Because they didn’t heed Biggie’s “Mo Money Mo Problems” sage advice and watched too many episodes of MTV Cribs.

Because as you say it helps boomers and these are people largely in control of media etc 

I have explained to lots of people that failing house prices are actually better for young people and people looking to upsize

But it often gets missed 

Rising house prices indicate an increased demand for housing, which in turn indicates that a particular area is desirable to live in. That's generally seen as a good thing. Places with dirt cheap housing tend not to have a very high standard of living. H2h.

That's relative moves in prices, Barry. Not absolute house price index for the country.

Boomers just want to trouser their own house price rise and then hand it to their own kids. It's middle class dynasty building.

I appreciate it's a collective delusion based on individual opportunism, but it's one hell of a drag on this country's progress.

I wish it would just fook off.

Barry, bodied

Are these boomers in the room with us now?

The way to lower house prices is to build more. Or, you know, restrict immigration. 

Build more

Tax inherited property wealth (no one actually wants to live in their dead parents' home, they just want the proceeds)

Aggressively tax BTL ownership

Regulate earnings multiples on mortgages

Immigration should be regulated by reference to a range of economic and social needs, not just to restrict house price growth

But if everyone inherits in this way, what difference does it make?

But they don't, do they? People leverage up to different extents and profit differentially as a result. Other people can't (or don't) buy.

The rising tide may catch all boats, but some boats are bigger than others, some people own many boats, and some people don't own a boat at all.

So tax those that die owning stuff but not those that put it in trust or give it away first? 

If that’s your policy aim, just remove principal private residence relief so all increases are subject to cgt. 

Housing market reform would go hand in hand with IHT reform. You can't just put your house in trust and live in it until you die under current rules anyway.

PPR relief serves a purpose, at least, as it prevents the lack of mobility that would otherwise be caused by latent taxable gains. It's chicken and egg, though, as indexed gains should be modest in a world where rampant house price inflation is not an implicit policy goal of the government.

Simply charge a property tax hypothecated locally, that is a percentage of the actual property value annually. Say 1.5%. Not the pathetic council tax.

Old biddies in mansions would soon move out. Prices would soon find a (lower) level.

I see no party has committed to re-valuing houses for council tax purposes, which IIRC are still based on 1994 values.

There's no point revaluing houses for council tax - it's not like one part of Surrey has become disproportionately more valuable than another. It all comes out in the wash. If you develop your home, it gets revalued in relative terms anyway.

Hypothecated property tax is a nice idea and works well in the States in terms of making people feel invested in their local community, but it simply means that rich enclaves develop that have really good schools and roads. Property tax in wealthy suburbs in the states ends up costing the equivalent of private school fees. Would address the underoccupied housing stock, but not the overall problem of house price growth.

A more simple question is why do they think rising house prices is a good thing when they can't do anything with it?

Most house owners would accept that any increase in value has nothing to do with anything they did. It doesn’t follow that they shouldn’t be interested when the value does rise. In short, the OP is confused. 

It's really the planning system and placing unmerited weight on the objections to planning applications.  We need to get better at just telling people that development is going to happen.

Tax inherited property wealth (no one actually wants to live in their dead parents' home, they just want the proceeds)

Speak for yourself.  I'd have happily lived in my parents' house if I could afford the upkeep and I have friends who'd be disinherited for even hinting they wouldn't live in the family home.

A more simple question is why do they think rising house prices is a good thing when they can't do anything with it?

Well they can. There's equity release, for a start.

And then there's downsizing so that you can give the proceeds to your kids.

Or you can die in it and leave it to your kids

The only problem with all these things is that the next generation just uses the wealth to buy the same houses that have become more expensive. Yet people thin they are winning by doing this.

As noted above, individuals families can win by buying massive houses using debt, or by buying multiple houses as BTL investments, but who on earth thinks this is a good idea for our country as a whole?

Speak for yourself.  I'd have happily lived in my parents' house if I could afford the upkeep and I have friends who'd be disinherited for even hinting they wouldn't live in the family home.

Fair enough. But are you an only child? Surely this is impossible in any family with more than one child, unless you believe in primogeniture (male or otherwise).

Maybe the answer is taxing PPR but having some sort of IHT rollover, so that the gain is deferred until someone does sell it. That would allow what is presumably a small minority to live in a family home over generations, but the argument in favour of even that is weak, IMO.

Their families do deals so one will get the house but they'll probably share the farm and the siblings who don't get the house or a share in the farm will get something else of equivalent value.