House Price Poll

[WATFORD zero]

Following on from the other thread, what do people consider to be a realistic base for house prices

 

[Deleted User X18H]

£156000 3 bed semi.

 

[drew]

You really need people to indicate what the rationale is behind their vote. Those not on the ladder probably want the prices to drop by 25% and probably more. Those on the ladder would like to see a steady increase.

 

[Notters]

You really need people to indicate what the rationale is behind their vote. Those not on the ladder probably want the prices to drop by 25% and probably more. Those on the ladder would like to see a steady increase.

But there really is not benefit in house prices increasing to those who have ONE house. The only people who stand to gain are those with second homes.

 

[drew]

But there really is not benefit in house prices increasing to those who have ONE house. The only people who stand to gain are those with second homes.

Of course there is. Your equity in the house increases and when you come to downsize for retirement you have something to bolster the paltry returns from pensions funds.

 

[Box of Frogs]

Of course there is. Your equity in the house increases and when you come to downsize for retirement you have something to bolster the paltry returns from pensions funds.

Yes but the house you downsize into will have increased in price too, shirley?!?!

 

[Ipswich_Seagull]

Surely house prices have to be low enough to enable buyers to get on the property ladder in the first place?

 

[larus]

Yes but the house you downsize into will have increased in price too, shirley?!?!

Yes, but it's the differential where they gain.
For example;
4 bed house £400k, 2 bed bungalow £250k - spare cash £150k
or
4 bed house £600k, 2 bed bungalow £375k - spare cash £225k

 

[drew]

Yes but the house you downsize into will have increased in price too, shirley?!?!

They don't increase by the same amount, just maybe the same percentage. For example, prices rise by 5% per annum across the board. Over 10 years your house valued at £200,000 becomes £310,265, an increase of £110,265. A house valued at £150,000 becomes £232,699 an increase of £72,699. So, instead of their being a £50,000 difference there is now a difference of £77,566 ie another £27,566 in your pocket.

A bit simplistic but I think that's the gist of it.

 

[beorhthelm]

meaningless question as "base prices" are a fairly meaningless figure covering everything from £50k a street propertys in the north to £10m flats in London.

 

[Gwylan]

But there really is not benefit in house prices increasing to those who have ONE house. The only people who stand to gain are those with second homes.

Quite.

I voted for a decrease in prices even though I have my own house. It makes no difference to me personally but I also think a reduction would be good for the country

 

[Dandyman]

Quite.

I voted for a decrease in prices even though I have my own house. It makes no difference to me personally but I also think a reduction would be good for the country

Agree. It always amazes me that house price inflation is assumed to be a good thing. As far as I can see the main people to benefit are speculators and other spivs.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

You really need people to indicate what the rationale is behind their vote. Those not on the ladder probably want the prices to drop by 25% and probably more. Those on the ladder would like to see a steady increase.

The question isn't about what you want, it asks what is reasonable.

 

[Pavilionaire]

What about the men and women - like my next-door neighbours - who had kids and needed a bigger house, so bought around 2006 / 2007?

They bought at c. £410K, the house value today is c. £370K.

There was no "speculation" on their part, it's just that was the going rate for the sort of property they required.

It's all very well to say you'd be happy to take a bit of a "hit" on your house price, but if you're not planning to move or not in negative equity it's a meaningless statement.

If nothing else people should get off their arses and put something back into their local communities to improve the quality of life in their town/village. This is one way people can act "outside the market" to get their house prices back on track.

Good schools, good local amenities, support groups, village days, a vibrant community centre, litter patrols, neighbourhood wardens etc all help make a place desirable.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

What about the men and women - like my next-door neighbours - who had kids and needed a bigger house, so bought around 2006 / 2007?

They bought at c. £410K, the house value today is c. £370K.

There was no "speculation" on their part, it's just that was the going rate for the sort of property they required.

These will be the innocent victims in of all this. They have a right to feel aggrieved, and should be angry as hell at all those who were collectively ramping the market in 2006/7. There was also a sizeable minority who did see it for what it was, but they were ridiculed as 'doomsters', by the media and everyone who had a vested interest in rising prices. The Govt, The Bank of England and Financial Services Authority all suffered from the same blind madness.

 

[Gwylan]

If nothing else people should get off their arses and put something back into their local communities to improve the quality of life in their town/village. This is one way people can act "outside the market" to get their house prices back on track.

Good schools, good local amenities, support groups, village days, a vibrant community centre, litter patrols, neighbourhood wardens etc all help make a place desirable.

I sort of agree with this (although people can do little but the quality of their schools and their local amenities) but what about the people who commute to work? They leave at 7.00ish and get home at 7.00/8.00ish, it doesn't leave much time to get involved in the week and if they've got families, surely they'd want to spend some time with them? Long hours and long commutes have badly damaged community living.

 

[drew]

The question isn't about what you want, it asks what is reasonable.

People's view as to what is reasonable could still do with some indication as to why they believe that. For example how have people arrived at the conclusion that a reasonable drop would be 25%. I bet that is based on what they think first time buyers can afford!

Personnally, I don't think it's much different now than it has ever been. My parents both worked and they bought their first house when my mum was 32 and dad was 37. My first property was when I was 28 but that was with massive financial help from my mum. Why does everyone think people in their early 20s should be able to afford property. I know very few people that, as individuals, bought property when they were very young. It was only when they combined salaries with a partner that they got on the ladder with a small flat etc.

At the end of the day, the only major way of controlling house prices is to control the supply which means considerably more houses need to be built.

 

[Lokki 7]

Agree. It always amazes me that house price inflation is assumed to be a good thing. As far as I can see the main people to benefit are speculators and other spivs.

 

[beorhthelm]

At the end of the day, the only major way of controlling house prices is to control the supply which means considerably more houses need to be built.

on that point, i dont believe we need more houses built, we need more suitable houses made available. ie, there should be some form of encouragement to get couples in their 60+ to down size and free up the 3-4 bed houses they rattle around in.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

You really need people to indicate what the rationale is behind their vote. Those not on the ladder probably want the prices to drop by 25% and probably more. Those on the ladder would like to see a steady increase.

There is NO SUCH THING AS A LADDER.

Houses are places to live in, not investments to achieve capital growth.