not what I want to see. What I want to see is an end to the continued introduction of new ever expanding schemes. The schemes already in place may now have to stay as there would be too many victims if they were pulled.

But that doesn't mean to say I want to see more and more ever expanding schemes swalling more and more people whom would also be in trouble should the music stop.

We dont need to see, for instance, mortgage guarantees for everyone come January 2014. Just as we don't need to remove all existing scheme forcefully. Just let the market find it's way. You will end up with that resonable price, though of course some will suffer in the process. But others are suffering now because of the schemes. Someone always suffers if you meddle with markets.

Out of interest, do you think the market will decide on a reasonable price if we still have a chronic housing shortage?

Moreover, do you believe we have a chronic housing shortage?

Even more importantly, which "market" do you think should decide on a reasonable price. A normal functioning one, or the one we have now.

Moreover, do you believe we have a normally functioning housing market right now (if we remove your 'stimulus')?

shortchanged_2

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Out of interest, do you think the market will decide on a reasonable price if we still have a chronic housing shortage?

It would have to.

Builders would have to look at how to reduce their costs as they wouldn't have all these incentivised schemes to help them with their profits.

Cost of land would fall.

With sensible lending levels there is still a ceiling limit on what people can afford. These schemes allow the ceiling height to be raised. Common sense isn't it.