Do you want house price to rise or fall?

MobileSaver

westernpromise wrote: »

That wouldn't be unselfish, it would be totally stupid, because if they did so they could not afford to replace it.

I was thinking of parents downsizing so they would still be able to afford a smaller home. Ultimately I think lisyloo is wrong on this and with very few exceptions everyone is selfish regarding house prices.

Actions speak louder than words and how many of those people who claim they do want prices to fall are actually prepared to sell their own property for less than they could?

lisyloo

MobileSaver wrote: »

I was thinking of parents downsizing so they would still be able to afford a smaller home. Ultimately I think lisyloo is wrong on this and with very few exceptions everyone is selfish regarding house prices.

Actions speak louder than words and how many of those people who claim they do want prices to fall are actually prepared to sell their own property for less than they could?

I don’t think your logic is correct regarding personal unilateral actions.

For example I would not personally unilaterally contribute more tax.
That doesn’t mean I can’t genuinely want a different tax system that results in me paying more tax.

So I would be willing to accept a lower house price if it means better/fairer system for our children and grand children but I am not willing to take unilateral action on it because that is pointless (although I might if I was selling direct to offspring). I would only accept it on the basis of everyone having lower prices across the board.

MobileSaver

lisyloo wrote: »

So I would be willing to accept a lower house price if it means better/fairer system for our children and grand children but I am not willing to take unilateral action on it

That is where we'll have to agree to disagree then.

Lower prices have to start somewhere but you are not prepared to be the first to lower prices; you are more concerned with your own finances rather than what you perceive as "the greater good"; to me that is the very definition of selfish.

Not a criticism by the way just an observation on normal human behaviour and why I think you're wrong and in fact most people are selfish when it comes to house prices.

lisyloo

You are changing what I am saying.
Unilateral means affecting only one person or group.
Going first is about order.

Of course you are free to disagree, that’s fine and good, but it doesn’t make any sense when you are changing the meaning of what I’m saying.

I am willing to act in accordance with others for the greater good e.g. raising taxes, lowering house prices.
I put my money where my mouth is by voting for tax raising parties.
I don’t believe I can change the housing market or tax system by acting unilaterally, but I could through democracy.

MaxiRobriguez

There is no point selling your house for less than you could, or paying more taxes than your due, through first action. You just put yourself in poverty and increase the probability you will rely on other people to fund your life.

Legal changes, which force everyone to oblige, is the only way. If you vote for such a change then you are in essence volunteering for it, whilst at the same time not consigning yourself to poverty by acting alone.

I tend to vote Labour despite it not being in my (financial) interest to do so if they assume power due to the probability of increased wealth taxes. I'm not going to volunteer to pay such things now by myself because unlike a potential future Labour government, currently there would be no benefit for wider society of me doing that.

It's all or nothing. Individual actions are pointless and trivial in a society of 50 million. Just like Greta Thurnberg was achieving nothing until millions of others started doing the same all at the same time.

andrewf75

I want prices to fall (I’m a home owner) but gradually, or to stagnate at current levels. That is surely the ideal situation. As has been pointed out many times no-one gains from a big crash.