Location, Location Location is back tomorrow. So how will Kirstie and Phil handle the housing crash? Will they move with the times and acknowledge the crash or will it be more housing denial.
The Channel 4 website suggests denial. It seems that Kirstie thinks that stamp duty might be the problem:
"All this talk about the credit crunch is a red herring. The problem is not falling house prices but falling transaction levels, down by 26 per cent nationally. If supermarkets suddenly sold 26 per cent less groceries what would that say about our economy?"
Let repeat that - the problem is not "falling" prices but falling transaction levels". Kirstie goes on to explain:
"my (i.e. Kirstie's) first flat had a £72,000 purchase price – with £720 Stamp Duty. At today's prices, that flat would be worth £325,000, so the Stamp Duty should be £3,250. But instead it is £9,750! This sum represents nearly a third of the minimum 10 per cent deposit insisted on by banks at the moment.
The market simply cannot continue to be used as a bottomless pit of money by the government, it is being milked dry and the resulting stagnation is bad for everyone."
If only the government stopped charging stamp duty, transactions would be higher and everyone would be better off.
Actually, I was with you Kirstie until that last point. How would renters be "better off" if transactions were higher? Do renters suddenly see their rent fall as transactions go up? Personally, I reckon that a stagnating market is good for renters. If it is harder to sell, more properties come onto the market, and increased supply pushes rents down.
So lets hear it for stamp duty; the higher the better.