Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by fluffy666

  1. I think people were fully aware that when they took out the interest rate only mortgage that in 25 years (or however long the term was) that the capital would be so small compared to their income that they could pay it off with no real hardship when them redeemed the mortgage.

    I bought my first house over 20 years ago and had I never made an over payment, the redemption would be less than the deposit needed to buy the same property these days.

    And with interest rates so low, why even bother to redeem it? I suspect those with Interest rate only mortgages will just extend the term. That's what I plan to do rather than paying what's left off w.. ith my savings.

    I don't see any problem in never paying off the mortgage. When you die, it will probably help to reduce the estate down to less than the IHT thresholds. I don't think the banks have any real issue either if the repayments can be maintained until death.

    Problem is, someone who bought perhaps 8 years ago with IO would see a very different story. They might have stretched to afford the payments (else why use IO?) - but with flat wages and flat house prices, especially outside London, they are stuck. Little or no equity, no budget to switch to repayment..and if they have a family crisis, lose a job, or interest rates go up significantly.. the're out. More to the point, they may cost the bank money if the payments stop.

  2. Could a stupid person who took one out for that reason ever prove if it went to arbitration? Their word against yours type thing...

    I doubt it. I think the industry learned some very important lessons from the Endowments mis-selling saga. Namely, 'Never write the sales promises down..'.

    I do think that an awful lot of people were sold these products when they shouldn't have been, without really understanding them. But I would also bet that there will be checkboxes on the forms saying that the borrowers are fully aware of the need for a repayment plan, and the forms will be signed.

  3. That's still 17% of their take home pay. At the very least, people on the minimum wage shouldn't pay any tax (maybe a tiny bit of NI).

    Every party claims they want to make work pay, but in reality, they're not really fussed and are quite happy to keep a large chunk of the population getting money from the state.

    For the Tories, it gives them a bogeyman.

    For Labour, it gives them captive voters.

    Sure there are some people who genuinely need benefits, but you have to question the logic of a system that requires two adult earners with children to try and claim money back via a labyrinthine (and expensive to administer) system.

    It's why I like the whole CI concept.

    No benefit traps, no means testing, minimal bureaucracy, can't game the system (apart from outright identity fraud), always makes getting off your backside worthwhile, trusts individuals to act in their own self interest.

    It'll never catch on.

  4. agree with all the above post all I need to know now is which party to vote for.

    Well, you have a clear choice:

    Party A, Which will make Hard Choices To Build Britain For Hard Working Families.

    Party B, Which will put Hard Working Families first, making Hard Choices to Build a Better Britain.

    Party C, Which offers a radical alternative for hard Working Families in Britain, making Hard Choices.

    Party D, The new upstart party, which will make the world safe for bankers send the darkies home Use common sense to Help Hard Working Families and Make Britain Best. With Hard Choices.

  5. I'm with you, except with some minor variation on the details:

    - The tax free allowance should be made sharable between couples with children. This permits one to continue working and another to look after the kids until they get to school age.

    - The logical concept of "tax credits" should be retained, but implemented via tax rates. Increase the personal allowance and re-introduce a 10% rate of tax for the next £5-6k, i.e. give people on low wages more of their own money back.

    Problem is, even a person on £20k is only paying £287 a month in tax and NI, and at £15k that falls to about £153 and if there are anything like childcare vouchers or pension contributions, that could fall further.

    At some point you need actual transfer payments.

    (Or a large scale council house building program with low/nominal rents, because it's much cheaper for the government to provide housing directly than subsidize people's living costs and have them pay market rents.)

  6. Because the elite don't like people to have fun, be happy and for things to be fair. The elite have enough billions and enough power to buy them a million mansions but it is still not enough for them because at the end of the day their aim is total servitude because their egos are fueled by power. Everyone beneath them must live in a constant state of fear and insecurity so that we are dependent on them for our scraps of gruel.

    Hideously close to the truth, I suspect.. past a certain point, it really doesn't matter about the money, but it does matter that the peasantry are too poor/scared to give you any cheek.

  7. The most incredible thing is this site exists. I'm Thinking about the intentions of the person who Created this site...

    1. It was Created Yesterday

    2. The aim is to discredit George/The conservative Party

    .'. I'm assuming this was setup by the labour party (Site is identity protected), and this kind of thing is aligned with the dirty tricks that happens in US elections. What is in incredible is because it also discredits Gordon! Incredible, completely Incredible.

    Actually, I'd regard the questions as being leading from a right-wing POV. The last question on Europe is also telling, it looks more of a UKIP-leaning site.

  8. They might have no choice but to sell their home because it will be their only way of paying off their loan when it matures.

    What makes the experts think these peoples homes will sell at a price that will pay off the mortgage.?The longer time goes on, the greater I see the potential for a severe crash.

    More than that, at the time a lot of the sales patter for IO mortgages was based on 'You buy a £250k house, hold it for 10 years till it goes up to £500k, then sell and downsize with the mortgage paid off'.

    It was suspect at the time.

  9. Where's my compensation for decade+ renting?

    You expect my to have sympathy for the enemy outbidding me for the past 10 years, who are still complaining. Even worse recently, with young couples gurning at the camera for press articles on how clever they've been to buy under HTB. They're "home-owners" now - mostly paying prices which are Twilight Zone crazy.

    Particularly annoying since HTB and a new bomad frenzy (and btl frenzy from those who say its not earning anything in the bank.) Let them refinance, pay arrangement fees, see teaser deals revert to SVRs, pay the guarantee fee.

    Your compensation is due from the banks, who are the ones taking your savings and handing them over to financially illiterate 18 year olds to bid up prices to stupid levels..

  10. It's just media shit-stirring. Demand management makes perfect economic sense. Why pay for extra generating capacity that will hardly ever be used, when it would be cheaper to pay large consumers to cut back their consumption at times of peak demand?

    The trick is this: As a large consumer, reduce your bills by signing an 'interruptable' contract for precisely this scenario. THEN, place lots of scare stories in the media about an imminent set of blackouts, forcing the government into paying sky-high subsidies to the operators to build new electric plants - which them means that your 'interruptable' clause never gets invoked. Trebles all round!

  11. I've done pretty well out of my utility shares over the past few years, I even topped them up when they dipped on the back of Labour's promise to freeze prices, confident that they'd come back when everyone woke up to the magnitude of the power crunch ahead.

    Guess they're still looking good for the next few years too.

    But it's odd, utility shares should be a "widows and orphans" investment, not a vehicle for capital gains.

    Providing electricity (even zero-carbon electricity), water, basic housing, public transport.. for a first world country in the 21st century, these things should be cheap, simple and boring.

    Really. We managed it 50 years ago.

    Somehow, 35 years of deregulation, privatization and regulation (because you can't privatize utilities without a lot of regulation) has managed to make these things expensive, complicated and hard.

    It's as if we had a 'breakthrough' in maths that meant that it now took a week on a supercomputer to compute 2+2.

  12. Danny Alexander more approved of than many Tories amongst their own.

    Got to be right, he has had a consistent approach to deficit reduction. It's possibly not far enough but at least he is trying to do something about this inter-generational robbery.

    Cable at the bottom, got to be right also. Proved to be a right opportunist c**t who puts buying votes over the National interest and has looked to undermine Government at every opportunity.

    Edit. he also bottled the Chief Treasury post because trying to undo the damage done by the worst economic management in the history of mankind looked undoable. Almost miraculous that we are still going and Alexander has to take credit and we await news of his canonisation. ;)

    'Consistent approach to deficit reduction' = Cut capital spending projects, make the tax system more complex (including marginal rates that could exceed 100% for a person on £51k), introduce some token-but-unpleasant measures to the benefits system, maintain the pensions triple-lock, formally legitimize an array of tax loopholes...

    Why do you think we still have a deficit of perhaps £100 billion?

    It may be a nice comfort blanket to make ever more extreme accusations of incompetence at Labour, but that's wearing a bit thin now.

  13. How on earth can someone 'boost their tax credits'? Aren't they assessed objectively according to circumstances?

    They are one of the worst things Brown ever did. Basically helicopter money combined with a bribe to 'his' voters. Let's forget about fixing the causes of underemployment or child poverty and just throw money at people - making it almost impossible for those who don't qualify or don't claim to cope with the resulting inflation. They should be phased out immediately.

    Many people are still under the impression that they aren't a 'benefit' and that they have something to do with the tax they paid.

    Resulting inflation?

    Just getting rid of tax credits would make the current problem with inequality and low demand in the economy even worse. I'd prefer to see some form of CI instead, to get rid of the various benefit traps.

  14. I don't quite understand this


    Total US oil consumption is at about 18 million barrels/day. Production has risen, to about 9 million barrels/day,

    The problem is, the US is exporting Coal (and I can'd find the exact figures for natural gas, there may be a small export sector for that now). But still, no way is the US a net oil exporter and given the figures involved I'd be surprised about energy as well.

  15. Britain becomes haven for U.S. companies keen to cut tax bills
    7:08am BST

    LONDON - Nothing about the narrow cream-coloured lobby at 160 Aldersgate Street in the City of London financial district gives a hint of its role at the centre of the offshore oil industry.

    And when another nation offers better tax avoidance incentives what then?

    Or, alternatively, a sufficient number of our trading partners get fed up of having their tax bases undermined by our 'competitive' tax regime and start to impose sanctions.

  16. I wonder why the mood has changed over the last couple of years or so, back then there were numerous posts here and a general feeling that a major economic event was about to take place, people were talking about stocking up on essentials and having enough cash at home to cover costs for a couple of months, even discussions about water purification methods :lol:

    The upside to a major economic event was that, after a few months of turmoil, the seemingly unsustainable economic mechanism was going to fail and was going to have to be replaced with one which rewarded honest work and saving.

    Now the overriding feeling seems to be that we are in for perhaps decades of Japanese style zombie economics where especially young people will have to accept a position of having to sacrifice their standard of living to keep the broken system going for another few decades, to keep the rich and older generation in the level of luxury to which they have become accustomed…

    I have to hand it to the government, they have managed to achieve an ultra-soft landing when you contrast where we are today to where some commentators thought we might be, with mass strikes and civil unrest, due to high unemployment and lowering standards of living.

    I think that there is a large amount of flustration and anger out there. Witness the UKIP vote, a lot of which is protest against politics-as-normal (although how voting for a city boy will help is an open question)

    The problem is first that people are not (yet) hungry or homeless in large numbers. It's also that there is no organisation. You might have a million young people who are basically being shut out, but as yet they have no pole to organize around - the Labour Party has been co-opted by corporate interests, the trade unions have mostly compromised themselves, and the occupy movement never really went anywhere.

    A real cynic would suggest that any potential leaders are being.. removed one way or another before they get much notice.

  17. I tend to think self interest comes into play rather than tribalism....some of the most ardent Tory supporters are working class trades people (white van man).....working for a living, not drawing benefit and not in the public sector what has Labour got to offer them?

    The Labour supporters have their self interest at heart....public sector workers, pensioners on supplementary benefit and disability living allowance etc. etc. Party loyalty comes about through whether you are a recipient of work and benefits from the state or whether you pay for it through taxes.

    What about the ~24 million private sector workers.. who should in theory be Labour's natural voters (or at least the 'bottom 70%' of them).

    Quite scary that no party seems that interested in us.

    Bingo. I wish I felt different, but I don't....

    Has that palpable lack of care led to the rise of the right?

    Extreme right, extreme left, nationalists..

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.