Why I would be celebrating if Brexit led to lower house prices

westernpromise

Crashy_Time wrote: »

So between 2001 and 2008 house prices in Burnley were flat or falling? God it must be a right dodgy hole.

Pretty much so on all points, yes.

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/browse/burnley/?q=burnley

Less than 11% nominal rise over the last 10 years. Meanwhile inflation has been 35% over the same period. So down by a quarter, in constant money.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html

If you go back 20 years, the average house in Burnley was then worth £75k. If it had gone up in line with inflation, it would now be worth £130k today. In fact it's only worth £112k. So inflation's been 75% over 20 years, but Burnley houses have only gone up 49%. Again, a quarter down in constant money.

It's a scandal that Burnley, Bolton, Walsall etc are all crippled with much high interest rates than London and the south-east. Interest rates should, I feel, be the same everywhere in the UK.

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

Pretty much so on all points, yes.

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/browse/burnley/?q=burnley

Less than 11% nominal rise over the last 10 years. Meanwhile inflation has been 35% over the same period. So down by a quarter, in constant money.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html

If you go back 20 years, the average house in Burnley was then worth £75k. If it had gone up in line with inflation, it would now be worth £130k today. In fact it's only worth £112k. So inflation's been 75% over 20 years, but Burnley houses have only gone up 49%. Again, a quarter down in constant money.

It's a scandal that Burnley, Bolton, Walsall etc are all crippled with much high interest rates than London and the south-east. Interest rates should, I feel, be the same everywhere in the UK.

What did they do during the biggest credit bubble in history though, 2001-2008?

westernpromise

Crashy_Time wrote: »

What did they do during the biggest credit bubble in history though, 2001-2008?

Who cares?

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

Who cares?

You obviously do because you have spent your last post trying to avoid the question.

cells

Crashy_Time wrote: »

What did they do during the biggest credit bubble in history though, 2001-2008?

Who cares... Buying a house there is cheaper than renting from the council so its cheap and affordable. Just like on over half the country where to buy a terrace is cheaper than renting social homes

westernpromise

Crashy_Time wrote: »

You obviously do because you have spent your last post trying to avoid the question.

If you're that anxious to know I suggest you go and research it, but personally, I couldn't give a toss!

Crashy_Time

cells wrote: »

Who cares... Buying a house there is cheaper than renting from the council so its cheap and affordable. Just like on over half the country where to buy a terrace is cheaper than renting social homes

But as I explained to you before, when many people "rent" from the council the taxpayer picks up the tab. You are confusing two separate markets and trying to make them fit your narrative. The taxpayer is bailing the housing market as well, yes maybe, but the criteria for getting a mortgage means many are happy to let the taxpayer pay more than you think the monthly on a house would be for a council/social tenancy rather than try (and fail) to get a mortgage.

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

If you're that anxious to know I suggest you go and research it, but personally, I couldn't give a toss!

Why didn`t you research it (well we know you researched it, just didn`t post it) in relation to the credit boom years 2001 - 2008?

Sapphire

CLAPTON wrote: »

there are hell holes that, given the choice, most people with 2 brain cells won't choose to live.

I have to go in to central and other parts of London quite often. Over the last couple of years, it has become noticeably overcrowded when you look at what is on the streets and on public transport. The air is becoming more and more foul, and there are far too many cars and vans on the roads – the place is gridlocked, with the consequent detriments to the population. It's also really hot and muggy (particularly on public transport), even when the weather isn't particularly hot, as now.

I can foresee a time when people will want to rapidly exit London – there's only so much overpopulation that is sustainable before a place becomes too unpleasant to live in. The changes in London will also affect the tourist market, and all this will affect the economy.

In a way, I suppose London is a victim of its own success…:cool:

cells

Crashy_Time wrote: »

But as I explained to you before, when many people "rent" from the council the taxpayer picks up the tab. You are confusing two separate markets and trying to make them fit your narrative. The taxpayer is bailing the housing market as well, yes maybe, but the criteria for getting a mortgage means many are happy to let the taxpayer pay more than you think the monthly on a house would be for a council/social tenancy rather than try (and fail) to get a mortgage.

so basically you know that house prices are too high, everywhere, but you dont want to put a figure on what too high is?

For anyone not as vested interest in a 130% house price crash as you, its clear about half the country is cheap. Not affordable not ok value but cheap