View Single Post
Old 23-11-2016, 13:07   #46
nomadking
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Northampton
Services: Virgin Media TV&BB 350Mb, V6 STB
Posts: 8,180
nomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze array
nomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze arraynomadking has a bronze array
Re: How to keep house prices low for generations to come

Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh View Post
But that's part of the issue. If the higher end prices are rising disproportionately then people can't move "up" so they stay in "lower" properties and extend and work on them. And that makes those "lower" properties more expensive both supply and because they are extended/improved

This knocks on down the chain to the bottom.
Don't the "lower" properties need improving whichever way you look at it. The buyers at the upper end are handing over money to the developers, thereby financing more developments, possibly at the lower end.

---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J View Post
Again no one actually answers questions I pose.
I did in post #4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking View Post
Probably worse than renting. The allowed increase wouldn't cover the mortgage interest due when it came to selling it. They would face a bill for that.

They are being subsidised by getting the land for free.
nomadking is offline   Reply With Quote