HPC thread of the week

Blacklight

TheCountofNowhere wrote: »

Keep the abuse coming

Stay classy

How's that Home Buyer's Strike working out these days Danny boy?

irrationalactor

gadgetmind wrote: »

Deposit of £25k and renovation budget of £15k came from a bit of luck she's had with shares bought for her in 2008 (20 baggers!) and we loaned her £100k at commercial rates. She's paying off interest and loan by taking in two lodgers.

Conrad wrote: »

Your example is one of an infinite manner of ways people find a way of acquiring property, and mainly without parental help.

So someone who has had both 'a bit of luck with shares' (that she was given as a gift) and a parent willing to loan them 100k ('at commercial rates' or not), is a shining example of the new breed of can-do homeowners?!

It looks to me like - rather than being an example of the power of a positive outlook - all this example shows is that gadgetmind's daughter is incredibly lucky to have them as a parent.

I have worked extremely hard to build a deposit, and will continue to do so. All the creative thinking in the world won't change the numbers in my bank account or on RightMove.

irrationalactor

westernpromise wrote: »

No. As far as I know, nobody's saying that.

The critique here of HPC is that it is a site for grossly selfish and entitled individuals to dress up malice as virtue, envy as altruism, and speculation as some sort of principled moral stance, as long as it's their own speculation on prices falling rather than other people's on their rising.

I have sympathy with those who entered the housing market too late, but not unlimited sympathy, for three reasons.

One, as a 20-something I was able to buy, but only utter dumps. Not till I was 35 did I own a place I was proud of, and it's not yet paid for.

Second, I went through the era of negative equity and 15% interest rates, at which level you would pay off just £2,700 of a £100k loan over the first five years. Today, at a rate of say 2.5%, you would pay off £15.5k in the same time - six times as much. This, I would point out, makes an enormous difference to how scared anyone should now be of negative equity. Then, you couldn't repay your way out of it; now you can.

Third, the property squeeze of today is largely the consequence of unfettered immigration and emergency interest rates. I didn't vote for either and nor did my age demographic, who lose out notably from poor returns on savings. But the sub-35 demographic that is worst affected by mass immigration and cheap finance repeatedly and decisively voted Labour, who brought it all about.

The main cause of the under 35s' inability to own property is not "boomers" or landlords but, I'm afraid, other sub-35-year-olds.

I get my personal allowance withdrawn, I'm taxed at 45%, I've been excluded from having any of this new tax free savings interest perk and yet there are people on HPC who feel I'm milking them. Get real.

Wanting house prices to fall makes you selfish? Is it a market or a charity? Why is wanting rises the altruistic option?

The thing is it wouldn't matter whether house prices rose or fell if people didn't need to live in them. Once houses become so expensive that everyone under 35 is struggling, you have a societal problem, rather than merely one of investors winning and losing.

It's not just the bitter sell-to-renters who have deliberately shorted property who lose out when homeowners 'win' to this extent. It's young (though I'm not quite so young any more) people like me who have been working hard to save while watching prices rise 10% every year.

I'd trade being in negative equity and a few months of 15% interest on £100k of debt over today's requirement to borrow £300k or £400k under emergency interest rates that could normalise at any time. Paying down an £100k loan, overpaying when you can, seems feasible. Paying down half a million - when wages haven't inflated to match - looks much, much harder.

How many older people have decided to invest in BTL, thereby helping themselves directly to the income of the young and monopolising property?

I'm 32. I didn't vote for the Labour governments that opened the immigration floodgates and trashed the economy, either. My savings are also being eroded by inflation and poor returns, and I work under the same tax laws as you.

Except when you were 35 you could buy a decent house. Had I been 32 in 1990, with a similar level of career, I think chances are good that I would have been able to, as well.

In 2015 or 2018, forget it.

Do you think that you could work your way to a similar standard of living, were you starting out now?

westernpromise

irrationalactor wrote: »

Wanting house prices to fall makes you selfish?

Yes, it does. It bespeaks an attitude that you couldn't care less about other people as long as you're better off.

Why is wanting rises the altruistic option?

Who wants rises?

The thing is it wouldn't matter whether house prices rose or fell if people didn't need to live in them. Once houses become so expensive that everyone under 35 is struggling, you have a societal problem, rather than merely one of investors winning and losing.

You're confusing cause and effect. Houses are expensive because of government policies. Investors have got in in anticipation of gain from those policies and because every other way of accumulating wealth has been outlawed or is under (often retrospective) tax attack. But investors aren't the only buyers. High prices are caused by high bidding from everyone. Sellers simply accept the highest bid.

It's not just the bitter sell-to-renters who have deliberately shorted property who lose out when homeowners 'win' to this extent. It's young (though I'm not quite so young any more) people like me who have been working hard to save while watching prices rise 10% every year.

So think laterally. Buy garages or beach huts and plough the tax-free capital gains back into a house. Live somewhere you can afford to buy.

I'd trade being in negative equity and a few months of 15% interest on £100k of debt over today's requirement to borrow £300k or £400k under emergency interest rates that could normalise at any time.

Oh no you wouldn't. Believe me, you wouldn't.

Paying down an £100k loan, overpaying when you can, seems feasible. Paying down half a million - when wages haven't inflated to match - looks much, much harder.

As I showed in my previous post, you are flat out wrong. Overpaying on 15% interest rates was impossible and simply keeping up with payments reduced your loan by only 3% over five years. At current rates - fixable for 10 years - you pay down 3% every year.

How many older people have decided to invest in BTL, thereby helping themselves directly to the income of the young and monopolising property?

What's so special about the income of the young? Aren't older people entitled to an income? BTL has largely replaced social housing and BTL mortgage rates are higher than those for FTBs.

I'm 32. I didn't vote for the Labour governments that opened the immigration floodgates and trashed the economy, either. My savings are also being eroded by inflation and poor returns, and I work under the same tax laws as you.

But you probably have a personal allowance and an entitlement to £1,000 a year tax free savings income. I don't have either, my pension is routinely robbed by the state, and I have £480,000 outstanding on my home mortgage, so what am I supposed to do?

Except when you were 35 you could buy a decent house. Had I been 32 in 1990, with a similar level of career, I think chances are good that I would have been able to, as well.

When I was 35 I was able to buy a two-bedroom flat in London. In 1990 I was 27 and had £30,000 of negative equity and a disposable income of 2/3rds of 1% of the gross. A plumber's bill would wipe me out for 2 or 3 months.

Do you think that you could work your way to a similar standard of living, were you starting out now?

Yes.

Thrugelmir

westernpromise wrote: »

You should reflect on the critique offered here and ask yourself why you are so much happier in your HPC cesspit, and if that is healthy.

Keyboard Warriors without doubt one of the biggest downsides of the internet.......:whistle:

mwpt

westernpromise wrote: »

Yes, it does. It bespeaks an attitude that you couldn't care less about other people as long as you're better off.

You're a hypocrite. On another thread you expressed desire for a second btl boom. There are others on this forum who actively desire price increases at the expense of future buyers but no word of criticism for them.

Your position isn't logically consistent. Prices are at a point where the current generation is significantly worse off in purchasing power of dwellings than previously. In this discussion I don't care to argue why but it makes no sense to criticise someone who has their own interests at heart and wants prices to fall to more affordable levels but reserve no criticism for those who also have their own interests at heart and want prices to increase. While OOs are protected, those who come later lose out. Who protects them? Why are they less deserving? And don't try spin the argument around a few people who do seem to focus on schadenfreude rather than just wanting to afford a decent house.

You are very convinced that price falls can only occur in a certain context which would result in wide spread "misery". I call !!!!!!!!. That's just your spin and the way you justify your own self interest.

westernpromise

mwpt wrote: »

You're a hypocrite. On another thread you expressed desire for a second btl boom.

Remind me where.

Your position isn't logically consistent. Prices are at a point where the current generation is significantly worse off in purchasing power of dwellings than previously.

If so this is in consequence of other buyers. Sellers can ask whatever price they like but there has to a buyer. High prices are the fault of buyers.

it makes no sense to criticise someone who has their own interests at heart and wants prices to fall to more affordable levels but reserve no criticism for those who also have their own interests at heart and want prices to increase.

I don't know anyone who wants prices to increase, but if looks like they will, I'd consider trading up since I have no other avenue open to me to accumulate wealth. Savings are wealth destroying at current rates and pensions are a lottery at risk of expropriation.

This is quite different from wanting an economic catastrophe to befall people you hate and envy, which is the main view in evidence at HPC.

While OOs are protected, those who come later lose out.

Yes, happened to me too. I bought in London after all the baby boomers and as a result they owned places at £30k that would have cost me £130k. But those who cam after also made out. I paid £85k for one bedroom in a converted church and 2 years later a 3-bedroom was sold for £83k.

Timing's a !!!!!; you play the hand you are dealt.

You are very convinced that price falls can only occur in a certain context which would result in wide spread "misery". I call !!!!!!!!. That's just your spin and the way you justify your own self interest.

What?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Yesterday I had an afternoon cuppa and an enjoyable read through their ongoing Christmas thread, which involves anecdotes about the state of shelves and carparks at local shopping centres and how this will result in massive house price crashes.

MobileSaver

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Yesterday I had an afternoon cuppa and an enjoyable read through their ongoing Christmas thread, ... and how this will result in massive house price crashes.

One of my guilty pleasures used to be popping over there for some light entertainment and more than a few chuckles at the absurd extrapolations they claimed would lead to HPC nirvana.

Recently I've noticed their heart no longer seems to be in it; even the likes of the obnoxious Bruce Banner appears to have lost his passion for the subject - I guess an inevitable consequence of being wrong for over a decade.

Crashy_Time

So much denial, so little time :rotfl: