"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:50:29 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:09:59 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:58:54 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:23:33 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 13:47:26 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:32:33 +0000, Fredxxx
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:
This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary
in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

What puzzles me though is that they do manage it though, to pay that
amount, and if they couldn't afford those prices they would surely
fall.

Unfortunately for the average is there are enough rich people to pay
the excessive costs, otherwise the prices would fall and ordinary
people would be able to afford to buy.

What is a "rich person" in your opinion?

That's a good question. Someone with considerably more money than the
average person.

That's silly. The median wage is around £27,000 or £28,000 I think and
earning £30,000 for example, does not make you "rich".

I have not claimed this. £30K pa. is not considerably more than £28K.
But it not just income that divides the rich from the average person.


There is such a divide between people with lots of
money and people without.

What is your idea of "lots of money"?

What's yours?

Corbyn earns an MP's salary plus as allowance for being leader of the
opposition plus he has pensions and he says he is not rich.

Neither does Boris Johnson on his minister's salary of £100K. So what
is your point here?

I ask because if all these rich people are snapping up all the
averagely
priced homes, then there must be a heck of a lot of them, so why does
that not make the average income a higher value?

Because companies can get away without giving generous pay rises. And
the average price for homes is rising. As I said before there are
"sufficent" numbers of wealthy people to push up the price of housing,
otherwise it wouldn't be happening.

That is your theory indeed, but where is your proof?

Proof! House prices are rising.

That isnt proof that its the wealthy buying, just that
fewer are being built than there is a demand for.

Where is your proof
that people on an average income are not able to afford houses in their
greater area? So within commuting distance to their work.

Where is your proof that this does not happen?

You made the claim, You do the proving, thats how it works.

My friend's daughter and husband and two kids live a short distance from
me in a bigger house than I have. She is a copper, he is a postman and
also designs logos. They have two cars and they had a holiday abroad in
the summer.

Lucky them.

Are these people rich?

You tell me.

When I bought my first home, a tiny flat that needed a complete
refurbish, I put down a 20% deposit but still struggled like hell to
afford to pay the mortgage and the bills, especially when interest
rates
went through the roof when my unavoidable outgoings were greater
than my
income for a few months.

A lot of us had exactly the same issues. I had to let out the spare
room in my first house in order to afford the rising mortgage
payments.

I do not know in what way, but something clearly does not stack up
when
a simple comparison of average wages and average house prices is
used to
decide whether or not homes in general are affordable.

It's down to the rich buying houses as an investment IMHO.

You are referring to buy-to-let?

That's part of it but people do buy houses purely as an investment and
do not let them out, but keep them empty.

We all know that happens in London, really expensive houses though that
are outside of the average person's league, but I have never heard of
that happening around here - even in the nearby city.

It happens in many areas.

Easy claim.

Do you actually have proof this is a wholesale issue that is pushing up
the average prices of average properties?

Do you have proof that it does not?

You made the claim, You do the proving, thats how it works.