Is now really a bad time to buy?

Norman_Castle

CRelying on equity fromrashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

Yes, but that is different to relying on the equity as your wealth.

Yeabut, its you that suggested that was the measure of wealth.

"Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do."

What did I suggest was the measure of wealth

Getting an income from an asset, "Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do." Many people would be considered wealthy because of the property they own despite having a modest income.

Crashy_Time

Norman_Castle said:

CRelying on equity fromrashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

Yes, but that is different to relying on the equity as your wealth.

Yeabut, its you that suggested that was the measure of wealth.

"Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do."

What did I suggest was the measure of wealth

Getting an income from an asset, "Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do." Many people would be considered wealthy because of the property they own despite having a modest income.

Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be.

Parking_Eyerate

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

CRelying on equity fromrashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

Yes, but that is different to relying on the equity as your wealth.

Yeabut, its you that suggested that was the measure of wealth.

"Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do."

What did I suggest was the measure of wealth

Getting an income from an asset, "Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do." Many people would be considered wealthy because of the property they own despite having a modest income.

Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be.

It might not fit your narrative but that really depends entirely on several basic factors, such as the specific property/properties in question and whether or not there was a mortgage involved and, if so, how much of a mortgage. 

Crashy_Time

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

CRelying on equity fromrashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

Yes, but that is different to relying on the equity as your wealth.

Yeabut, its you that suggested that was the measure of wealth.

"Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do."

What did I suggest was the measure of wealth

Getting an income from an asset, "Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do." Many people would be considered wealthy because of the property they own despite having a modest income.

Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be.

It might not fit your narrative but that really depends entirely on several basic factors, such as the specific property/properties in question and whether or not there was a mortgage involved and, if so, how much of a mortgage. 

True wealth is diversified, not concentrated in one hard to sell asset.

Parking_Eyerate

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

CRelying on equity fromrashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

Yes, but that is different to relying on the equity as your wealth.

Yeabut, its you that suggested that was the measure of wealth.

"Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do."

What did I suggest was the measure of wealth

Getting an income from an asset, "Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do." Many people would be considered wealthy because of the property they own despite having a modest income.

Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be.

It might not fit your narrative but that really depends entirely on several basic factors, such as the specific property/properties in question and whether or not there was a mortgage involved and, if so, how much of a mortgage. 

True wealth is diversified, not concentrated in one hard to sell asset.

That's just a meaningless platitude.

Crashy_Time

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

CRelying on equity fromrashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

Yes, but that is different to relying on the equity as your wealth.

Yeabut, its you that suggested that was the measure of wealth.

"Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do."

What did I suggest was the measure of wealth

Getting an income from an asset, "Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do." Many people would be considered wealthy because of the property they own despite having a modest income.

Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be.

It might not fit your narrative but that really depends entirely on several basic factors, such as the specific property/properties in question and whether or not there was a mortgage involved and, if so, how much of a mortgage. 

True wealth is diversified, not concentrated in one hard to sell asset.

That's just a meaningless platitude.

Not if you are stuck trying to sell a hard to sell asset it isn`t, especially if all or most of your "wealth" is based on that asset`s value.

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time said:

Not if you are stuck trying to sell a hard to sell asset it isn`t, especially if all or most of your "wealth" is based on that asset`s value.

Over 100,000 people every month didn't find it particularly hard to sell their "asset."

I've sold two properties in the fifteen years since you decided to "sell to rent", one of which I bought at the 2007 peak, and made a nice profit on both...

Parking_Eyerate

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

CRelying on equity fromrashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

Yes, but that is different to relying on the equity as your wealth.

Yeabut, its you that suggested that was the measure of wealth.

"Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do."

What did I suggest was the measure of wealth

Getting an income from an asset, "Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do." Many people would be considered wealthy because of the property they own despite having a modest income.

Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be.

It might not fit your narrative but that really depends entirely on several basic factors, such as the specific property/properties in question and whether or not there was a mortgage involved and, if so, how much of a mortgage. 

True wealth is diversified, not concentrated in one hard to sell asset.

That's just a meaningless platitude.

Not if you are stuck trying to sell a hard to sell asset it isn`t, especially if all or most of your "wealth" is based on that asset`s value.

Some houses may be difficult to sell at some points in time, some may not. Fund trading can be suspended, share trading can be suspended; how do you sell such assets at such times? If "liquid assets" crash 20% in a day's trading, how does liquidity help you if you can't afford to sell very rapidly at a significant loss? Basically, if people consider that they have a degree of personal wealth because they own a mortgage-free property and don't have any stock investments or cash in the bank, who are you to tell them that they are wrong?
Property varies hugely in terms of size, location, state of repair etc. yet you naturally assume that it must always be a "hard to sell asset". Your vested interest (VI) shines blindingly.....

Crashy_Time

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

CRelying on equity fromrashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

Yes, but that is different to relying on the equity as your wealth.

Yeabut, its you that suggested that was the measure of wealth.

"Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do."

What did I suggest was the measure of wealth

Getting an income from an asset, "Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do." Many people would be considered wealthy because of the property they own despite having a modest income.

Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be.

It might not fit your narrative but that really depends entirely on several basic factors, such as the specific property/properties in question and whether or not there was a mortgage involved and, if so, how much of a mortgage. 

True wealth is diversified, not concentrated in one hard to sell asset.

That's just a meaningless platitude.

Not if you are stuck trying to sell a hard to sell asset it isn`t, especially if all or most of your "wealth" is based on that asset`s value.

Some houses may be difficult to sell at some points in time, some may not. Fund trading can be suspended, share trading can be suspended; how do you sell such assets at such times? If "liquid assets" crash 20% in a day's trading, how does liquidity help you if you can't afford to sell very rapidly at a significant loss? Basically, if people consider that they have a degree of personal wealth because they own a mortgage-free property and don't have any stock investments or cash in the bank, who are you to tell them that they are wrong?
Property varies hugely in terms of size, location, state of repair etc. yet you naturally assume that it must always be a "hard to sell asset". Your vested interest (VI) shines blindingly.....

Ah, it`s "mortgage free" people that are wealthy now, not just anyone with a mortgage? One of my pensions is frozen just now, due to the commercial property exposure, but I have other funds and banks accounts that are not frozen, that is being diversified. Some of my investments were down nearly 40% a few weeks ago, now they are back to nearly break even, and they were never frozen.

Crashy_Time

MobileSaver said:

Crashy_Time said:

Not if you are stuck trying to sell a hard to sell asset it isn`t, especially if all or most of your "wealth" is based on that asset`s value.

Over 100,000 people every month didn't find it particularly hard to sell their "asset."

I've sold two properties in the fifteen years since you decided to "sell to rent", one of which I bought at the 2007 peak, and made a nice profit on both...

What month was that?