Who'd vote for lower house prices? Not many...

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

'Real Time'? What are you talking about?

People downsizing now in 'real time' are transferring some of their net worth from an illiquid asset (house) to a liquid asset (cash) then buying another illiquid asset (smaller house) leaving £100k to spend.

Net worth=net worth and liquidity=liquidity.

The question is whether or not anyone cares about the contribution that housing gains make towards their net worth and whether it affects their vote. The confusion is arising because rather than just say "no" some seem to be implying that net worth is an abstract concept barely worthy of consideration.

Thank god you are here otherwise I might think I was in the nut house! I just don't understand why some people think their net worth is irrelevant. Even when I explained if they had to sell up and move to another area they still can't see how having more equity would be beneficial to them.

wotsthat

chucknorris wrote: »

Thank god you are here otherwise I might think I was in the nut house!

Bad news. This is the nut house.

Graham_Devon

chucknorris wrote: »

Why do I have to start with nothing? My current equity is real and can be used as I see fit. So If I wanted to move to Bath from Surrey, I could sell my house in Surrey take out all of the equity (based on past gains) and use it as a deposit towards/or buy outright the house in Bath.

Yes, that's absolutely obvious.

But you'd have been able to do that with 50k HPI too, if all houses had gone up by the same percentage. Therefore 150k is no better than 50k in the sense of what you achieve. It's JUST a bigger number, and that's what people are trying to explain to you.

With that bigger number comes bigger expenses.

I don't think you want to even see the argument others are presenting to you.

We agree that 150k is better than 50k. But if you are just moving to another house which has gone up the same amount, 150k, 400k, £1.8m. It doesn't make any difference. The only time it makes any difference is when you downsize or sell up entirely.

If you are basing your argument on selling up and moving to a cheaper area, then yes, your argument is obvious there too, 150k is better than 50k. But you threw that argument in at a later date.

Emy1501

chucknorris wrote: »

No its just hard to debate with illogical people talking nonsense.

The debate is always lost When people have to resort to trying to get personal. I'll leave you too it.

Emy1501

wotsthat wrote: »

'Real Time'? What are you talking about?

People downsizing now in 'real time' are transferring some of their net worth from an illiquid asset (house) to a liquid asset (cash) then buying another illiquid asset (smaller house) leaving £100k to spend.

Net worth=net worth and liquidity=liquidity.

The question is whether or not anyone cares about the contribution that housing gains make towards their net worth and whether it affects their vote. The confusion is arising because rather than just say "no" some seem to be implying that net worth is an abstract concept barely worthy of consideration.

As said befor the question is how many people have been able to or will be able to realise the equity in their house before they die.

I wonder what % people actually make any use of their equity by downsizing etc.

Therefore what benefits have there been of HPI and would the country had been better off if prices had only risen by 50% of what they did.

The other question would be that if the banks could stand it would the country be as a whole be better off with lower prices.

It would be interesting to see a random pole now regarding where people would like prices to go compared to a few years ago.

The issue is what percentage of people can or actually access their equity for anything other than to move homes.

wotsthat

Emy1501 wrote: »

The issue is what percentage of people can or actually access their equity for anything other than to move homes.

Don't know why that is the issue. Can't we just agree that increasing net worth is increasing in wealth but not necessarily an increase in liquidity?

I do know that we all release 100% of the equity in our homes eventually when we make the final 'house move'.

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, that's absolutely obvious.

But you'd have been able to do that with 50k HPI too, if all houses had gone up by the same percentage. Therefore 150k is no better than 50k in the sense of what you achieve. It's JUST a bigger number, and that's what people are trying to explain to you.

With that bigger number comes bigger expenses.

I don't think you want to even see the argument others are presenting to you.

We agree that 150k is better than 50k. But if you are just moving to another house which has gone up the same amount, 150k, 400k, £1.8m. It doesn't make any difference. The only time it makes any difference is when you downsize or sell up entirely.

If you are basing your argument on selling up and moving to a cheaper area, then yes, your argument is obvious there too, 150k is better than 50k. But you threw that argument in at a later date.

I threw the selling up arguement later because he was saying he would never downsize and my point was that you don't have to downsize to release equity.

Net worth does not have to occur only due to HPI for example the house I live in now I bought for cash so all its value adds to my net worth. Another example is a flat I own in Battersea which I am going to pay off 50k of the mortgage when interest rates go back up, when I eventually sell I will get that 50k back, yet Emy would argue the net worth is irrelevant, it is just crazy to ignore the net worth.

chucknorris

Emy1501 wrote: »

The debate is always lost When people have to resort to trying to get personal. I'll leave you too it.

You were never in the debate with any logic trying to argue that 50k is just as good as 150k.

Emy1501

wotsthat wrote: »

Don't know why that is the issue. Can't we just agree that increasing net worth is increasing in wealth but not necessarily an increase in liquidity?

I do know that we all release 100% of the equity in our homes eventually when we make the final 'house move'.

It's relevant to the title of thread and people perception of their net wealth.

IE would people rather feel rich by having lots of equity or would they rather get a cheaper house for them and other fAmilly members but have little equity.

Also as prices rise more people will be hit by inheritance tax when they die
As flying pig says it will depend on where you are in life.

Of course if we are being simplistic ie is better to have equity than not if you going to buy tomorrow then the answers yes but that's not what the threads about

wotsthat

Emy1501 wrote: »

It's relevant to the title of thread and people perception of their net wealth.

IE would people rather feel rich by having lots of equity or would they rather get a cheaper house for them and other fAmilly members but have little equity.

If you've got a £1m house and it's paid off you ARE rich. You might not feel it or perceive it if you're on a small fixed income but by most measures you're definitely rich.

A government comes along that is going to guarantee that house prices will be 20% lower. That's a real £200k we're talking about - once it's gone it can be accessed or passed on. I'd have to be really confident that it was going to be better for the country as a whole to vote for that.

I'd be much more likely to vote for a government guaranteeing that house prices would stay the same and wages were going to increase over 5 years so that house prices compared to wages were 20% cheaper.