REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

I used it in the context of whether market-correction or legislation was preferable, and made absolutely no suggestions beyond that. I gave the current scenario as an example of correction, and another reference to the localised property-bubble in South-East in the early-90s.....something you appear to be conveniently forgetting.

It doesn't matter if you are having to shell for a mortgage, or you are having to shell for rent - you are having to shell regardless. Both net-off against each other, leaving ZERO impact on disposable income. Indeed, the renter may have LESS disposable income than the buyer, given renting is usually higher-cost than a mortgage for a similar-sized property (completely ignoring the fact that you have no asset accruing value either).

The only people realising an increase in their disposable-income through avoiding paying for property, are those living in puddles.

<blockquote data-quote="Grasshopper" data-source="post: 2518885" data-attributes="member: 65342">I used it in the context of whether market-correction or legislation was preferable, and made absolutely no suggestions beyond that. I gave the current scenario as an example of correction, and another reference to the localised property-bubble in South-East in the early-90s.....something you appear to be conveniently forgetting.It doesn&#039;t matter if you are having to shell for a mortgage, or you are having to shell for rent - you are having to shell regardless. Both net-off against each other, leaving ZERO impact on disposable income. Indeed, the renter may have LESS disposable income than the buyer, given renting is usually higher-cost than a mortgage for a similar-sized property (completely ignoring the fact that you have no asset accruing value either).The only people realising an increase in their disposable-income through avoiding paying for property, are those living in puddles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Grasshopper, post: 2518885, member: 65342"] I used it in the context of whether market-correction or legislation was preferable, and made absolutely no suggestions beyond that. I gave the current scenario as an example of correction, and another reference to the localised property-bubble in South-East in the early-90s.....something you appear to be conveniently forgetting. It doesn't matter if you are having to shell for a mortgage, or you are having to shell for rent - you are having to shell regardless. Both net-off against each other, leaving ZERO impact on disposable income. Indeed, the renter may have LESS disposable income than the buyer, given renting is usually higher-cost than a mortgage for a similar-sized property (completely ignoring the fact that you have no asset accruing value either). The only people realising an increase in their disposable-income through avoiding paying for property, are those living in puddles. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?