Sancho Panza

UK wages going up soon

327 posts in this topic

When increasing the rental stock (BtL) was first being discussed in the media (late 80s/90s) it was being justified as being needed to help with labour mobility.  They said that people couldn't get satisfactory temporary accommodation if having to work outside of their normal town/city of living.  They'd got the temporary contracts (rather than full time working) and now they needed the temporary accommodation.

At the time most people would think that they were referring to UK people moving around to find work within the UK as that's what they were led to believe in the various articles ("enterprise economy").  Few would realise that it might also be about accommodating mass movements within the eu (or from elsewhere) as that was never mentioned.

It was interesting to observe when NuLabour got in power the high proportion of flats being built in many areas rather than family homes which was a bit of a change from the past.  At the time why was a bit of a puzzle.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exceptionally interesting thread guys, keep it up!

It's very interesting to balance all the factual causes (related here,) and their juxtaposition with regard to the final Brexit voting headcount.   certainly what happened, happened in spades, but we are where we are.  

With reference to certain areas and their rocketing populations, and examples herein, there is no doubt that due to P.C. and newly enforced ways of working and accountability within councils etc, and unless a certain individual (either renter or secret LL) had actually committed a prosecutable crime, then certain Councils would have certainly been turning two blind eyes to any housing infringements. In fact it would have massively helped their difficult social housing issue data to do so.   Also at the time it pretty much all kicked off, we had a Labour/ Liberal environment, totally towing the Gov.UK line, and those councils flexing their new found muscles were loving every second of it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, slawek said:

No number is 100% correct but it doesn't mean it is useless. This is the best available population estimation we have, there are people whose job is to produce this number based on many sources. Your claim is based on no data, just your belief.     

Even if the population increase were 5.2mln (9%) not 3.2mln that would produce ratio of occupiers per dwelling around 2.4, the value for the whole population from 2001.  

 

My claim is based on data that is known but not being released. We are talking numbers that are not quite 100% accurate, we are talking numbers that are 100% out. One the scale of reported 200K odd EU migrant numbers in a year and 400K odd national insurance numbers being issued.  This does not include obviously those working outside of the tax system, either legitimately or otherwise.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3364252/HMRC-refuses-release-data-reveal-true-level-EU-migration-Britain-unhelpful-Prime-Minister-s-renegotiation-hopes.html

Taxman REFUSES to release data which could reveal the true level of EU migration to Britain because it would be 'unhelpful' to the Prime Minister's renegotiation hopes

  • More NI numbers are issued every year to migrants than officially arrive
  • Former civil servant Jonathan Portes asked how many numbers were used
  • But HMRC refused to release the data because of Cameron's EU talks 



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3364252/HMRC-refuses-release-data-reveal-true-level-EU-migration-Britain-unhelpful-Prime-Minister-s-renegotiation-hopes.html#ixzz4YwbGK8rK 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, slawek said:

Your thesis doesn't have confirmation in numbers. Between 2001-2011 population increased by 3.2 mln (net immigration was 1.9 mln, births/deaths 1.3mln). The housing stock increased by 2.2 mln (new houses around 1.5mln). There was enough new housing stock for the increased population (1.5 person per dwelling).

The OO dwelling stock has not changed (17.6 mln), PR increased by 2.3 mln, HA increased by 1mln, LA decreased by 1.5 mln.

It was all about trillions of house equity. They don't want to pop it as it will crash the UK. It will only end because they can't keep growing it any longer, mostly likely they will be forced by some external events. "Luckily" the world is becoming more chaotic and chances of some shock are increasing.          

Agreed.  The VI there.  Although some of the policy we have seen might have been about getting the banks into better position to handle the HPC.

Housing financialisation.

Older owners buying £500K BTLs days before S24 announced, in a housing supply (meaning houses on market at multi-decades lows as owners not tempted to sell for some reason - and that could be because partly see them as investments and store of wealth + foreverHPI) and telling how their own home has risen in value from £93K in 1991 to £650K today.  They can make the bank whole in event of HPC, by selling the BTL and their own home (at lower prices), with homes sold to those who are not housing financilsation minded at much lower prices. 

36 minutes ago, slawek said:

No number is 100% correct but it doesn't mean it is useless. This is the best available population estimation we have, there are people whose job is to produce this number based on many sources. Your claim is based on no data, just your belief.     

Even if the population increase were 5.2mln (9%) not 3.2mln that would produce ratio of occupiers per dwelling around 2.4, the value for the whole population from 2001.  

Those numbers come in at around same as BuyToLeech posted in 2015.

BuyToLeech, on 10 Oct 2015 - 12:37 AM, said:snapback.png

 

In 1980, each house had to be shared by 2.7 people.

In 1990, it was around 2.5 people per house.

 

It is currently around 2.4.

 

From 2000-2013, 2.3M houses were built in the UK.

 

We have, therefore, built enough houses for around 5.5M people.

Over the same period, population increased by 5.2M people.

 

There is no shortage of housing.  Housing has never been more plentiful.  

 

Also - I found it astonishing and still struggle to believe it (if anyone wants to challenge it they can - although it's likely to still be on high side)

 

Quote

The Times

Britain becomes a nation of renters as buy-to-let prices out new buyers

January 1 2015

 

Departmental figures show that the vast majority of new housing in the UK since the turn of the millennium has been bought by landlords. Between 2000 and 2012, the private rented sector has accounted for some 2.5 million of the extra homes. Only 400,000 have been bought by occupiers.

 

http://www.thetimes....f4bb875d204d1d6

 

Quote

HPCer:    So... of 2.9m new homes built since 2000, 2.5m (i.e.86%) bought by landlords, 400k by owner-occupiers as home ownership plunges to lowest since 1988.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2015 figures nearly a discrepancy of nearly 3 to 1 in relation to NI numbers. Short term immigration estimates are just that, also short term working migrants  need to occupy space too. Then there is the non EU migration, and all the undisclosed / undocumented migration.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-immigration-uk-whats-hidden-national-insurance-number-data/

mind_the_gap_explained_.png

 

Edited by onlyme2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Venger, ratio of dwellings to occupancy is meaningless when you don't know the true level of occupancy or population. In the census millions of houses did not have details submitted at all, of those that were submitted how many actually told the truth in certain sectors?

This people farmer would not have.

http://www.propertyreporter.co.uk/landlords/rogue-landlord-fined-40k-for-squeezing-24-tenants-into-house-for-7.html

A landlord in Wembley has been found guilty and fined £40k after being caught cramming 24 people into a house suitable for 7 in Wembley.

Willesden Magistrates’ Court heard Tilak Raj Sarna of George V Avenue in Pinner initially claim innocence but then accept his guilt after two days of cross examination.  

Brent Council granted Sarna a licence to house seven people at his house in multiple occupation (HMO) on Bowrons Avenue, but when Brent housing enforcement officers made an unannounced visit to the house in January 2016 they found 24 tenants living there, including seven families with 10 young children

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2017 at 1:02 PM, slawek said:

You are right at the core of it is a tribal instinct, in this context called nationalism. Sometimes is a good thing as it helps people work in groups, sometimes bad as it divides people into we and they. Humans have not changes much for thousands of years, we are still driven by the same old forces.

As I don't believe in a free will, I can't blame people. They are wired and programmed as they are but it doesn't mean that you can't influence situation by exploring behavioral patterns. You yourself lack the free will as well. Your conviction that people should be treated same way regardless of a place were they were born is also just a believe. Those two believes (memes) fight with each other, which one is better will be decided based on chances for survival of the population "infected" by it (natural selection).      .         

I reject this.

It's a market, and a market where millions of people have very different world-views.

Many people see what they want to see (especially when they are on the mad-gainz happy side of things), doubling down into BTL - with little regard for anything apart from themselves.

It's like Asimov's trends.

They are not wired and programmed.  They live in the paradigm of the current reality, and see the world as they see the world.

Life is water not stone.  Pick up a history book and see how things have changed, over and over again.  Reality paradigms swoosh change, with hard shocks along the way for those who took their positions that their position/future was set permanent win.  It's how we see other people.  We can all know basics.  Bad things/bad world-views, need to be pushed back against, when markets reach extremes, or against superior egos who don't see other people as having rights in their own 'programming' REALITY CHOICE of the day.

Quote

 

...opened fire on a non-violent gathering of unarmed civilians, men, women and children, at the Jallianwalla Bagh in what later came to be known as the Amritsar massacre.


General Dyer's Response & Motivation

The time will come to India when a strong hand will be exerted against malice and 'perversion' of good order.

Gandhi will not lead India to capable self-government. The British Raj must continue, firm and unshaken in its administration of justice to all men.

It is only to an enlightened people that free speech and a free press can be extended. The Indian people want no such enlightenment.

 

Those influenced into BTL when already owning one home (adverts whatever) are on their own.  The BOMADS (still helping buy today down South and elsewhere at these prices) make their own choices.   They have done very well out of that for decades.  BTL too.  Doesn't mean they deserve bailout if change is ahead.

No one has the absolute reality view, and we all have to struggle within it, but some take it to extremes (the prices they pay, the number of houses they lay claim to), and history has provided enough examples that things can change.

Quote

There is much evidence that human expectations tend to be linear. Most of the time, most people expect current conditions to continue for the indefinite future. Wherever prosperity exists, it is natural for people to expect prosperity to continue. For this reason, much of the history of human society is a record of astonishment.

Time and again, people have marginalised their affairs, rendering themselves increasingly crisis-prone. They have gone into debt, extending claims on resources to an extreme that could be supported only if current conditions were sustained uninterrupted into the future. Time and again these hopes have been disappointed.

Choice.  I only want one home, at a price that has some measure toward family income / savings levels.   Not x8 income, in a market that has been dominated by housing financilisation interests, and HPI chasers.  Difficulties in markets should not always be absorbed by younger renters, to protect precious mad-gainz side, and those who have gone on HPI double down with housing.  I can blame them.   If it's ego shock ahead, or actual difficult financial losses for 11 BTL market participants, they have to take the losses to make things right for the future.  To allow others to enter market at prices that make sense to hard-working/professional incomes.

On 1/8/2017 at 2:19 PM, Bland Unsight said:

I agree with Venger that there is a strand of thinking amongst some posters that people are somehow not making active decisions when they buy houses and this notion of programming is one way in which this strand of thinking is expressed.

I think that the analysis is superficially attractive because it casts the analyst as the individual who can see what others cannot, or perhaps we are envisaging that we are immune to the programming for some reason?

The notion of programming fails in the context of UK housing today because what we really have is a not a crisis but a conflict.

People, like Britcoin, who own housing outright and have benefited as a consequence see matters one way, those who have been excluded from ownership see matters very differently. There is no programming because there is no consensus.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, onlyme2 said:

 

My claim is based on data that is known but not being released. We are talking numbers that are not quite 100% accurate, we are talking numbers that are 100% out. One the scale of reported 200K odd EU migrant numbers in a year and 400K odd national insurance numbers being issued.  This does not include obviously those working outside of the tax system, either legitimately or otherwise.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3364252/HMRC-refuses-release-data-reveal-true-level-EU-migration-Britain-unhelpful-Prime-Minister-s-renegotiation-hopes.html

Taxman REFUSES to release data which could reveal the true level of EU migration to Britain because it would be 'unhelpful' to the Prime Minister's renegotiation hopes

  • More NI numbers are issued every year to migrants than officially arrive
  • Former civil servant Jonathan Portes asked how many numbers were used
  • But HMRC refused to release the data because of Cameron's EU talks 



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3364252/HMRC-refuses-release-data-reveal-true-level-EU-migration-Britain-unhelpful-Prime-Minister-s-renegotiation-hopes.html#ixzz4YwbGK8rK 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

How do you know data that are not being released? NI numbers are overestimating immigration, many people come and leave, there is no process to deregister. NI numbers can be used to estimate gross immigration, people coming in but ignores people leaving. 

Have you read my post? Even if you assume that immigration data are 100% wrong, 3.8mln increase of population due to the immigration instead of 1.9mln, you are getting occupier ratio 2.4, no change since 2001.  

I am afraid Daily Mail is not a credible source. It is more a UKIP rag.

ONS publishes data about foreign national working in the UK, the number increased by 1.4mln between 2001 and 2011. I think most of those people coming here alone. Even if you assume that for one person working there is one non-working, the population increase due to immigration is 2.8 mln.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, slawek said:

 I am afraid Daily Mail is not a credible source. It is more a UKIP rag.

ONS publishes data about foreign national working in the UK, the number increased by 1.4mln between 2001 and 2011. I think most of those people coming here alone. Even if you assume that for one person working there is one non-working, the population increase due to immigration is 2.8 mln.

Not interested what you think of one paper or another in the slightest.

Repeating the ONS numbers is pointless, they are not accurate. It is a survey, an estimate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, onlyme2 said:

Venger, ratio of dwellings to occupancy is meaningless when you don't know the true level of occupancy or population. In the census millions of houses did not have details submitted at all, of those that were submitted how many actually told the truth in certain sectors?

This people farmer would not have.

http://www.propertyreporter.co.uk/landlords/rogue-landlord-fined-40k-for-squeezing-24-tenants-into-house-for-7.html

A landlord in Wembley has been found guilty and fined £40k after being caught cramming 24 people into a house suitable for 7 in Wembley.

Willesden Magistrates’ Court heard Tilak Raj Sarna of George V Avenue in Pinner initially claim innocence but then accept his guilt after two days of cross examination.  

Brent Council granted Sarna a licence to house seven people at his house in multiple occupation (HMO) on Bowrons Avenue, but when Brent housing enforcement officers made an unannounced visit to the house in January 2016 they found 24 tenants living there, including seven families with 10 young children

I get the point you are making, onlyme2 - but I still reject it against wider housing financialisation (these house prices) vs immigration and even off-the-books exploitation of people by some landlords.

I read that story last night!  Link on PropertyTribes.   BTLers concerned about costs of licensing in many parts of the country (calling it a shakedown), and how fines are being ramped up.  CHANGE!   Change for the better imo.   They are the BTLers.   Licensing costs and bigger fines.

Housing fianncialisation and yes, perhaps with large number of people hidden from official records.  

There's also cause and effect.  Not always working in straight lines, but in cycles, with the effect feeding back and amplifying the cause, creating further malinvestment.  (HPI chasing).

If we didn't have such housing financialisation (HPC against mad prices in many areas - imo) and the money running up to the housing financiastioners, perhaps we could have a more productive economy overall.  

However, many an older British person involved in the housing financialisation.    My friend's ex-boyfriend basically dumped her about disagreement in world-view, with her wanting them to buy a home together, vs his desire for property-investment, and going for a property/properties where he could rent out rooms to other people, and he looked a bit like Alan Shearer in his prime.  His property-investing choices won out, relationship ended, and sure enough the first place he bought where he could change the house into apartments is up in value by £300K in 6 years.  Sure he's with a different girl today, but ditzy 'bought love by a new car' weak relationship imo. (although that's just my world-view about his choices/relationship).

snapback.png

Bland Unsight, on 14 Oct 2015 - 8:14 PM, said:snapback.png

[...]He seems to be accepting as an unquestioned premise the idea that prices are high because there is unmet demand for housing, however as we've argued a ton of times, rents are stable and whenever you want to rent you can rent.   If you want housing in the South East you can get it. It may not be quite as close to central London as you'd like, but it's there for the taking. 

Whilst house prices are out of whack with earnings that is not in and of itself evidence that there is unmet demand for housing.

 

As always with a question that might be considered an economic question there are so many interlinked parts that an observation of a correlation is just another puzzle.

 

 I have to say the thing about the graph that surprised me is how 1997-2008 boom transaction volumes were so small compared to 1989 boom transaction volumes.

 

Worth pointing out that if the millions of homes that had been bought at stupid prices by BTL mugs had been sold at lower prices to owner-occupiers then there wouldn't be so much excitement about a lack of affordable housing, and that if people returned to selling the house they already owned when they a bought new one the transaction volumes would be higherso if the 10:1 ratio held up you'd have more building, (if the same correlation continued to prevail).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Venger said:

I get the point you are making, onlyme2 - but I still reject it against wider housing financialisation (these house prices) vs immigration and even off-the-books exploitation of people by some landlords.

I read that story last night!  Link on PropertyTribes.   BTLers concerned about costs of licensing in many parts of the country (calling it a shakedown), and how fines are being ramped up.  CHANGE!   Change for the better imo.   They are the BTLers.   Licensing costs and bigger fines.

Housing fianncialisation and yes, perhaps with large number of people hidden from official records.  

There's also cause and effect.  Not always working in straight lines, but in cycles, with the effect feeding back and amplifying the cause, creating further malinvestment.  (HPI chasing).

If we didn't have such housing financialisation (HPC against mad prices in many areas - imo) and the money running up to the housing financiastioners, perhaps we could have a more productive economy overall.  

However, many an older British person involved in the housing financialisation.    My friend's ex-boyfriend basically dumped her about disagreement in world-view, with her wanting them to buy a home together, vs his desire for property-investment, and going for a property/properties where he could rent out rooms to other people, and he looked a bit like Alan Shearer in his prime.  His property-investing choices won out, relationship ended, and sure enough the first place he bought where he could change the house into apartments is up in value by £300K in 6 years.  Sure he's with a different girl today, but ditzy 'bought love by a new car' weak relationship imo. (although that's just my world-view about his choices/relationship).

Just making the point it is a factor, a very big one in some areas. As a result you get spillover too as those who sell up in high rental areas (to escape from them to settle in largely OO areas) take existing gains and that is an upward push on those prices too. So you cannot just reject it. I am not in any way suggesting that the main bubble is due to financialisation of the market and interest rate movements. Lack of housing vs demand plus intent to blow a financial bubble are a deadly combination when talking HPI's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Venger said:

I reject this.

It's a market, and a market where millions of people have very different world-views.

Many people see what they want to see (especially when they are on the mad-gainz happy side of things), doubling down into BTL - with little regard for anything apart from themselves.

It's like Asimov's trends.

They are not wired and programmed.  They live in the paradigm of the current reality, and see the world as they see the world.

Life is water not stone.  Pick up a history book and see how things have changed, over and over again.  Reality paradigms swoosh change, with hard shocks along the way for those who took their positions that their position/future was set permanent win.  It's how we see other people.  We can all know basics.  Bad things/bad world-views, need to be pushed back against, when markets reach extremes, or against superior egos who don't see other people as having rights in their own 'programming' REALITY CHOICE of the day.

Those influenced into BTL when already owning one home (adverts whatever) are on their own.  The BOMADS (still helping buy today down South and elsewhere at these prices) make their own choices.   They have done very well out of that for decades.  BTL too.  Doesn't mean they deserve bailout if change is ahead.

No one has the absolute reality view, and we all have to struggle within it, but some take it to extremes (the prices they pay, the number of houses they lay claim to), and history has provided enough examples that things can change.

Choice.  I only want one home, at a price that has some measure toward family income / savings levels.   Not x8 income, in a market that has been dominated by housing financilisation interests, and HPI chasers.  Difficulties in markets should not always be absorbed by younger renters, to protect precious mad-gainz side, and those who have gone on HPI double down with housing.  I can blame them.   If it's ego shock ahead, or actual difficult financial losses for 11 BTL market participants, they have to take the losses to make things right for the future.  To allow others to enter market at prices that make sense to hard-working/professional incomes.

 

The world-views of the market participants are a function of the genetic material (hardwired) and their experience (programming). Greed is very basic instinct, people if they have to chose between well-being of themselves or others are mostly selecting the first option, it is a pure self-preservation. This can be sometimes overridden by other instincts, like motherhood or reprogrammed by some idea, religion, patriotism etc.

You are right the things are changing through history but this is not because we as a human beings are changing. Program (culture) is changing, human civilisation as a whole has its own memory.   If it collapses, we lose all our knowledge and ideas, we will be back to square one, living in caves and surviving on what we find.   

Competing views of the world are parts of the culture, they are sometimes called mems. They spread like viruses of mind. The existence is a result of us being social creatures. We communicate and for us to cooperate we need to work out some consensus. That is a big advantage for us as we can work together influenced by a single idea. Conformism/group thinking is our feature, we are programmed to do this. I think we need an explanation of the world even if it is wrong to feel safer and we more ready to accept new ideas when we are confused by the surrounding world.                  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, onlyme2 said:

Not interested what you think of one paper or another in the slightest.

Repeating the ONS numbers is pointless, they are not accurate. It is a survey, an estimate.

 

I see, you source your view of the world from Daily Mail instead of exploring the facts yourself.

Population data would have to be wrong by 5 mln-10 mln (10%-15%) for your ( or Daily Mail) claim to start to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, slawek said:

The world-views of the market participants are a function of the genetic material (hardwired) and their experience (programming). Greed is very basic instinct, people if they have to chose between well-being of themselves or others are mostly selecting the first option, it is a pure self-preservation. This can be sometimes overridden by other instincts, like motherhood or reprogrammed by some idea, religion, patriotism etc.

You are right the things are changing through history but this is not because we as a human beings are changing. Program (culture) is changing, human civilisation as a whole has its own memory.   If it collapses, we lose all our knowledge and ideas, we will be back to square one, living in caves and surviving on what we find.   

Competing views of the world are parts of the culture, they are sometimes called mems. They spread like viruses of mind. The existence is a result of us being social creatures. We communicate and for us to cooperate we need to work out some consensus. That is a big advantage for us as we can work together influenced by a single idea. Conformism/group thinking is our feature, we are programmed to do this. I think we need an explanation of the world even if it is wrong to feel safer and we more ready to accept new ideas when we are confused by the surrounding world.                  

We're all fallible.  We don't learn lessons.  No one has the all-knowing reality view.  Many see the world as they choose to see it.

Some people comfortable taking bigger risks than others.  There is greed.  All of this is so.   We go through change (1990 HPC), painful rebalance for some, and still don't learn lessons.  Soon after... "No more bust only boom"  - and HPI+++ BTL galore.  Party.  All about me.

Oh... turns out that's not true forever reality after prices bubbled up to ever higher new peaks, and some with claims on homes worth fortunes (many still expecting more happy HPI me-me), and others in position with claims on multiple homes, and whackload of BTL debt with it........

Well I better get my deposit ready to donate to the guy with a £1m valued house and 11 BTL houses he's acquired with the MEW, buy, MEW, buy, MEW, buy, free-will choice then, now he is in a panic about S24 and CGT.   His position matters so much more.  How could he have known?  Just an innocent.   Taking reference, taking the rent, counting his £MILLIONS in self-worth.  Claim after claim.

Or the 50+ house BTLer 'with 30 years of experience', who has been on big brag until 2015, and now posts about his Financial Oblivion.

We have free-will.    Other people exist!

On 8/25/2012 at 4:26 PM, gf3 said:

If you hit your thumb with a claw hammer that will make you smart.

If then I hit my thumb with a lump hammer that will make me smarter than you :D

The only way to learn, advance, to get through to a better place, is to allow rebalance as they have happen.  Go through it and hopefully get to a better place, so idiot decisions not repeated.  In some cultures they have brought in Taboos, to prevent repeat of sociatelly damaging previous choices.  

A HPC, crash, change is not going to lead us to living in caves/hunter gatherers.  

It's rebalance.   

Housing financialisation to extremes needs to be pushed back against, and the mad-gainz/BTLers took their own positions.

1990 HPC didn't lead to any of that.  I have read stories, and been told directly, of people finally getting the chance to buy at prices that made sense, and to upsize to family homes for their families.

I don't see the answer as allowing greed/malinvestment (BTL x 11 homes GP, "I'm alright Jack, F**K You') to continue, without challenge, and younger workers to carry it, with a view that otherwise society collapses.

 

On 12/3/2014 at 11:04 AM, Venger said:
An existing paradigm is seldom dispelled by evidence alone. As Keith Thomas has written, "Such systems of belief possess a resilience which makes them virtually immune to external argument." A people whose culture grossly misinterprets certain facts will not necessarily reason their way to a more encompassing worldview until forced to do so by the brunt of economic necessity or military defeat. Reason does not alter values.

 

-------------------------

Neverwhere, on 26 May 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:snapback.png

 

That is totally wrongheaded in my view.

 

It's more like saying you feel sorry for someone who has taken risky financial decisions and bid up the price of housing and is currently enjoying that position and might - but will not necessarily - suffer for it in the future, whilst totally failing to mention all of the people who their actions have helped to price out and who are actually suffering as a result now.

 

The two are intrinsically interlinked.

 

goldbug9999, on 26 May 2016 - 08:46 AM, said:snapback.png

More innocents have already been hurt by HPI (i.e. pretty much everyone renting and everyone who would like to own a house but cant afford it) than would be hurt by a HPC, probably by at least a factor of 10.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, onlyme2 said:

2015 figures nearly a discrepancy of nearly 3 to 1 in relation to NI numbers. Short term immigration estimates are just that, also short term working migrants  need to occupy space too. Then there is the non EU migration, and all the undisclosed / undocumented migration.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-immigration-uk-whats-hidden-national-insurance-number-data/

mind_the_gap_explained_.png

 

I am with you with the NI numbers issued not matching up with people living in the country, and everyone working here does require a place to live.....there are also those who live here who do not have a NI number, and asylum seekers with only HO papers.......not got an opinion about what is right or wrong, there are policies and there are good reasons for certain policies, this country requires immigration but if a NI number is issued it should also be cancelled when a person leaves......all people want is the truth, when can clearly see the truth all around us but sometimes the figures given do not match up with the reality of the situation, all it takes is to ask a few questions....nothing to hide but the truth.....when people lie or manipulate the truth about one thing you wonder what else do they say that is also a complete  lie....liars can't be trusted, trusted to speak the truth.;)

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Venger said:

A HPC, crash, change is not going to lead us to living in caves/hunter gatherers.  

It's rebalance.   

My comment was much more general, HPC is nothing compared with an event that wipes out our group memory (civilisation).

I agree HPC is a rebalance. People blinded by greed and group thinking ignore how unrealistic HPI gains are.

They are bidding up house prices thinking they are creating trillions of wealth.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, winkie said:

I am with you with the NI numbers issued not matching up with people living in the country, and everyone working here does require a place to live.....there are also those who live here who do not have a NI number, and asylum seekers with only HO papers.......not got an opinion about what is right or wrong, there are policies and there are good reasons for certain policies, this country requires immigration but if a NI number is issued it should also be cancelled when a person leaves......all people want is the truth, when can clearly see the truth all around us but sometimes the figures given do not match up with the reality of the situation, all it takes is to ask a few questions....nothing to hide but the truth.....when people lie or manipulate the truth about one thing you wonder what else do they say that is also a complete  lie....liars can't be trusted, trusted to speak the truth.;)

And a lot of jobs are cash in hand.

Problems with census and the like is that they are based on people being honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, slawek said:

My comment was much more general, HPC is nothing compared with an event that wipes out our group memory (civilisation).

I agree HPC is a rebalance. People blinded by greed and group thinking ignore how unrealistic HPI gains are.

They are bidding up house prices thinking they are creating trillions of wealth.    

Yet that's their world-view.  They're doing it for self-gain.  Own choice, despite all the signals of damage to other people, in such an expensive housing market, looking at property as always going up, and welcoming that for their own gain.   Houses not to house people / raise families, but as wealth seeking investments.  Choice.

What type of event would do that anyway?

Whatever it is (pandemic? / super-volcano?), I suggest we would be better placed to challenge it is we get out of housing financialisation, and divert as much as well can to productivity and advancement.

Quote

 (1938)...the first story I wrote for which I remember even after all this time the exact circumstances of the initiating inspiration..  That fall, I applied and received a National Youth Administration job designed to help me through college.  I received fifteen dollars a month in return for a few hours of typing.... for a sociologist who was writing a book on the subject of social resistance to technological innovation.  This included everything from the resistance of the early Mesopotamian priesthood to the dissemination of the knowledge of reading and writing among the general population, down to objections to the airplane by those who said heavier-than-air flight was impossible.  

Naturally it occurred to me that a story might be written in which social resistance to space flight might play a small part.   ...For the first time, Campbell did more than simply send a rejection.  On December 29, I received a letter asking me to come in for a conference to discuss the story in detail.  [...]  It turned out what he liked in the story was the social resistance to space flight.   [...]revise to meet editorial specifications. [...]It was my first sale to Campbell after seven months of trying and eight consecutive rejections. - Isaac Asimov

There is also strong social-resistance (from millions of VI) to view that people have free-will (imo) apart from themselves, that only they see the 'true world view' and the mad-gainzers giving up any of their mad-gainz.

They find something else to blame, such as not-enough-homes-being built.  Immigration.  Not willing to counternance anything that would risk moves against mad-gainz and hopes for more HPI.

Despite 11 house retired GPs, now complaining re S24.  My pal's new landlord (in his 70s) with a few houses in a row (and in this market £350K-£600K houses), and a few others dotted around nearby (told by letting agent).

On 2/7/2016 at 5:42 PM, Bland Unsight said:

The BTL pension idea is so f**king nutty that it's only the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are engaged in it and millions of people are willing to countenance it that means that a brain system that ought to light up like a Christmas Tree and say "What the f**k are you talking about?" is sung into quiet acquiescence.

My favourite features

  • Landlords who say that their tenants can't afford the properties, when under any reasonable interpretation, the landlords can't either. The landlords can afford one quarter of the property. The rest is financed interest-only with a mortgage.
  • Landlords who just want a little pension (to go along with their own home) and cannot see the conflict of interest that results from them needing economic control of three, or maybe five or maybe fifteen properties. It is a pension plan that not only inevitably excludes others from the same pension plan (there aren't enough houses to go around) it also excludes younger cohorts from ever owning their own homes. It's a plan that really puts the "F** you" into "I'm alright, Jack. F**k you."
  • As many mugs turn to buy-to-let in desperation, having failed to make adequate pension provision, it is a investment strategy for people who have failed to save that involves borrowing.

It is all, to employ the technical parlance, mad as f**k.

 

Below, the BTLer who was surpised at reaction of her daughter to house prices, and renting vs buying.

See reached ownership of 100 homes soon after posting this.  World-views.  And they can see the position all around them, including for their own sons and daughters - some of who make me sooooo happy to see are pushing back, even to their own multi-home HPI chasing parents.  

We do make our choices.  Millions of market participants who see the world very differently.   Markets need to play out.

Property-a-holics
Is Generation Rent here to stay... and is that a bad thing?
August 2014

 

Quote

 

26 Aug 2014 
I am very interested in this question, especially since my 25 year old daughter Sophie and her partner expressed their thoughts on the subject when they came to stay for a few days over the bank holiday... 

Despite the fact we recently gave  her pay-out from a Trust we set up (being not an insubstantial sum) her and her partner work and live in central Cambridge. She earns a modest amount (but has a 1st class honours degree in Chemistry) and he's a PhD student, so they would still struggle to buy and would have to tighten their belts and continue saving first. (We have offered more money but she refuses it!) 

Their thoughts go something like this: 

"Why should we bother to scrimp and save and make financial sacrifices to try and buy somewhere, when prices are ridiculously high already and we have read some things saying they could crash again...

"Besides, most of our friends who are our age can't afford to buy, so we figure that the government is going to have to 'do something about it' when our whole generation gets old and has no property assets to pay for our care home if we need it... They'll have to do something!" 

"Also, we don't know where we want to settle... Once H has finished his PhD, we don't know where he'll end up working, so it's not worth the expense of buying when we might have to move in a few years anyway."

"Besides, we like travelling and want to enjoy life, not become slaves to buying property!"

They also pointed out that they would probably pay as much for a mortgage as the rent they're paying (because it'd have to be capital plus interest repayment) and if the interest rate goes up they'd be "stuffed!"

I was quite taken aback... I can't believe this was my daughter speaking, when property investing has been her parents' life and good fortune!!

This really made it strike me how differently Generation Rent think!

 

 

Quote

I am assuming your daughter grew up during the same period that her parents built their 'property empire'. I would expect some things rubbed off and she might be one of the more balanced members of her generation when it comes to renting vs. buying.

Sort of interesting how your daughter's views are grounded in opinion rather than science or even simple math. Given her university studies I would expect a semblance or scientific rigour rather than mob logic.

 

Quote

We do find it interesting how each of our kids has had a different view of our lives as we've changed over time: My daughter being the eldest, remembers Dave going out to work ("like most normal people" as she'd say) until she was around 14; whereas our middle son, 3 and a half years younger, persuaded me to buy a Jag so he didn't get embarrassed when I picked him up from school in my previous old banger! (He realised we could afford it before we could cope with the change of self-image!) Our youngest, 3 and a half years younger again, can't recall daddy working and thinks it's normal to sit around on your laptop for hours on end, demanding expensive food and clothes!

As a parent of grown up children though, you do just have to accept that you're not the only influence in their lives and that they are free to make very different choices. 

My daughter knows that she could buy with our help (if she'd accept it) but she'd rather identify herself with her generation. She doesn't want to think of herself as any different from 'most people'. 

I do sympathise though with young people that property is so unaffordable for most compared to when we were young... When we bought our first home, we were about 25 years old, earned around £20,000 between us (which was modest even then) and the house (note house... flat not even considered & this was in Romford Essex, quite near London!) cost around £40,000 (in the eighties) just double our wages! Now in Cambridge, they'd be lucky to get a flat with one bedroom for under £200,000.

http://www.propertytribes.com/generation-rent-here-stay-that-bad-thing-t-12139-post-217260.html

False sympathy vs the quest for 100 properties imo.  Tenants rents, HPI seeking, selfish free-will choices, despite all the warning signs, even from their own children.

Choice.  Free-will.

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House financialisation.

I completely agree.  A new home only exists for two purposes, to be bought, or to have money lent against it. (with the bricks and mortar as security.)

This is how it works to my eyes.

New house gets built.   Wherever the money comes from, the house builder gets to pocket some profit- large, medium or small.

Then the game rapidly moves on.

That one single house is now bought by someone- it doesn't really matter to the lender- as long as there is stag. or HPI.

So that one property has an indefinite life.   The new owners/borrowers get to borrow a lot of money against it.  They get stuff from Ikea and eventually have children- nice.

They then move on.  Another new punter borrows an even larger sum of money, as time has now gone by, years maybe, and the lender (it doesn't matter who it is- it's a cartel,) now lends the max. loan against the same house.  After a few years and a few trips to Ikea, the new people move out, the house has gone up, and the cartel gets to lend an even more obscene amount of money against it- the same little pile of bricks- this can go on and on as long as it likes- forever maybe.  So that little plot that c/w building materials has earned the cartel it's own value many times over.  Clever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2017 at 0:23 AM, Bear Hug said:

And highest proportion of home ownership in the EU.  I'll never understand how.  I bet they used similar ideas to our GDP derivation to work that out.

Older generation given houses under communism, younger generations completed FUBARed and forced to either live with relatives or leave the country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From t'other thread..... these pay rises don't look too shabby.

Highest paid housing association chief executives 2015/16

  Chief executive Housing association Total pay Rise/fall
1 David Cowans Places for People £528,870 9.8%
2 Jane Ashcroft Anchor £400,010 12.1%
3 David Montague L&Q £355,105 32.1%
4 David Bennett Sanctuary Group £340,000 6.6%
5 Keith Exford Affinity Sutton £320,933 6.7%
6 Simon Dow Guinness Partnership £273,242 1.6%
7 Darrell Mercer A2 Dominion Group £261,873 2.9%
8 Elaine Bailey Hyde Group £251,478 9.8%
9 Brian Johnson Metropolitan £251,281 10.1%
10 Peter Walls Gentoo Group £245,996 1.9%

Highest percentage total pay increases 2015/16

  Chief executive Housing association Rise
1 David Montague L&Q 32.1%
2 Jo Savage Wellingborough Homes 15.6%
3 Harj Singh Aldwyck 14.1%
4 Robert Nettleton Merlin 13.7%
5 Elizabeth Austerberry Moat Homes 12.9%
6 Paul Lees Adactus Housing Group 12.5%
7 Anthony Whittaker United Welsh 12.2%
8 Jane Ashcroft Anchor 12.1%
9 Gary Fulford Walsall Housing Group 11.8%
10 Mike Hinch Newlon 11.2%

 

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/inside-housing-salary-survey-2016/7016527.article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shea VanHaven said:

House financialisation.

I completely agree.  A new home only exists for two purposes, to be bought, or to have money lent against it. (with the bricks and mortar as security.)

This is how it works to my eyes.

New house gets built.   Wherever the money comes from, the house builder gets to pocket some profit- large, medium or small.

Then the game rapidly moves on.

That one single house is now bought by someone- it doesn't really matter to the lender- as long as there is stag. or HPI.

So that one property has an indefinite life.   The new owners/borrowers get to borrow a lot of money against it.  They get stuff from Ikea and eventually have children- nice.

They then move on.  Another new punter borrows an even larger sum of money, as time has now gone by, years maybe, and the lender (it doesn't matter who it is- it's a cartel,) now lends the max. loan against the same house.  After a few years and a few trips to Ikea, the new people move out, the house has gone up, and the cartel gets to lend an even more obscene amount of money against it- the same little pile of bricks- this can go on and on as long as it likes- forever maybe.  So that little plot that c/w building materials has earned the cartel it's own value many times over.  Clever.

No one is dragging people into banks to apply for mortgages, to outbid anyone for houses.

Just the other day, on our visit to house of a friend, I witnessed a couple (in their mid 30s by look of things) pulling up in near new £30K car, going viewing a house at asking price £499K.  The house is being sold after parent died.  Finally a house on the market in that area!  So few houses on market.  Many go for renting out.

House just a few doors up from my friend's house (who own with a mortgage - they are happy - they don't go around claiming to be victims of banks/lenders - they own a house they enjoy use of and not at mercy of a BTLer insecure tenancy - and they don't need anyone else to tell them they are mindless autononmons *spelling* who need to be educated about how the world works, and what is value, by the superior knowledge worldviews of anyone else.).  

If the viewers buy they must have the deposit and be happy with their finances for whatever mortgage they would require.  They have their own free-will view about the market and the future going fowards.    That's a market.   Also saw an older couple outside a house I know is on market, on car-trip the other day.  Sat in their car pointing at it.  £450K asking price.

Own choice.  Market.  

Not just lenders lenders lenders.   What is the limit for you all?   £500K houses... own choice for buyers for me.  I can't do anything about their decisions to pay those prices.  No one is dragging them into buying.  

TBH ***bring on another house price doubling, trebling or quadrupling***, if that is what is required to break the view from many others, that other people don't have free-will and are mindless animals, and that it's 'all the banks fault'.  

I defend rights of individuals to make their own freewill/choices in an open market, and not be viewed as mindless animals with no control, more than I am against HPI/BTL.  We've all got to take our bearings in a world with advertising, but no one drags anyone into paying these prices, which make sense for a lot of people anyway.   Better for individuals to be able to make their own choices, than be ruled and controlled by 'superior knowledge types' who think they know what is best for them.

And many a buyer have kept the house, to rent out, and traded up, in their own world-view of foreverHPI+.

Only cartel is from tens of millions of people wedded to idea of houses as investments, foreverHPI, BTL, not-enough-houses (despite many houses being under-used with empty bedrooms).  Let's continue to live in the BTL/Inheritor/ForeverHPI, no-responsibility economy, instead of 'pain' of HPC, and the sadness of market participants having their worldviews changed if prices ever fell/crashed.   Can't have work pay for renter-savers, if it means precious and innocent HPIers have to accept lower prices, from these price levels.

Been reading about the lack of freewill for years, lack of buyer knowledge as pawns, as prices have raged upwards and upwards, and millions of owners very happy with the market as it is today. 

Quote

 

09 Apr 2015

59524992_John-and-_3260786b.jpg

John and Valerie have plans for world travel during their impending retirement, but they must watch out for tax 

At the end of this month, John Byrne, 66, will give up his £36,000-a-year job at Capita and fully retire. He already has £38,000 a year from a final salary National Grid pension he's been drawing since he was 50. 

 He has an annuity worth £5,600 a year, paid by Canada Life, plus his basic state pension, giving him pension income of £52,000 a year.  John is in a very comfortable position. But like many others who have not been super-high earners in the past, but who have very generous pension arrangements, he probably has not worried about the pension lifetime allowance (LTA).  The good news is that John is probably just under this year's and next year's allowance of £1.25m.

They own a home worth £650,000 and are mortgage-free. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/special-reports/11524230/Tax-bombshell-for-66-year-old-about-to-retire-with-a-50000-a-year-pension.html

 

--

Quote

 

05 Feb 2016

bernarddokelman_3567823b.jpg

taken steps to pass on as much of their savings to their children as they can. 

'We put £500,000 into Aim shares to avoid inheritance tax'

have assets of £4m - and a plan to dramatically reduce the amount of inheritance tax owed

“I was lucky enough to be able to send my children to private school but, even though they are successful in their own right, it’s not going to be as easy for them to send their children,” he said. “ I want my grandchildren, and my great grand-children, to have the best chance.”

His home is worth around £1.6m, his pension pot £1.8m and he has put aside around £750,000 in other savings and investments.

But, in common with many of his generation, he also has to juggle several competing concerns as he enters retirement. In addition to the help he wants to give his children and four grandchildren, he may one day need to pay long-term care costs. 

“I know I won’t escape IHT completely, but I want to minimise what I pay the state.”   
To achieve this, Bernard has made use of the tax breaks on up-and-coming companies – those listed on the Alternative Investment Market, known as Aim.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/shares/12138512/We-put-500000-into-Aim-shares-to-avoid-inheritance-tax.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well, if having pensions more than most people earn means you end up looking as conceited as John and Valerie or Bernard and his missus, thank goodness I'm poor.

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Venger said:

No one is dragging people into banks to apply for mortgages, to outbid anyone for houses.

Just the other day, on our visit to house of a friend, I witnessed a couple (in their mid 30s by look of things) pulling up in near new £30K car, going viewing a house at asking price £499K.  The house is being sold after parent died.  Finally a house on the market in that area!  So few houses on market.  Many go for renting out.

House just a few doors up from my friend's house (who own with a mortgage - they are happy - they don't go around claiming to be victims of banks/lenders - they own a house they enjoy use of and not at mercy of a BTLer insecure tenancy - and they don't need anyone else to tell them they are mindless autononmons *spelling* who need to be educated about how the world works, and what is value, by the superior knowledge worldviews of anyone else.).  

If the viewers buy they must have the deposit and be happy with their finances for whatever mortgage they would require.  They have their own free-will view about the market and the future going fowards.    That's a market.   Also saw an older couple outside a house I know is on market, on car-trip the other day.  Sat in their car pointing at it.  £450K asking price.

Own choice.  Market.  

Not just lenders lenders lenders.   What is the limit for you all?   £500K houses... own choice for buyers for me.  I can't do anything about their decisions to pay those prices.  No one is dragging them into buying.  

TBH ***bring on another house price doubling, trebling or quadrupling***, if that is what is required to break the view from many others, that other people don't have free-will and are mindless animals, and that it's 'all the banks fault'.  

I defend rights of individuals to make their own freewill/choices in an open market, and not be viewed as mindless animals with no control, more than I am against HPI/BTL.  We've all got to take our bearings in a world with advertising, but no one drags anyone into paying these prices, which make sense for a lot of people anyway.   Better for individuals to be able to make their own choices, than be ruled and controlled by 'superior knowledge types' who think they know what is best for them.

And many a buyer have kept the house, to rent out, and traded up, in their own world-view of foreverHPI+.

Only cartel is from tens of millions of people wedded to idea of houses as investments, foreverHPI, BTL, not-enough-houses (despite many houses being under-used with empty bedrooms).  Let's continue to live in the BTL/Inheritor/ForeverHPI, no-responsibility economy, instead of 'pain' of HPC, and the sadness of market participants having their worldviews changed if prices ever fell/crashed.   Can't have work pay for renter-savers, if it means precious and innocent HPIers have to accept lower prices, from these price levels.

Been reading about the lack of freewill for years, lack of buyer knowledge as pawns, as prices have raged upwards and upwards, and millions of owners very happy with the market as it is today. 

--

 

'We put £500,000 into Aim shares to avoid inheritance tax'

 

**What in god fcking sake is a 69 year old bloke putting half a million in AIM for!!!!!**

The greedy, stupid, tax dodging tnuc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, spyguy said:

'We put £500,000 into Aim shares to avoid inheritance tax'

 

**What in god fcking sake is a 69 year old bloke putting half a million in AIM for!!!!!**

The greedy, stupid, tax dodging tnuc.

 

Strange solution for a 40% IHT haircut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.