Bring house prices down 40 %

[getto_sniper 10]

It must be the former then - I'm quite thick.

 

I think you are saying that house prices should be adjusted so houses with similar physical properties are not priced differently because of their physical location.

 

 

 

I would like to know how you think this would work.

 

I can't see in which post you have explained it though - if I've missed it let me know.

 

simple if house A is worth £1000.000 in area A, then it should be worth £1000.000 in area B, of the same city/township/village/hamlet .

[the_rudeboy 12]

simple if house A is worth £1000.000 in area A, then it should be worth £1000.000 in area B, of the same city/township/village/hamlet .

That can't possibly work though. If two similar houses are priced the same but one is in a rough area and one is in a better area then the majority of people would be more interested in the one in the better area. This increased interest/demand would naturally push the price of that one up, which is exactly what happens now.

[Little Buzz 10]

simple if house A is worth £1000.000 in area A, then it should be worth £1000.000 in area B, of the same city/township/village/hamlet .

 

Worth is a measure of what people are prepared to pay though.

 

It is clear that people think houses in some areas are worth more than in others.

 

For them to both to have the same price (as opposed to worth) you would have to intervene to adjust the prices - perhaps by limiting the prices? (e.g. max for a 3 bed house is £100,000 or something)

 

What I want to know is this:

 

A house that people think is worth more than £100,000 (near a nice park and a good school, for example - or with a good view or something) will have lots of people that want to buy it - it is worth more than the £100k you are limiting it's price to.

 

So how do you decide who get the house?

 

And given that you would be able to get a nice house in a nice area for the same price as a house in a poor area with your system, the house in the poor area all of a sudden seems over priced, so no-one will want it. The people in it will be stuck there as no-one will buy their house.

 

Your system will not work until you address these issues.

[getto_sniper 10]

That can't possibly work though. If two similar houses are priced the same but one is in a rough area and one is in a better area then the majority of people would be more interested in the one in the better area. This increased interest/demand would naturally push the price of that one up, which is exactly what happens now.

 

how many rough areas are all privately own ?

[Little Buzz 10]

That can't possibly work though. If two similar houses are priced the same but one is in a rough area and one is in a better area then the majority of people would be more interested in the one in the better area. This increased interest/demand would naturally push the price of that one up, which is exactly what happens now.

 

I've been saying that for an hour and a half ...

[the_rudeboy 12]

how many rough areas are all privately own ?

It doesn't matter if all the houses in a particular area are privately owned or not. Some of them will be.

[getto_sniper 10]

Worth is a measure of what people are prepared to pay though.

 

It is clear that people think houses in some areas are worth more than in others.

 

For them to both to have the same price (as opposed to worth) you would have to intervene to adjust the prices - perhaps by limiting the prices? (e.g. max for a 3 bed house is £100,000 or something)

 

What I want to know is this:

 

A house that people think is worth more than £100,000 (near a nice park and a good school, for example - or with a good view or something) will have lots of people that want to buy it - it is worth more than the £100k you are limiting it's price to.

 

So how do you decide who get the house?

 

And given that you would be able to get a nice house in a nice area for the same price as a house in a poor area with your system, the house in the poor area all of a sudden seems over priced, so no-one will want it. The people in it will be stuck there as no-one will buy their house.

 

Your system will not work until you address these issues.

 

first come first serve luck of the draw, just cus you pay more for something doesn't mean its worth more, that's where the element of greed comes in.

[getto_sniper 10]

It doesn't matter if all the houses in a particular area are privately owned or not. Some of them will be.

 

council houses are where its more rough they shouldn't have been sold in the first place,

[the_rudeboy 12]

first come first serve luck of the draw, just cus you pay more for something doesn't mean its worth more, that's where the element of greed comes in.

Could it not just be the desire to have a house in the area you want to live in rather than greed?

[the_rudeboy 12]

council houses are where its more rough they shouldn't have been sold in the first place,

That's a completely different topic i'm afraid and, since council houses have been sold off for quite a few years now, is totally irrelevant to this topic.

[Little Buzz 10]

first come first serve luck of the draw, just cus you pay more for something doesn't mean its worth more, that's where the element of greed comes in.

 

I agree that paying more doesn't automatically mean something is worth more. It's good though that you can see the difference between the price and the worth/value.

 

In your system of similar houses being the same price people are not paying a price that reflects the worth of the house.

 

I assume you propose making more expensive houses cheaper, although you still haven't given details.

 

This means that something with a value (the nice view or whatever) is not being paid for, which leads to allocation problems.

 

If people know they can get a house with a nice view for £100k they won't want to pay £100k for one without - so lots of people will want the houses with the view, and few will want the others. This creates all sorts of problems - the market allocates very efficiently. To do it by other means leads to a massive waste of resources - ask the Russians. They were kind enough to do a 40 year experiment to see if they could make an alternative system work.

[getto_sniper 10]

That's a completely different topic i'm afraid and, since council houses have been sold off for quite a few years now, is totally irrelevant to this topic.

 

no it inst they should be bought back.