"Housing Market Slumps"

lisyloo

GreatApe wrote: »

Have you considered a good quality care home.
They have bad public imagines but some of them really are good quality.

You can't unfortunately make anyone go into a home (unless they are incapable or violent etc.) even when it's in their best interests.
I gave this very problem with parents.

chucknorris

lisyloo wrote: »

You can't unfortunately make anyone go into a home (unless they are incapable or violent etc.) even when it's in their best interests.
I gave this very problem with parents.

That is indeed the problem, he just doesn't want to go into care. I don't think he has even considered costs (it wouldn't be a factor to us), it is all about him remaining independent (in his mind).

Windofchange

If you ever bump into any of your teachers please give them a firm slap from me.

GreatApe wrote: »

what happened to the cries of its all concentrated in the hands of a few?

If 40% are leaving significant pots of gold, which you concede they are, then its not just in the hands of the few. PS the other 60% are not leaving nothing. For instence 12% are leaving between £60k-£100k which is also significant sums

40% is the minority! As per my previous post, of that 40% a large number of them are going to split that inheritance between siblings, friends, the local cat shelter. This is what brings me onto the below:

GreatApe wrote: »

wow how hard you try, fine you divided the pots of gold by 2.4 children great but why do you then not multiply the pots of gold by 2.4????????

So why did you go from 71,849 pots of gold worth £100k-200k and list it as '71,849 people left an inheritance of > £62,500'??? when you should have listed it as '172,438 people received an average pot of gold worth £62,500'??

Trying to pull a fast one?

Because you are talking about an ESTATE. Let me spell this out for you really clearly. I have a brother. Let's say my when my parents die their estate (pot of gold) is worth £500,000. I will not get £500,000 as well as my brother getting £500,000. That totals £1 million which is double what the estate is worth. Therefore, in order to work out what we will get, you need to divide the estate by the number of beneficiaries. I am ignoring for this kindergarten example the fact my parents might leave money to uncles, nephews, the tax man etc. I will receive £250,000 and my brother will receive £250,000. The total ESTATE (inheritance, pot of gold for you) is £500,000. This is what your initial figures are. They are not what each person gets, they are what all beneficiaries share. I'll add this to the multitude of things that you have just not understood these past few days.

So, as per my previous post, if the average number of children is 2.4 for people of the generation dying out now, you must divide their estate by this to get an answer to how much the average person will inherit. Dad dies, Mum gets all their assets, mum dies the ESTATE is divided out between the children / whoever.

GreatApe wrote: »

you went from not considering inheritances at all to now trying to downplay the impact of

5,472 people receiving an inheritance of >£833,333 each
14,546 people receiving an inheritance of > £625,000 each
52,180 people receiving an inheritance of > £312,500 each
131,629 people receiving an inheritance of >£166,666 each
103,408 people receiving an inheritance of > £104,166 each
172,438 people receiving an average pot of gold worth £62,500 each

PER YEAR EACH YEAR and the stats are out of date so the figures are even higher

Point out to me where I have not considered inheritances at all. Where have I said inheritances have no effect on property prices? The stats are the latest stats we have. They are not out of date. How do you know what the average inheritance is for February 2017? Another example of you just pulling things out of your head.

GreatApe wrote: »

are you F crazy?

your own analysis shows are almost half a million people each year who get an average of AT LEAST £62,500 EACH. With >300,000 of them getting at least £104,000 EACH.

What are you on about my own analysis? Where have I said there are almost half a million people who get at least £62,500 each!? Last time I looked, I had presented a number of 199,861 as per the initial table you produced, and then I had divided that by 2.4 to account for the average birth rate of a 1930's couple. Oh no. Hang on...

Jeez, if you were any more simple you'd need watering 3 times a day. You've taken 199,861 and applied YOUR (incorrect) logic of multiplying by 2.4 children and arrived at 469,666 for total inheritances. Then you've of course rounded this up to 500,000 because it sounds more impressive. :T

I'm losing the will to live.

As another example of you just not getting anything, there were 501,424 deaths in 2014, of which unfortunately 5000 were people under 19 years old. This gives 496,424 people who might have built up an inheritance to give out - I'm assuming your made up statistics don't drill down as far as pocket money? So you are suggesting now that there are more inheritances than there are people dying? :rotfl:

GreatApe wrote: »

How are 300,000 people per year every year getting at least £104k each not significant and then another 200,000 people per year getting £62,500 to £104k each per year.

See above. You are just wrong. So very, very wrong.

GreatApe wrote: »

23.4 million looks like the england figure not the uk figure. There are close to 28m homes in the UK in 2017

It shows once again, that significant proportions of the population own significant sums of capital. About two thirds of households own their own homes many with no or small mortgages.

But they don't. I don't know how many times you want me to repeat this :wall:

7.2 million homes are owned outright, 7.8 million are owned with a mortgage. So, about a third of England and Wales owns their house. The renters don't count of course for you. For the remaining 7.8 million who have a mortgage (35% or so), have a look at the below link giving average mortgage debt outstanding:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3438660/The-regions-biggest-mortgage-debt-revealed-Use-interactive-maps-town-city-compares.html

£215k for London, £160k for the S.E, £84k for Wales. So, if all of those 7.8 million people died tomorrow, they aren't dying for free! How much of the pot of gold would get eaten by the banks reclaiming their money off the estate? You have once again made up some stats without bothering to check any of it. 30% ish of households own their own house with no mortgage. The other 70% of the population are either in rented accommodation, or have a mortgage. I would consider £215k quite a large mortgage - it's just under 50% of the average asking price for property in London. There goes your 500k inheritance hey! How many more times are you going to make things up and get proven wrong?

GreatApe wrote: »

the average person can afford the average house, the problem is when people think of average they only often just quote some silly number they think is average which is not average at all. Eg a lot of the crash cheerleaders on hpc will say something like the average person on £26k a year should be able to comfortably buy the average house. That is bonkers as the figures are all wrong

I don't even understand the above. Something about quoting silly numbers? Something you are very familiar with it would transpire.

GreatApe wrote: »

and the lesson of the last few days, where you didnt even consider inheritances role in peoples incomes and wealth and now are trying to downplay the 300,000 people who receive annually >£100k in pots of gold and the additional 200,000 who get a pot of gold of some £60-£100k

Please just stop. :doh:

The definition of lesson:

"A period of learning or teaching"

I want my money back.

GreatApe wrote: »

Edit:
OH and not forgetting gifts!! which will be the same sort of scale if not larger

How could I forget the gifts. Once myself and most of the UK have had my £500,000 house, I should also expect mum and dad to produce a treasure map to a further £500,000 buried down the back of the sofa. Heck, I shall be disappointed if it's not at least a million!

economic

im no gonna bother reading what Windofchange wrote as i havent been following it and itll be a wste of time but stright away he/she has got it wrong. the stats are based on per person so you dont need to divide by number of children.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

so whats your solution then/? because i can tell you whatever solution you have in mind will hurt someone else.

doctors, accountants, managers, nurses can all afford an average or if not a lower then average property if they save enough. it may take longer but it cn be done. and thats if they are single. when they buy with partner then it should not be a problem. the fault lies with the person who can not afford the property, no one else.

Of course they can. Nurse in London 25 - 30k. Average house price 480k. If she just doesn't go out quite so much and puts a fiver away each week she'll be there in no time.

GreatApe

You can try to muddle up the information as much as you like the 2013/14 data is available for all to see here. 2016/17 will be higher as asset prices are higher and savings bigger

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541407/Table_12-3.pdf

Out of £81.3 billion left that year as inheritances, the mortgages and other liabilities totaled £4.2 billion so there is no big mortgage payback as you are trying to suggest.

The net figure is £77.1 billion that year given out in 267,000 inheritances which will directly benefit 2.4x as many persons by way of a inherited pot of gold by your own assumptions and theory and even more than that indirectly.

These are significant sums and important to many economic debates including house prices, irrespective of how much you try to downplay £77 billion a year and then probably the same sum or more again in gifts.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

Of course they can. Nurse in London 25 - 30k. Average house price 480k. If she just doesn't go out quite so much and puts a fiver away each week she'll be there in no time.

why would a nurse buy the average house? he/she will just have to rent if he/she cant afford it. why is that so bad? if nurse wanted to buy then he/she would need to perhaps gain other skills and move to a more higher paying area. it is what it is and you think everyone should be able to buy? how silly.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

Of course they can. Nurse in London 25 - 30k. Average house price 480k. If she just doesn't go out quite so much and puts a fiver away each week she'll be there in no time.

haha i even helped your nurse friend find a flat that he/she would be able to afford:

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/42947917?search_identifier=88f718d79e3fc417257889aa7bcfeedd

see its not so hard is it?

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

im no gonna bother reading what Windofchange wrote as i havent been following it and itll be a wste of time but stright away he/she has got it wrong. the stats are based on per person so you dont need to divide by number of children.

Oh jeez. You two should do a comedy double act. An estate is just that. It is money that is left over when someone dies. You have / had two parents. One dies, the other usually will take on the estate. The other dies and then the estate is what you and anyone else they feel deserving inherits. Therefore, the estate represents one figure from usually one surviving person that has to be split amongst however many children. This is where the division comes in.

You highlight your particular low level of intelligence by saying that you aren't going to read any of what I have put, but can somehow deduce I have got it wrong. It's like me saying I've never met you but I know you have black hair and drive a Ford. I thought we had hit the bottom of the petri dish of intelligence with great ape and then you come along.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Of course they can. Nurse in London 25 - 30k. Average house price 480k. If she just doesn't go out quite so much and puts a fiver away each week she'll be there in no time.

she could be one of the 70,000+ individuals who gets a pot of gold this year worth >£300k or be married to said person.

Or she could be in one of the 840,000 social homes in London and not worry about buying

Or she could meet you and then acquire a hobby of just complaining that everything is too hard and that its a conspiracy she cannot afford a home in an expensive area all by herself and that the rules of economics must be changed so she can