Capping mortgages

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Graham, how many times, the average income of all people is not the same thing as the average income of house buying people.

Lots. And I've replied to it lots too.

All you are stating is that housing is affordable to those who can afford it.

This misses the point of the thread entirely. Your group could get smaller and smaller and you could still say the same thing.

Houses will ALWAYS be affordable to those who can afford them. Nothing it going to change there...much like it seems nothing ever changes here either, with you stating the same stuff so many times.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

wymondham wrote: »

If most people can't physically get the funds to buy a house,

Then property wealth will consolidate in the hands of fewer people.

We'll return to the days of a century ago when 90% of houses were owned by 10% of people, and the rest were forced to rent.

The expansion of credit was the great equaliser, which allowed ordinary people to build wealth and compete with the landed gentry.

You'd have to be an idiot of spectacular magnitude to think that preventing ordinary people form buying houses through restricting credit can ever lead to anything other than fewer people buying houses and fewer houses getting built.

If enriching landlords is what you want, however, then it's a pretty good idea...

Conrad

Hamish is correct and I would add that a big proportion of buyers are cash in the shape of parents, investors, down sizers and what not.


We're getting a bit carried away with nanny hectoring grown adults that wish to transact in the property market.
So a small proportion will get repossessed, a price worth paying for a free market IMO.


As Hamish says property ownership used to be the preserve of the privileged elite, we ought to be very careful when considering putting ownership ever more out of reach.

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

As Hamish says property ownership used to be the preserve of the privileged elite, we ought to be very careful when considering putting ownership ever more out of reach.

Reverse psychology going on here?

Only it appears it's the privileged multiple home owners who are most concerned about the privileged doing even better.

Surely you would welcome such measures if they are only to prosper you further....rather than warning of them? Afterall, both you and Hamish are invested in multiple properties so could easily be seen as the privileged elite.

AndyGuil

Isn't the average ratio currently 3.4 at the moment? We've already seen what a credit crunch does, which is very little and just makes it harder for people to buy. More people renting.

CLAPTON

the important issue is will such a cap increase the number of new builds or decrease it or make no difference.

Conrad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Reverse psychology going on here?

Only it appears it's the privileged multiple home owners who are most concerned about the privileged doing even better.

Surely you would welcome such measures if they are only to prosper you further....rather than warning of them? Afterall, both you and Hamish are invested in multiple properties so could easily be seen as the privileged elite.

I'm dipping my beak alright but this doesn't stop me thinking this is not great for society on a purely moral sense.


It's like those commuters I heard interviewed today commenting that they were concerned prices were rising fast despite themselves benefiting from owning in London.


Humans are odd. We bemoan people having to work for low pay but relish the bargain products they deliver to us.

BillJones

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Surely you would welcome such measures if they are only to prosper you further....rather than warning of them? Afterall, both you and Hamish are invested in multiple properties so could easily be seen as the privileged elite.

Why do we keep getting this incorrect assumption from some on the Left that the better-off are so self-interested? Can you not understand that many on the right, economically, believe that their policies will make just about everyone better off?

The converse is absolutely clearly the case, with it being the Left themselves who judge faiirness almost entirely in monetary terms. This, I suppose, is why they believe that everyone else thinks the same way.

We don't.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All you are stating is that housing is affordable to those who can afford it.

This misses the point of the thread entirely. Your group could get smaller and smaller and you could still say the same thing.

Recent history suggests that mortgage rationing transferred wealth to the already better off.

There's a way to deal with a housing shortage and whilst forcing more people into the same number of houses and it isn't reducing demand from FTB's.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...You'd have to be an idiot of spectacular magnitude to think that preventing ordinary people form buying houses through restricting credit can ever lead to anything other than fewer people buying houses and fewer houses getting built....

why say silly things like this? doing so lessens the quality of debate.

Carney [who's clearly eminently well qualified to comment] has explicitly said that it's on the table for consideration.

it may well be [and i suspect that this will be the case] that the idea is ultimately rejected, but to deny that it doesn't have some important merits [which may or may not be outweighed by disadvantages] is plain daft.