Are the property bears relieving themselves in the woods ?

gbsilp

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Again, are you that stupid? did you not understand the single sentence answer?

What single sentence answer? Further, please point out the question that this single sentence answer seeks to address. Thanks.

Jason74

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you really believe your first paragraph.

Absolutely, albeit with the caveat that I'm talking about owner occupiers only. BTL is another matter entirely of course . Equity in a house is ultimately monopoly money. It means relatively little all the time that you are living in the property, unless you want to further borrow against it. Of course, many people think that it's very important, albeit some might say that that's part of the problem in the UK property market.

Jason74

padington wrote: »

If my equity disappears, so does my attic conversion. One less bedroom is made and one possible new building job disappears and my mortgage interest rate would shoot up and I would probably sack off my cleaner because of that. The tax man would also receive less money so there would be less money to spend on benefits.

That's just me, imagine if every property owner followed suit ... The adventurous and canny would head overseas to look for work and we will be left with a massive ageing population and no one to wipe their backside or clever enough to fix the mess caused.

Look at it another way ...

Housing is not expensive in Liverpool or Cornwall

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/property/liverpool/?include_retirement_homes=true&include_shared_ownership=true&new_homes=include&price_max=150000&q=Liverpool&radius=0&results_sort=newest_listings&search_source=refine

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/property/cornwall/?include_retirement_homes=true&include_shared_ownership=true&new_homes=include&price_max=150000&q=Cornwall&radius=0&results_sort=newest_listings&search_source=refine

Could the real problem be not the price of houses in London but the lack of good jobs and cultural infrastructure elsewhere ?

If London isn't the international money pit helping to turbine elsewhere in the uK what else will ?

There is no easy answer. This is capitalism 1.0 eating itself. There will be an ever growing gap between the rich and the poor.

Land in desirable area's with growing populations will always be increasingly sought after.

High tax states (without a temporary abundance of something hugely desirable) fail. The only solution is global centrally planned capitalism (or global centrally planned Marxism) but we are a long way from either.

It is all f*cked. London property prices will become more like Singapore.

Invest accordingly.

Thanks for this, a surprisingly considered reply coming from someone who started a thread entitled " Are the property bears relieving themselves in the woods?":D. I'm not convinced that your own example is representative of what would happen accross the board if equity decreased, but then I'm probably at the other exreme of that scale in that the impact on me of my property value halving would in itself (the side effects you mention could be another matter if they came to pass) would be quite literally nothing.

I'm also not convinced by your argument about high tax states failing. I think the Scandinavian example suggests otherwise, but I would suggest instead that for high tax states to work, there needs to be a strong belief in the concept of common interest accross a society. That's something imho very lacking in the UK. So certainly a Scandinavian type system wouldn't work here, and perhaps it can only work in countries with relatively small populations.

I think you're bang on the money in terms of the UK being too London centric. But where you really hit the nail on the head for me, is the comment about this being Capitalism eating itself, and the ever growing gap between the rich and the poor. You're right that there's no easy answers to this, but we need to find a way of stopping that process.

If nothing else, we need to do that because history tells us pretty clearly that if we don't address those inequalities, sooner or later the people on the wrong side of that "trade" collectively take matters into their own hands through the only avenue available to them. And when that happens, the results tend not to be pretty. We're a way off that at the moment imho (albeit when these things kick off, they can do so quickly and appear to be without warning), but I have no doubt that if we carry on the current path,we'll get there eventually.

padington

Jason74 wrote: »

Thanks for this, a surprisingly considered reply coming from someone who started a thread entitled " Are the property bears relieving themselves in the woods?":D. I'm not convinced that your own example is representative of what would happen accross the board if equity decreased, but then I'm probably at the other exreme of that scale in that the impact on me of my property value halving would in itself (the side effects you mention could be another matter if they came to pass) would be quite literally nothing.

I'm also not convinced by your argument about high tax states failing. I think the Scandinavian example suggests otherwise, but I would suggest instead that for high tax states to work, there needs to be a strong belief in the concept of common interest accross a society. That's something imho very lacking in the UK. So certainly a Scandinavian type system wouldn't work here, and perhaps it can only work in countries with relatively small populations.

I think you're bang on the money in terms of the UK being too London centric. But where you really hit the nail on the head for me, is the comment about this being Capitalism eating itself, and the ever growing gap between the rich and the poor. You're right that there's no easy answers to this, but we need to find a way of stopping that process.

If nothing else, we need to do that because history tells us pretty clearly that if we don't address those inequalities, sooner or later the people on the wrong side of that "trade" collectively take matters into their own hands through the only avenue available to them. And when that happens, the results tend not to be pretty. We're a way off that at the moment imho (albeit when these things kick off, they can do so quickly and appear to be without warning), but I have no doubt that if we carry on the current path,we'll get there eventually.

Revolutions happen when unemployment is high and food is very expensive, not when people can't afford to live in Hampstead.

Regarding tax, you can't tax your way to prosperity and you can't win competitions by being uncompetitive ....

As for Scandinavia, when the oil goes and mr IKEA dies, scandaivia has had it.

ukcarper

Jason74 wrote: »

Absolutely, albeit with the caveat that I'm talking about owner occupiers only. BTL is another matter entirely of course . Equity in a house is ultimately monopoly money. It means relatively little all the time that you are living in the property, unless you want to further borrow against it. Of course, many people think that it's very important, albeit some might say that that's part of the problem in the UK property market.

What about the thousands of people who would have no equity or even worse be in a house worth less than their mortgage. It would totally destroy the property market with people not being able to move and paying higher interest rates than they are now. I agree prices are to high in parts of the country but a big fall in prices would be a disaster.

Bantex_2

padington wrote: »

If my equity disappears, so does my attic conversion. One less bedroom is made and one possible new building job disappears and my mortgage interest rate would shoot up and I would probably sack off my cleaner because of that. The tax man would also receive less money so there would be less money to spend on benefits.

That's just me, imagine if every property owner followed suit ... The adventurous and canny would head overseas to look for work and we will be left with a massive ageing population and no one to wipe their backside or clever enough to fix the mess caused.

Look at it another way ...

Housing is not expensive in Liverpool or Cornwall

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/property/liverpool/?include_retirement_homes=true&include_shared_ownership=true&new_homes=include&price_max=150000&q=Liverpool&radius=0&results_sort=newest_listings&search_source=refine

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/property/cornwall/?include_retirement_homes=true&include_shared_ownership=true&new_homes=include&price_max=150000&q=Cornwall&radius=0&results_sort=newest_listings&search_source=refine

Could the real problem be not the price of houses in London but the lack of good jobs and cultural infrastructure elsewhere ?

If London isn't the international money pit helping to turbine elsewhere in the uK what else will ?

There is no easy answer. This is capitalism 1.0 eating itself. There will be an ever growing gap between the rich and the poor.

Land in desirable area's with growing populations will always be increasingly sought after.

High tax states (without a temporary abundance of something hugely desirable) fail. The only solution is global centrally planned capitalism (or global centrally planned Marxism) but we are a long way from either.

It is all f*cked. London property prices will become more like Singapore.

Invest accordingly.

Out if interest, would you be better off in general if your house had cost you half what it did?

wotsthat

Bantex wrote: »

Out if interest, would you be better off in general if your house had cost you half what it did?

For most people the answer is yes but you're going to try and extrapolate that to mean everyone would be better off if prices fell by 50% - they wouldn't.

Bubble_and_Squeak

padington wrote: »

Revolutions happen when unemployment is high and food is very expensive, not when people can't afford to live in Hampstead.

Regarding tax, you can't tax your way to prosperity and you can't win competitions by being uncompetitive ....

As for Scandinavia, when the oil goes and mr IKEA dies, scandaivia has had it.

does sweden have oil?
i don't think you can put their success down to ikea

Bantex_2

wotsthat wrote: »

For most people the answer is yes but you're going to try and extrapolate that to mean everyone would be better off if prices fell by 50% - they wouldn't.

Just pointing out that ever increasing prices are not necessarily a good thing. If more cash was going into investment on parts of teh economy that produce jobs and growth rather than just sitting in inanimate piles of bricks, I believe we would all be better off.

robmatic

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

does sweden have oil?
i don't think you can put their success down to ikea

Cohesive communities and limited immigration are a big factor in their social contract.