nightrider Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I am finding it hard to sell my house at present, how much more difficult would it be if prices were to rise by 16 percent. Unless wages were to rise also, it's pointless. Then inflation would increase, no one would be any better off. Regards Angel. well if you would not be able to sell it if you increased the price by 16%, then I would argue it is not worth that 16% more so the price will not have risen! Its only worth what a buyer will pay surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynic Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Interest rates affect house prices more than most people seem to acknowledge. With lower interest rates people can afford the repayment on bigger mortgages. Everyone is in the same boat so all prices rise as a result, meaning the type of house people can afford doesn't really change. Things are a bit different at the minute because the base rate is artificially low and banks are very wary because of the recent problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I've never seen the point of the joy and euphoria in certain sectors at house rises. Even if you can sell your house for 16% more, it just means the next one you buy will cost 16% more as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 For the next generation to have any chance of home ownership, the house prices have to crash back to the level they were 10 years ago. ie, Flat = £25,000 Terrace = £35,000 Semi = £40,000 - £50,000 Detached = £75,000 Posh area = £80,000 plus If the price of my home was to crash back, then it would make no difference. I have paid off my mortgage, the only difference I would not have to pay as much for my next home Someone with some common sense, same here mines bought and paid for and it wouldn’t bother me if it dropped in price, it would mean my kids could afford a house and leave me in piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I've never seen the point of the joy and euphoria in certain sectors at house rises. Even if you can sell your house for 16% more, it just means the next one you buy will cost 16% more as well. I guess it was all about the equity that you created by the rising house prices, which meant you had a decent deposit for your next purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I guess it was all about the equity that you created by the rising house prices, which meant you had a decent deposit for your next purchase. Your next purchase would cost more than if the prices hadn't gone up, so whilst your 'deposit' got larger, the amount you were borrowing and paying in interest got larger as well. It's just another version of living on the never never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I've never seen the point of the joy and euphoria in certain sectors at house rises. Even if you can sell your house for 16% more, it just means the next one you buy will cost 16% more as well. What if you're downsizing....a 16% increase on a 300k home is more than a 16% on a 150k home...you can sell the first and buy the second and have more cash in your pocket... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Your next purchase would cost more than if the prices hadn't gone up, so whilst your 'deposit' got larger, the amount you were borrowing and paying in interest got larger as well. It's just another version of living on the never never. Whilst wages were rising this wasn't a problem though, you could afford to meet the mortgage payments, you also got a better Mortgage deal with a bigger deposit. Now because the only equity you're getting in the house is what you pay off the mortgage, the size of the deposit needed to buy the house is often the limiting factor and not the mortgage repayments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crookesey Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 A little off topic but one of the reasons that people prefer to buy is because control freak, left wing councils, like to place good people in property in bad areas, and bad people in property in good areas. I feel a lot of sympathy with folk who took a punt at the property market when it was it's height. They now have property vultures hovering over them awaiting repossession and a cheap purchase. All that is required is for the government to instruct the banks that are owned by the tax-payer to start lending again. And for the folk who feel that first time buyers should have a deposit of circa £25K lying around, after racking up huge student debts, please think back a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 What if you're downsizing....a 16% increase on a 300k home is more than a 16% on a 150k home...you can sell the first and buy the second and have more cash in your pocket... People who downsize or own multiple properties are the only ones who actually benefit from increasing house prices. These people are vastly in the minority though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.