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!
Attitudes [to house prices] are changing
Graham_Devon
Posts: 58,560 Forumite
Shelter have published a wealth of research into Help to Buy and the housing market in general.
It does make for good reading as it has depth analysis.
The research highlights the fact that attitudes are changing.
A yougov poll (4,500 respondents) reveals that 66% of respondents do not want house prices to rise. They would rather see them remain stable or fall.
The research can be found in a 17 page PDF here http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/721255/At_any_cost_final_int_FINAL.pdf which makes the case for stabalising prices through political intervention and removing help to buy altogether.
The fear does not seem to be the product itself, rather that the research shows that if prices continue to rise as they are, soon, 50% of dual income familes will be priced out.
It's important to note that this research focuses, for once, on ordinary familes. Not buy to lets, not banks, not the government, just the ordinary Joe. It looks at the risks for the Ordinary Joe who may well find themselves trapped in these government schemes further down the line should anythgin go wrong. This has always been the case, but the risk has now been increased.
They also give a very good and very indepth overview of why prices rise. They don't just look at supply. They look at credit expansion, income distribution, second home owner increases, interest rates, investments etc.
One point in the research which stands out to me, debunking many of the arguments on here, was this:
It does make for good reading as it has depth analysis.
The research highlights the fact that attitudes are changing.
A yougov poll (4,500 respondents) reveals that 66% of respondents do not want house prices to rise. They would rather see them remain stable or fall.
The research can be found in a 17 page PDF here http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/721255/At_any_cost_final_int_FINAL.pdf which makes the case for stabalising prices through political intervention and removing help to buy altogether.
The fear does not seem to be the product itself, rather that the research shows that if prices continue to rise as they are, soon, 50% of dual income familes will be priced out.
It's important to note that this research focuses, for once, on ordinary familes. Not buy to lets, not banks, not the government, just the ordinary Joe. It looks at the risks for the Ordinary Joe who may well find themselves trapped in these government schemes further down the line should anythgin go wrong. This has always been the case, but the risk has now been increased.
They also give a very good and very indepth overview of why prices rise. They don't just look at supply. They look at credit expansion, income distribution, second home owner increases, interest rates, investments etc.
May not be to everyones tastes. Well, won't be to everyones tastes. But it's in depth, decent research which I thought worth sharing for opinion.While Help to Buy is certainly not short of critics in the world of economics, the assumption that boosting house prices makes good politics has so far held.
But new Shelter/YouGov polling published today – as part of our At What Cost? report – overturns that widely received wisdom, showing the majority of the public now don’t actually want house prices to rise any further.
Numerous commentators including Martin Wolf in the FT, Russell Lynch in the Evening Standard, and the Adam Smith Institute on Radio 4’s ‘The Report’, have all criticised the substance of the initiative while acknowledging the political benefits. In Martin Wolf’s words:
“The victims of this vile system are the young and upwardly mobile, who are either unable to buy at all or are trapped in a lifetime of debt serfdom. The political genius of the scheme is that it appears to help these hapless victims, while in fact helping the usual suspects: banks, homeowners, Nimbys and, if it creates another housing boom, the government”
Once upon a time a house price boom might have counted as a smart trick in the political playbook. But now, when people are worried about how their children are going to afford their first home, ever increasing house prices just make home owners anxious.
One point in the research which stands out to me, debunking many of the arguments on here, was this:
Ever-inflating house prices are not an inevitable part
of an advanced economy, nor are they necessary to
encourage enough homes to be built.
0
Comments
-
Most people wouldn't want to pay for an asset more than they should but they do because that's what happens in life and if you buy the right house at the right time you don't usually lose any money.
Btw is this Shelter issuing some research without having an agenda in all of this...0 -
And what percentage want them to stay the same or rise?
“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 -
Most people wouldn't want to pay for an asset more than they should but they do because that's what happens in life and if you buy the right house at the right time you don't usually lose any money.
Btw is this Shelter issuing some research without having an agenda in all of this...
It doesn't matter if they have an agenda or not.
The responses to the poll are the responses to the poll. I.e. independant.
Theres a hell of a lot gone into this research. To simply suggest shelter have an agenda to write the research off is far too easy.0 -
I've never trusted this pinko lobbying group disguised as a charity. Their first lie is on page 3 where they claim a poll showed 66% of voters do not want want house prices to rise, based on 4,500 "GB Adults". Well that was Scotland. I assume they didn't get the results they wanted in England.
In any case, the 40% of voters who don't own a house will clearly express a wish for house prices not to go up (until they have managed to buy themselves!)
Not worth reading.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »And what percentage want them to stay the same or rise?
66% includes those who want to see them stay the same, as per the OP.
In answer to your question, 25% want to see them rise.
It's all laid out in the document.0 -
I don't trust shelter. There reps who line up town centers to try and give you the hard sell and get you to sign up - v shady group IMO.0
-
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »I've never trusted this pinko lobbying group disguised as a charity. Their first lie is on page 3 where they claim a poll showed 66% of voters do not want want house prices to rise, based on 4,500 "GB Adults". Well that was Scotland. I assume they didn't get the results they wanted in England.
It doesn't even mention Scotland.
It quite clearly states: "YouGov, October 2013, Sample 4500 GB adults"In any case, the 40% of voters who don't own a house will clearly express a wish for house prices not to go up (until they have managed to buy themselves!)
Not worth reading.
Maybe you should have read it?
Even among outright homeowners (those without
mortgages), more people want prices to stay the
same or fall than want them to rise (67% vs 28%).0 -
Nobody wrote off the research.Graham_Devon wrote: »It doesn't matter if they have an agenda or not.
The responses to the poll are the responses to the poll. I.e. independant.
Theres a hell of a lot gone into this research. To simply suggest shelter have an agenda to write the research off is far too easy.
Don't let your paranoia get the better of you.0 -
Nobody wrote off the research.
Don't let your paranoia get the better of you.
Quite........Loughton_Monkey wrote: »
Not worth reading.0 -
4500 GB adults can mean anything.
4500 out of 9000...
4500 college students...
4500 FTB....0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards