House prices hit all time record

wotsthat

JencParker wrote: »

Again, a bit of a useless statistic. London is a big place. And although this is a nice area, is considerably less than the borough and surrounding boroughs as it has no direct access to train or tube.

We'll just assume that because your house has gone from £100k in the late eighties to £500k now that's typical if not on the low side because of lack of access to the train or tube.

..because your example of one is bound to be more representative than any other data.

ukcarper

JencParker wrote: »

Nearly 5 times, but that doesn't compare to the statistic you quoted earlier which is nearer 2.75 x.



I live in Surrey too, I'd love to know where you can get a house for £170K as I'm downsizing and I may just be able to help my children who are in the same position as the author of the article in another post .

The last previous figures were for 1989 not 1985.

You seem to be missing point I didn't say you could buy a house in Surrey for £170k just that since 1985 the average house price has increased 4.85x and my house which is in Surrey has increased about 5x

JencParker

ukcarper wrote: »

The last figures were for 1989 not 1985.

You seem to be missing point I didn't say you could but a house in Surrey for £170k just that since 1985 the average house price has increased 4.85x and my house which is in Surrey has increased about 5x

1989 was the year I bought, which come to think of it was just before the last bust - I spent at least 5 years in negative equity.

ukcarper

JencParker wrote: »

1989 was the year I bought, which come to think of it was just before the last bust - I spent at least 5 years in negative equity.

Well your house as done exceptionally well the house I sold in 1985 has also increased about 5x since 1985.

Considering prices almost double between 1985 and 1989 yours done well to increase 5x since 1989.

wymondham

Carl31 wrote: »

Essentially what's been created is a new type of social housing, but instead of discounted rent, its discounted ownership

Interesting, I wonder how this will fare at house owner dinner parties

indeed and this is what gets my goat. Tax payers subsiding private purchase investments - it's plain wrong.

JencParker

wymondham wrote: »

indeed and this is what gets my goat. Tax payers subsiding private purchase investments - it's plain wrong.

How do tax payers subside private purchases? Although, they have certainly be subsidising BTL Landlords through housing benefits. LL have been laughing all the way to the bank.

JencParker

wotsthat wrote: »

We'll just assume that because your house has gone from £100k in the late eighties to £500k now that's typical if not on the low side because of lack of access to the train or tube.

..because your example of one is bound to be more representative than any other data.

I've not said that at all. But relying on statistics alone does not give a true picture. You know what they say.... Lies, damned lies and statistics....!

Loughton_Monkey

I bought my first house in 1973, at a time when [to the best of my knowledge and belief] house prices had 'hit an all time high'.

Imagine I had refused to buy on the basis that houses were 'over-priced' by, say, 10% I would have 'overpaid' by about £700. A lot of money in those days - actually more than half my (then) salary.

A glance at the RPI index show that this is almost exactly £7,000 in today's money - a mere boil in an elephant's backside in relation to my current house equity.

Had this forum been available then, I wonder who would have been advising not to buy?

Thrugelmir

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Had this forum been available then, I wonder who would have been advising not to buy?

Isn't hindsight a wonderful gift.