Looking on the positive side: Why falling house prices are a good thing

System

It seems, as long as you want prices to fall, you can own as many as you like and the bears will still defend you.

I will contact the Wilsons informing them to release a press statement along the lines they want prices to fall, just like Emy's parents.

julieq

Emy1501 wrote: »

You simply dont seem to get that I'm not as greedy as the likes of you.

:rotfl:

Funniest post EVER

How dare you lecture people on the evils of HPI when everyone in your family, yourself included, is profiting from it big time? Your parents could comfortably live off 2x rental income given they own their own house. Anyone could. Oh, but these charming people think it's bad that young people are priced out. Nothing to do with them of course, and they're not going to raise a finger to do anything about it.

And then you claim that other people are greedy. Well you're the greedy child of greedy parents, and you'll most likely breed greedy children of your own. Snouts in the trough one and all. I'll help my children out of my own income. You can keep yours to yourself. And even then I bet you'll still be whinging about how unfair life is.

I don't really care about that, there are certainly plenty of greedy parasites in the world, but please don't turn up and explain that people who have just one house they live in are greedy because they don't particularly want the value to drop, not least because it would cause massive misery for everyone else with a house. Or with a job.

If you want to reduce HPI, start by offloading a few of these properties at a discount, if your parents won't then YOU do it at the time you liquidate their estate. And don't hide behind the "well everyone else is doing it", which is precisely the same excuse MPs used about expenses.

If you want to change the world, start changing it. Otherwise !!!!!!.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Selling 50% off market value is categorically stupid.

how about selling at 3 times average salary... apparently that's what houses should be worth...

if you think houses should be worth 3 times average salary why don't you kick it off by selling your house to allow those that are "priced out" to be able to buy...

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

It seems, as long as you want prices to fall, you can own as many as you like and the bears will still defend you.

I will contact the Wilsons informing them to release a press statement along the lines they want prices to fall, just like Emy's parents.

It's not a case of defending.

It's very simple. If market calues are lower, more can afford. Emy could sell at 50% off todays price, if prices fell 50% and still be able to move on with life, use the proceeds to buy another place, whatever.

Selling at 50% of the market price only puts you in a position where you DID have a house, but now you don't, as you have decided to go on a one man crusade to shoot yourself in the foot, give away your house half price, which means you now cannot afford to move on yourself.

As stated, this is a moral high ground issue, and everyone knows it.

People believe in protecting the environment. Doesn't mean they freeze themselves to death in the winter to make a point about climate change.

Emy1501

chucky wrote: »

you're the one claiming the moral high ground about BTL, HPI and then defending your parents owning a large number of properties.

why don't you just sell your house at that mythical correct value for a house of 3 times average salary instead of trying to hold out for every single penny that you've held out for in the last 18 months...

My property sold in june in 1 week after 7 viewings and 2 offers

julieq

The killing joke would have been if it had been that HPC bear from yesterday trying to get it at a discount. Bear against bear. Got to love it.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not a case of defending.

It's very simple. If market calues are lower, more can afford. Emy could sell at 50% off todays price, if prices fell 50% and still be able to move on with life, use the proceeds to buy another place, whatever.

Selling at 50% of the market price only puts you in a position where you DID have a house, but now you don't, as you have decided to go on a one man crusade to shoot yourself in the foot, give away your house half price, which means you now cannot afford to move on yourself.

As stated, this is a moral high ground issue, and everyone knows it.

People believe in protecting the environment. Doesn't mean they freeze themselves to death in the winter to make a point about climate change.

Actually I agree Graham.

But people who profess they believe in protecting the environment don't drive all over it in a fleet of 4x4s spraying it with crude oil, before explaining they managed to get out of BP at full price.

Which is the direct equivalent of what Emy is doing. It's not just having his or her cake and eating it, it's smearing great lumps of it in the faces of everyone else and telling us we're evil for owning a small slice of victoria sponge. Total sociopath.

Incidentally, just to see what we've learned, what sets market prices? And is it possible to build houses without decreasing prices?

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not a case of defending.

It's very simple. If market calues are lower, more can afford. Emy could sell at 50% off todays price, if prices fell 50% and still be able to move on with life, use the proceeds to buy another place, whatever.

Selling at 50% of the market price only puts you in a position where you DID have a house, but now you don't, as you have decided to go on a one man crusade to shoot yourself in the foot, give away your house half price, which means you now cannot afford to move on yourself.

As stated, this is a moral high ground issue, and everyone knows it.

People believe in protecting the environment. Doesn't mean they freeze themselves to death in the winter to make a point about climate change.

I'm not talking about selling, I'm talking about the venomous posts that get spat at anyone who owns more than one home and lets them out.

Emy's parents have SIX, and it's fine, because deep down they want them to be cheaper, whilst at the same time restricting supply to potential puchasers in the area causing them to be more expensive.

carolt

Pennywise wrote: »

I'd be happy for my house to fall in value by 50% or more if all other houses fell in proportion.

My house has supposedly risen in value by 300% over its purchase price 13 years ago and I'm mortgage free by working hard to pay off the mortgage, not by a windfall! The rise in house price has done nothing for me. On paper, I may be a couple of hundred thousand better off, but that doesn't translate to my living standards etc., so it doesn't really matter.

If I want to move to a bigger house, they, too, have risen by 300% so I have to find more money to bridge the gap. 13 years ago, I could have afforded a 4 bed house but thought a 3 bed would be fine. Now, I can't afford a 4 bed house, because the difference in price which was about £25k 12 years ago, is now about £75k.

The only time the rising house price would benefit me would be if I sold it. But where does that leave me? Homeless! So I'd have to buy another or rent - neither of which make me better off!

I'd be content for house prices to fall by 2/3rds back to the price I paid for mine - if all houses fell by the same, it's all proportional, I've not lost anything, so what's the problem.

None of my family & friends have bought recently because they've been priced out of the market for 5 years or more, so I know no-one who's bought at the peak and would badly suffer. In fact, I find it hard to fathom how people have managed to buy at the peak levels when you compare earnings against house prices - certainly "normal" people with "normal" jobs and without windfalls have been priced out of the market for a few years.

So, for me and my close family/friends, a house price crash wouldn't hurt at all - I wouldn't be out celebrating because I know a lot of people who bought at the height of the property bubble would be hurting. But I've never celebtrated my illusionary wealth from house price inflation either.

Very sensible post.

julieq

carolt wrote: »

Very sensible post.

Really?

So what exactly do you think would happen to the economy if there was 50% housing deflation Carol?