Is now really a bad time to buy?

Crashy_Time

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

csgohan4 said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

"Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be."

"Ah, it`s "mortgage free" people that are wealthy now, not just anyone with a mortgage?"

Pointless caveats added just to support your unnecessary argument. Hopefully you won't be hijacking every thread to defend your choices.

I just think your definition of "wealthy" is way off.

Wealthy is subjective isn't it? One who can pay their bills and able to have a takeaway once a week may consider themselves well off, while others may consider themselves poor. 

Yes and no, there are accepted definitions of monetary wealth, a good way of describing it is Big Effort for Little Gain = poor, Little Effort for Big Gain = wealthy. IMO someone who could survive on their savings/investments for a few years without working is relatively secure, while someone who need never work again is wealthy. Property is only one part of the story and being leveraged to the eyeballs to own anything has no part in the wealth story at all IMO. One problem we have is that millions of people fell for the idea that property is their wealth and their pension and can be traded at any time for an imaginary figure that they have become attached to. It is just an accident waiting to happen really.

The post directly preceding yours is a clear example of how subjective wealth is and, as Normal Castle pointed out, your 'good' way of describing it is arguably somewhat unusual.
The last three sentences of your post just comes across as invective directed at anyone who has had the audacity to buy a property that has subsequently gained in value. Language such as "leveraged to the eyeballs", "millions fell for the idea" and "imaginary figure they have become attached to" seems purposefully extreme and derogatory and suggests that you think there is no variation between people that have bought property. To me you honestly just sound very bitter, but I hope your life strategy works out well for you.

Can you explain what you mean by "unusual" in the description of wealth as being equal to very little effort required to produce access to capital (click of a mouse on a share account for example) and poverty or being "poor" requiring much bigger effort to produce access to capital (long hours worked in a factory for example) Can you give your description of "wealth" (monetary wealth, not spiritual,emotional or physical wealth as described in the post preceding mine - although these things can be linked to monetary wealth as well) 

I'm not sure how to explain it any more clearly. Wealth is subjective and I think that the way you link (lack of) effort to wealth is very weird. I will, however, try to give you examples based on your post:
 - clicking a mouse on a share account might not involve much effort but that doesn't matter if the shares are penny shares and effectively worth very little
 - long hours worked in a factory might lead to great wealth if you earn £5000 an hour. Please don't point out that people don't generally get paid £5000 an hour, I am aware of that, it is an example to illustrate that working hard doesn't mean you are financially poor, another example being that the factory owner might work long, hard hours in his/her own factory making a successful business - doctors, lawyers, accountants, businessmen etc. etc. could all be said to work very hard and not be poor...

Don`t try to explain it, I`m not sure you understand what I am discussing - the point was (and it isn`t my definition, it is a standard definition of wealth) that true wealth involves minimal effort after the initial effort of setting up the business or whatever because the wealthy person is probably by now receiving money from royalties/licensing/shares etc. and doesn`t have to sell their hourly labour for money as a factory worker most probably does, hence my use of the Effort V Less Effort definition. That people are actually arguing about this on a forum that supposedly gives financial advice just underlines again that people need to be super wary of taking on board opinions from the internet.

"Don`t try to explain it, I`m not sure you understand what I am discussing"
 - ok, I think trying to help you probably would be a waste of time
"the point was (and it isn`t my definition, it is a standard definition of wealth) that true wealth..." 
-  I've never heard wealth defined by lack of effort, please provide your source and explain how you differentiate wealth and "true" wealth
"true wealth involves minimal effort after the initial effort of setting up the business or whatever "
 - So a lot of effort needed, and do you really think that businesses magically run themselves after they have been set up, or lawyers don't need any clients after they have qualified, or surgeons don't need to perform operations any more but will carry on getting paid? Do you think HMRC just discounts valuable assets from wealth assessments because they can't be sold by the click of a mouse on a share dealing website?
"wealthy person is probably by now receiving money from royalties/licensing/shares etc. and doesn`t have to sell their hourly labour for money as a factory worker most probably does, hence my use of the Effort V Less Effort definition"
 - if someone has sufficient means they might not need to work for a wage any more but that is to do with their level of wealth and expenses, nothing at all to do with the effort required to come by wealth.
"That people are actually arguing about this on a forum that supposedly gives financial advice just underlines again that people need to be super wary of taking on board opinions from the internet."
 - Oh, the irony.

You are getting the point I made now, we are talking about the definition of wealth, not about the "effort required to come by wealth".

Parking_Eyerate

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

csgohan4 said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

"Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be."

"Ah, it`s "mortgage free" people that are wealthy now, not just anyone with a mortgage?"

Pointless caveats added just to support your unnecessary argument. Hopefully you won't be hijacking every thread to defend your choices.

I just think your definition of "wealthy" is way off.

Wealthy is subjective isn't it? One who can pay their bills and able to have a takeaway once a week may consider themselves well off, while others may consider themselves poor. 

Yes and no, there are accepted definitions of monetary wealth, a good way of describing it is Big Effort for Little Gain = poor, Little Effort for Big Gain = wealthy. IMO someone who could survive on their savings/investments for a few years without working is relatively secure, while someone who need never work again is wealthy. Property is only one part of the story and being leveraged to the eyeballs to own anything has no part in the wealth story at all IMO. One problem we have is that millions of people fell for the idea that property is their wealth and their pension and can be traded at any time for an imaginary figure that they have become attached to. It is just an accident waiting to happen really.

The post directly preceding yours is a clear example of how subjective wealth is and, as Normal Castle pointed out, your 'good' way of describing it is arguably somewhat unusual.
The last three sentences of your post just comes across as invective directed at anyone who has had the audacity to buy a property that has subsequently gained in value. Language such as "leveraged to the eyeballs", "millions fell for the idea" and "imaginary figure they have become attached to" seems purposefully extreme and derogatory and suggests that you think there is no variation between people that have bought property. To me you honestly just sound very bitter, but I hope your life strategy works out well for you.

Can you explain what you mean by "unusual" in the description of wealth as being equal to very little effort required to produce access to capital (click of a mouse on a share account for example) and poverty or being "poor" requiring much bigger effort to produce access to capital (long hours worked in a factory for example) Can you give your description of "wealth" (monetary wealth, not spiritual,emotional or physical wealth as described in the post preceding mine - although these things can be linked to monetary wealth as well) 

I'm not sure how to explain it any more clearly. Wealth is subjective and I think that the way you link (lack of) effort to wealth is very weird. I will, however, try to give you examples based on your post:
 - clicking a mouse on a share account might not involve much effort but that doesn't matter if the shares are penny shares and effectively worth very little
 - long hours worked in a factory might lead to great wealth if you earn £5000 an hour. Please don't point out that people don't generally get paid £5000 an hour, I am aware of that, it is an example to illustrate that working hard doesn't mean you are financially poor, another example being that the factory owner might work long, hard hours in his/her own factory making a successful business - doctors, lawyers, accountants, businessmen etc. etc. could all be said to work very hard and not be poor...

Don`t try to explain it, I`m not sure you understand what I am discussing - the point was (and it isn`t my definition, it is a standard definition of wealth) that true wealth involves minimal effort after the initial effort of setting up the business or whatever because the wealthy person is probably by now receiving money from royalties/licensing/shares etc. and doesn`t have to sell their hourly labour for money as a factory worker most probably does, hence my use of the Effort V Less Effort definition. That people are actually arguing about this on a forum that supposedly gives financial advice just underlines again that people need to be super wary of taking on board opinions from the internet.

"Don`t try to explain it, I`m not sure you understand what I am discussing"
 - ok, I think trying to help you probably would be a waste of time
"the point was (and it isn`t my definition, it is a standard definition of wealth) that true wealth..." 
-  I've never heard wealth defined by lack of effort, please provide your source and explain how you differentiate wealth and "true" wealth
"true wealth involves minimal effort after the initial effort of setting up the business or whatever "
 - So a lot of effort needed, and do you really think that businesses magically run themselves after they have been set up, or lawyers don't need any clients after they have qualified, or surgeons don't need to perform operations any more but will carry on getting paid? Do you think HMRC just discounts valuable assets from wealth assessments because they can't be sold by the click of a mouse on a share dealing website?
"wealthy person is probably by now receiving money from royalties/licensing/shares etc. and doesn`t have to sell their hourly labour for money as a factory worker most probably does, hence my use of the Effort V Less Effort definition"
 - if someone has sufficient means they might not need to work for a wage any more but that is to do with their level of wealth and expenses, nothing at all to do with the effort required to come by wealth.
"That people are actually arguing about this on a forum that supposedly gives financial advice just underlines again that people need to be super wary of taking on board opinions from the internet."
 - Oh, the irony.

You are getting the point I made now, we are talking about the definition of wealth, not about the "effort required to come by wealth".

So now it's not about effort and you aren't willing to provide a source for your "standard" definition of wealth or explain how you differentiate wealth and "true wealth".
Also I presume from this and the part of my post you highlighted that you would then assert that someone who owns their own home outright and can comfortably pay all living expenses from, for example, their state pension, is wealthy. We could be getting somewhere.

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time said:

not buying an overvalued very illiquid asset with debt.

Clearly you are in the minority thinking houses are overvalued as shown by the simple fact that over a million people a year are buying at the current prices.

It always amuses me when you use the word "illiquid" as being a negative thing when in fact the illiquidity comes from the high value which is of course a good thing.

eidand

does every thread need to be dragged into these discussions? this crashy guy literally takes over every thread, with the same crap. Can you not mind your own business and stick to the topic discussed?

Mickey666

If the market falls evenly across all house types then it works to your advantage.  Sure you get less for your house but you also pay less for the new one.  Also, because the price difference (which is the really important thing) has narrowed you won't have to borrow as much, plus stamp duty will be less (perhaps by quite a bit if the price drop moves across a boundary).  Basically it's all to your advantage.

MysteryMe

I suspect the OP has become thoroughly disillusioned with this thread which has now become so off topic to render it useless to them.

Crashy_Time

MobileSaver said:

Crashy_Time said:

not buying an overvalued very illiquid asset with debt.

Clearly you are in the minority thinking houses are overvalued as shown by the simple fact that over a million people a year are buying at the current prices.

It always amuses me when you use the word "illiquid" as being a negative thing when in fact the illiquidity comes from the high value which is of course a good thing.

I`m going to assume that line is a wind up?

Getting_greyer

I always saw wealth as a stock. The net balance between assets and liabilities.  Is a  house an asset?   Depends on the circumstances.  The royalties example is more of a passive income from the asset of the copyright.  Whilst interesting not helpful to op so sorry for that.

vitaweat

Getting_greyer said:

I always saw wealth as a stock. The net balance between assets and liabilities.  Is a  house an asset?   Depends on the circumstances.  The royalties example is more of a passive income from the asset of the copyright.  Whilst interesting not helpful to op so sorry for that.

A house is normally an asset.  One that you live in provides a tax free income known as imputed rent, the amount of money it would cost you to rent that house on the open market.

Splatfoot

We are in the process of selling our house. I have bought and sold at profit 3 times in my life so far. This is the last time, after buying at the end of 2006 just before the crash, as the next house we buy will be with no mortgage. I would never have been able to earn as much money through working as I have done through property. If I'd been renting all these years, I would absolutely be kicking myself.