Search results

you guys... i never once said anything about rents stopping saving.

No I am being logical. I am saying it is one indicator which does mean something. If you can't understand that then you don't understand what you are saying about how it does not tell the whole picture.

WOW LOOK ! a property developer who is bullish on the market !!!

Oh wylie. ...

early noughties was also ten years ago.

you bought houses in 1990 and now live off the income. I really don't care about your boring personal success stories because you are not in the same situation to me.

b.c as I have stated before owning a home is a forced savings plan and the interest you pay also declines, while rent will usually only ever increase. there is a lot of security in owning a home too, and chicks, even if they won't admit it, find a young man who owns a property sexy. see it is...

I never said it can't be done. So you bring in irrelevant stuff. We didn't say the top tax bracket was 99% we said that the tax rate ended up being 99%. You can't just bring in all this complicated stuff to a simple example and try and claim the underlying principle is wrong without backing it...

rent also depends on disposable income. ... lets sayin 33% of after tax income goes on rent income = 100 price of property = 100 tax rate = 99% ur disposable income = $1. rent = 33% of income = .33 7% interest = $7 net rental loss = 6.67 tax deduction = 6.603 .067 = net cost for a 1 *...

b.c it is not the multipier of income to cost of house per metre or multiplier of income to disposable household income, it is the multiper of income to house prices..

omg.... it does MEAN something. maybe b.c it is not the ratio of disposable income to house prices is what it doesn't take those things into account...

it is an indicator of house prices compared to income. WHAT THE **** IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT ?

Nope pretty sure I know what a ratio is.

I don't get why you people seem to think one single indictor needs to tell the worlds life store. Income vs house price is a ratio. wtf else do you want it to be ? If you made a ratio of mortgage payments against income it'd be similarly high, indicating unaffordability.

uummmmm i'll take the income multiplier of 2 and save the full amount b.c I can't pay off 1000 times my income in 30 years, even with an interest rate of 0... somehow I doubt I'd get an interest only loan @ 0% interest..

or maybe tax rates in 2 are 99% so you really only have $1 making the multiple 200.

income of 50k house price of 150k = 3 times multiplier income of 50k house price of 400k = 8 times multiplies how exactly is that meaningless ? Oh dual income couples. Becuase women never worked before !

average income vs price is a pretty good incidcatror of the price of houses i dunno what else you want it to say. if average wage at point 1 is 50 and a house costs 100 multilier is 2 if averagfe wage at point 2 is 100 but a house costs 500 multiplier is 5 then in point 2 houses are...

Yup. Nothing has changed except the multiple of house prices to earnings.

who are likely baby boomers.