Sara Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 No what I would like is what we had 50 years ago, a housing market where my husbands wage is sufficient to buy a property large enough for my family to live in - thats just 3 beds for the 4 of us, not as bloody mansion, and I could stay at home and bring up my sons in the way I want instead of needing 2 incomes to buy a house neccesitating my return to work and my having to entrust my son's upbringing to relative strangers. But your gran won't move out to poperty commensurate for her needs thereby leading to a shortage of family housing for FAMILIES thereby ensuring that market pressure forces up house prices thbereby crapping on my life Yep, looks like its all your grans fault - better tell her next time you see her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by Sara But that can't be true - I started out in rented accommodation and had to borrow £2K for the deposit on my first house. If I went back into rented accommodation now I would have a cash sum greater than the sum of my deposits and total expenditure on finance etc and I would then be in the position I started. But - and back to the point of the thread here - if there are difference in which sections of the market are softening, which appears to be the general consensus, then there is a profit to be made. I do get what you mean - the difference between the house I have just sold and the the house I have just bought have both moved, meaning that I have a bigger mortgage now than I would have had had I bought the new house back then, but my equity has still increased and if you take the starting point as my not owning property then I have gained. I have also benefitted from having a lower LTV ratio. I agree that when your property is your home then it is unlikelikely that, in the short term, you will liquify this asset but from a theroetical perspective - and this is where we all seem to be coming from, I fail to see how you can deny that a profit is being made. I am coming from an ex-HMIT perspective so I agree I like to identify even the remotest possibility of a profit, but the Revenue would class my capital gain as a profit and I would be taxed on that profit if it were not for personal property tax relief. Are you going to argue with the Revenue? Brave man... I'm happy to agree that a rise in house prices gives everyone a theoretical profit. It's just that for the majority it is impossible to realise that profit, so it's largly meaningless. Of course, if you'd put the money that you've paid into house improvements and mortgage into a savings account your equity would also have increased, so that alone isn't a measure of profit. I'd be interested to see how you think a weakening market can make a potential profit... (without having invested in a 2nd house already). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by Sara No what I would like is what we had 50 years ago, a housing market where my husbands wage is sufficient to buy a property large enough for my family to live in - thats just 3 beds for the 4 of us, not as bloody mansion, and I could stay at home and bring up my sons in the way I want instead of needing 2 incomes to buy a house neccesitating my return to work and my having to entrust my son's upbringing to relative strangers. But your gran won't move out to poperty commensurate for her needs thereby leading to a shortage of family housing for FAMILIES thereby ensuring that market pressure forces up house prices thbereby crapping on my life Yep, looks like its all your grans fault - better tell her next time you see her is there actually a surplus of one bedroom houses? If not then nicks gran moving would actually make little difference. And I really don't see how you can argue that it's someones social responsability to move out of the house they may have owned for 40 years in order to improve someone elses lot. She worked for it, she owns it, she can stay in it if she likes. We all eventually die and the house will come back to the market, let her live the rest of her life how she likes. Overpopulation and the increase in single people owning homes is the biggest cause of pressure at the bottom end, not old people staying in their homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BertieBasset Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 well put... Originally posted by Sara But that can't be true - I started out in rented accommodation and had to borrow £2K for the deposit on my first house. If I went back into rented accommodation now I would have a cash sum greater than the sum of my deposits and total expenditure on finance etc and I would then be in the position I started. But - and back to the point of the thread here - if there are difference in which sections of the market are softening, which appears to be the general consensus, then there is a profit to be made. I do get what you mean - the difference between the house I have just sold and the the house I have just bought have both moved, meaning that I have a bigger mortgage now than I would have had had I bought the new house back then, but my equity has still increased and if you take the starting point as my not owning property then I have gained. I have also benefitted from having a lower LTV ratio. I agree that when your property is your home then it is unlikelikely that, in the short term, you will liquify this asset but from a theroetical perspective - and this is where we all seem to be coming from, I fail to see how you can deny that a profit is being made. I am coming from an ex-HMIT perspective so I agree I like to identify even the remotest possibility of a profit, but the Revenue would class my capital gain as a profit and I would be taxed on that profit if it were not for personal property tax relief. Are you going to argue with the Revenue? Brave man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by Cyclone I'm happy to agree that a rise in house prices gives everyone a theoretical profit. (without having invested in a 2nd house already). Whoopie, at last Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by Cyclone Overpopulation and the increase in single people owning homes is the biggest cause of pressure at the bottom end, not old people staying in their homes. I'm assuming that as Nick's grandad is dead she is living alone, why does her age make a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick2 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by Sara I'm assuming that as Nick's grandad is dead she is living alone, why does her age make a difference? You singled out "selfish" old people living in what should be "family" houses, not us. But what your actually saying is no-one single should be allowed to have a house bigger than they actually need ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by Sara Whoopie, at last are you deliberately misquoting me or was that a mistake? Sorry, her age doesn't make a difference. So you're against anyone buying a house that is bigger than they 'need'. Who is going to be the arbitter of need then? I'd like the job please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Yes, in principal, its a basic socialist tennet. Surely Cyclone you are sensible enough to understand that having an idealistic socialist principal doesn't necessarily mean that you want people hurt in the single minded acheivement of that goal, that it is alright to espouse the idealism of a steady state whilst realising that the turmoil required to achieve that state negates the desire. Or did you really mean it when you said you wanted the property market to crash, for families to find themselves in positions of negative equity, having their homes repossessed and still owing thousands to the bank. No, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, you meant that you wished the market was more reasonable and thats why you qualified your remark by saying a steady slow down would do. I am not some capitalist monster who is out to make lots of profit, and I resent the fact that Nick is implying such, don't jump on his bandwagon, we were having a theoretical debate about when a profit is a profit. I have just upgraded from a terrace to a semi and plan on staying there for many more years, but it doesn't alter the fact that I made a profit and it does not make me some greedy conservative. And how have I misquoted you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Originally posted by Sara Yes, in principal, its a basic socialist tennet. Surely Cyclone you are sensible enough to understand that having an idealistic socialist principal doesn't necessarily mean that you want people hurt in the single minded acheivement of that goal, that it is alright to espouse the idealism of a steady state whilst realising that the turmoil required to achieve that state negates the desire. Or did you really mean it when you said you wanted the property market to crash, for families to find themselves in positions of negative equity, having their homes repossessed and still owing thousands to the bank. No, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, you meant that you wished the market was more reasonable and thats why you qualified your remark by saying a steady slow down would do. I am not some capitalist monster who is out to make lots of profit, and I resent the fact that Nick is implying such, don't jump on his bandwagon, we were having a theoretical debate about when a profit is a profit. I have just upgraded from a terrace to a semi and plan on staying there for many more years, but it doesn't alter the fact that I made a profit and it does not make me some greedy conservative. And how have I misquoted you? taxi here, reply tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.