Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by deadasadodo

  1. Doesn't seem like a particularly generous benefit - nothing for 39 weeks, nothing if you've got too much savings, interest only set at 2.19% and a maximum loan size of 200k. That said, moving it to a loan secured against the house seems fair enough.

    IMO true out of work benefits should be shifted to a system where you get a single payment that's a proportion of your former salary for a set period of time, with the job centre leaving you to get on with it unless you ask for help. After, say 6 months, proper recruitment professionals should be brought in to help people get jobs. The current system penalises people who have bothered to save money and seems to assume you're a shirker from day 1.

  2. 12 minutes ago, DoINeedOne said:

    But the same argument for most things people take the piss and then everyone loses out

    Yeah this is the problem. There's not really a way of distinguishing people who fall on hard times from those that are taking the piss. If my partner did a moonlight flit and left me with the kids I'd really struggle, as I'd either have to quit work or pay a huge amount in childcare. Also children shouldn't grow up in poverty, but (beyond sinister sterilisation ideas and sweeping kids into care) how do you seperate helping the children from rewarding the parents?

    Re the orginal poster's acquaintance there's probably things about their situation you don't know, as taking a huge bunch of kids to Disneyland via benefits seems like a stretch. Life insurance payout from the deceased partner? Inheritance? BTL empire? Bitcoins?

  3. 2 hours ago, lostinessex said:

    This is why I hate property bubbles - its not like shares or Bitcoin - where it's your choice if you get involved - everyone directly or indirectly gets drawn into a housing bubble.

    Nail on the head. Speculation should be confined to areas where it can't do much harm.

  4. 1 hour ago, Dorkins said:

    It's funny when you look back at people from the 1950s and 1960s moaning about a stable settled life of work, home and family

    I guess it's what you're rebelling against. Back then there's was much more family and societal pressure to act in a certain way. If either of my parents had moved in with a boy/ girlfriend, quit a job to go traveling, etc then their parents would have probably disowned them.

    There's a age thing too. I had a flatmate at uni who pretty much dreamt of getting married and a mortgage, which was weird. Fast forward 15 years and that's what a lot of people wanted.

    As you say though, the settled life is out of reach for many people now. Banks, employers, landlords, etc turn the screws, rather than family pressuring you to live a certain way.

  5. South coast - Brighton-Hove, Worthing, this is from friends and neighbours. Estate agents giving insane valuations leading to nothing selling when the sellers anchor on the initial stupid price. Places only seem to shift when the seller really wants to sell and drops the asking price considerably. Chains keep breaking due to the delays this causes. Result - asking prices are high but volume must be very low.

  6. 25 minutes ago, Locke said:

    To a point. Most people are NPCs, but it doesn't absolve going with the crowd. 

    Historically, the ones who actually change things are the ones who can at least partially think and act for themselves.

    Disregarding the genuinely thick, most people have an area(s) where their bright and others where they go along with the crowd. True polymaths are rare as hen's teeth. I know plenty of PhDs who can calculate pi to a thousand places on the back of a napkin but seem to get suckered into credit card debt and car PCPs.

    I like the NPC reference, I'll use that!

  7. I normally find the interviews in the ST Money pretty interesting, although most of them are up to their necks in BTL. A lot of them also say they don't consider themselves wealthy, which shows a certain lack of self awareness. If you really want to feel ill them read the Home section - bland stories alongside ads for mega expensive London new build.

    1 hour ago, juvenal said:

    denotes Duchess of York rather than Fergus Wilson

    Fergus Wilson in sexy undies. I'll pass on lunch now....

  8. 13 hours ago, Pop321 said:

    1986 - £40k

    1990 - £60k

    1993 - £45k (all doom and investors bought from the desperate at £30k)

    1999 - £60k

    2004 - £85k (still probably fair) 

    2006/7 - £140k (affordable for some and ok if it was a nice example...but some poor examples also £140k) 

    2007/8 - £165k

    2010 - £170k 

    2013 - £180k 

    2015 - £200k

    2016 - £225k

    2017 - £265k...holy cr4p.

    Prices like this are pretty much exponential growth (with a few drops thrown in), and anyone with a brain can see that prices can't move exponentially away from incomes for long. This of course doesn't stop estate agents armed with a spreadsheet from predicting the average house will be worth £x million in 10 years time, and the Daily Mail from publishing their results. The really sad thing though is that £265k for a 3 bed sounds really cheap in much of the south.

  9. Yeah - the trains out of Sydney (when I visited) were the same Intercity trains we've had in this country, but for some reason they crawl along at a really low speed. For house prices that seems to mean that towns that would be in the commuter belt here are relatively cheap, as you'd have to be nuts to endure the commute. It's ironic that a country with so much land, and so few people, has such an issue with housing costs.

    With the McMansion thing my friend's point was that people were buying places to knock down, develop right up to the boundaries then sell on. I worked with an American guy a few years back and he said exactly the same thing was happening in the States before the crash.

  10. A couple of friends live in Sydney. Prices are breathtakingly high and the general HPI frenzy seems even more intense than in the UK. Apparently the latest thing is to buy a house, demolish it then rebuild a new, larger house on the site - bit like the McMansions that were popular in the states a few years back.

    Unlike the UK prices apparently drop off quite quickly as you get out of the major cities, but the transport networks just not good enough to make commuting a goer.


  11. 10 minutes ago, goldbug9999 said:

    Theres a difference between being correct and being right. They were correct that "they" wont let it happen, that doesn't make it right though.

    Completly agree. Sorry Goldbug, I'm in total agreement that the system has been rigged in favour of over leveraged morons and general vested interests. The sarcasm of my post is just my annoyance of me and others being labeled trolls.

  12. 19 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    Oh I agree, my opinion is no more valid that yours or anyone else.

    However, the MODS have reported an uptick in the number of troll attacks, MODS ?

    Mostly , they consist of:

    I've been lurking since 20XX, We bought in 20XX we've done well, the count is a ****, venger is evil and you're all bitter.

    Then they get a 2nd toll to support them saying we're all out of order.  

    Then the threads derailed, yet again.

    I started this thread to get genuine long term posters opinions on how they feel now and yet again some **** has derailed it.

    I couldnt give a toss how some bloke with 500 posts feels and I certainly dont want to hear how he's supposedly made 60% profit just buying some shelter. 

    We even had the "they hate you because you start all the threads" post yesterday....there were 2 threads from me on the front page, I only occasionally start a thread these days.

    If you dont think the trolls are here you are very naive.

    Pick a thread, any thread and see how many time's its been taken off topic within a page or two.

    The threads derail because someone shouts "troll" and it turns into a slanging match about whether that person is a troll or not. The 'troll' hasn't derailed the thread but the response has.

    As I said yesterday, you're a lightning rod for genuine trolls because you're the most prolific poster on here, and you generally have an angry response. That said, whilst I'm sure a few bored estate agents log onto wind people up, the idea that there is organised trolling here is nuts. This site just doesn't have much influence over the national house buying mood, and a trolling operation would target their resources elsewhere.

    On post count, the most informative posts I've read on here during my (imaginary, obviously) years of lurking have generally been from those who don't post much. As one example HonestEA only posted a handful of times but his contributions were always well thought out and informative.


  13. 9 hours ago, Barnsey said:

    The last place I'd be as a recent home owner would be this forum,

    Why? Your view on house prices won't completely flip-flop the moment you complete. It'll still be something you have strong views about.

    Most people are probably on this site because they want to buy a house without crucifying themselves financially. My last landlord kept alternating between telling me we could stay for as long as we wanted and asking when we going to leave. Then he started dropping heavy hints he was going to sell the place, when he knew my wife was pregnant. We had the means to buy so we did. I don't think that makes us bad people.

    A high post count doesn't make someone's views more important or correct, and I don't like the idea that someone should pay a homage of 100s of posts before they can disagree with someone. It would be nice though if a forum was open to new members and (within reason) a range of views and people didn't scream "troll" and shout for Mummy if somone mildly disagrees with them.

  14. 2 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    MODS ?


    I knew this thread would pull the trolls out the woodwork, you cant help yoursleves.  You fall for it every time.


    Why are you here, are things that bad that you have to come onto some tony website and try and convince the casual brower that we are talking **** and housing is for winners ?

    Sad, desperate and scared.

    I hate to think how many of you will turn up when a real collapse hits.

    Crikey, I genuinely only saw the 'MODS?' bit of this earlier. I commented on this thread to - politely - defend GeordieAndy, who you were quite rude to. You seem to think that his count of 'only' 200 odd posts means his opinion doesn't count, and the fact that he owns a house means he's the spawn of Satan. In response you've called me a troll too.

    Screaming troll at anyone who has a slightly different viewpoint is juvenile - it just drives away newbies and fosters an intellectual monoculture. What's the point of creating a post on a discussion forum if you only want people to agree with you? If you want to own this site then buy it. 

    Right, I feel in my 17 posts I've achieved the main two HPC goals of having a long, detailed discussion with Venger and being called a troll by the Count of Nowhere. I can hold my head up high in the office - maybe Mr. Putin will promote me to spamming the Daily Mail website. 



  15. 6 minutes ago, Barnsey said:

    But I'm calling b***s**t on you being happy to see the loss of, what, at least £150,000?

    But I've got to live somewhere (and I like where I live), so any gain will only be collected by my sprogs when I check out. And they'll be better served by cheap house prices in the interim. I suppose I could try and time the market by selling to rent, but if I've learnt one thing in life it's I'm not very good at timing markets.

    I've been signed up here since 2007, just never posted. Fair enough, I'm sure a few people to join up to troll but not everyone.


  16. 18 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    Ok, I'll bite, please enlighten us to WHY ?

    I'm in a similar position to Andy - been reading this forum since 2004, never posted until recently. Bought a house about 4 years ago, as I was lucky enough to be able to do so and didn't want to raise my family in a house where we could get thrown out of if the landlord decided they don't like us.

    The reason I come back is the cost of houses is insane and negatively affects many of my friends and family.

    We're in the south, so like Andy we're sitting on paper gains. We'll almost certainly never see these, as we have to live somewhere. If house prices collapse I'd be very happy. That said I'm glad now we bought when we did, as there's no way we could currently afford the same place - we'd either be praying for a crash or buying miles away in a town where we don't know anyone. Uncertainty sucks.

    The reason you attract trolls Count is that you're the most prolific poster on this forum and start a lot of threads. If someone wants to wind up a HPCer you're the number 1 target. Not saying this is right. I wouldn't say Andy's posts are trolling though - he's just offering an opinion.



  17. It will unleash a load of new buyers onto the market, and the increaced competition will drive up prices (or stop them from falling as much). I'm sure this is pretty much what the Government wants to happen, i.e. keep prices high by adding more fuel to the fire.

    For a lot of people the initial cash outlay of deposit, legal fees and stamp duty will be the factor preventing them from buying a house - there's plenty of couples with 30k + jobs that can get a fairly sizeable mortgage. Removing stamp duty drops the bar, so people who couldn't buy on Tuesday will be able to now. Call me paranoid, but letting people know that this is likely to raise prices might be part of the strategy.

  18. 17 hours ago, Riedquat said:

    Unless there's a serious shortage of housing, and ignoring locations where there's high demand but no space, e.g. the middle of London, all you're going to end up with is a bit more crap built in a place that would be better with less.

    This. Unless lending, BTL, etc are controlled you'll simply end up with expensive housing in successful cities, an increase in derelict housing and sprawling new build with no services. Look to the USA or Australia perhaps - you can build a cheap, sprawling house in hicksville without much restriction but housing is still incredibly expensive in the successful coastal cities.

    The planning system is very far from perfect, but the basic principal of planning communities with the services they require seems sounds in my view. It's when the system gets captured to defend vested interests where things go wrong. 

  19. 36 minutes ago, Insane said:

    I believe this impacts on everyone men , women , children and the grandparents who in many cases are stepping in with child care. Family life has been changed for the worse in many cases. 

    Spot on. The problem is that dual incomes are now needed in many cases just to get by, rather than allowing families to have a better standard of living. In areas of housing shortage prices are set by the most optimistic idiot if you don't (for buying) restrict lending to sensible multiples. Silly joint multiples also lock single people out of the housing market.

    Personally I'd just like to see people have options. If both parents choose to work then great, but if one or both parents want to look after their kids then they should be able to have the chance to, rather than running round like headless chickens and paying vast amounts of money out to nurseries. The 'old' situation for women in the workforce sounds equally nuts though. From what my Dad used to tell me women could be as clever or as qualified as they liked, but if it looked like they'd have kids anytime soon they'd struggle to find any work at all. Basically it was wasting half of the country's brains and putting all of the childcare on women whether they wanted it or not. 

  20. 27 minutes ago, Insane said:

    however I am only posting what I have heard and am not belittling any women. Many are working out that they have been conned. 

    I agree with the problem here, but you’re looking at it from a ‘manly’ perspective. Most intelligent women don’t just want a lifetime wiping bums and noses, and a lot of men would like to spend more time with their kids. Speaking as a bloke I find it quite sad that I only see my kids for an hour or two a day during the week, and I’m one of the ‘lucky’ ones - a lot of commuters don’t see their kids at all during the week. Personally I’d like to work part time and split the childcare with my wife, but finding two part time jobs that pay ok isn’t easy.

    The cost of living and housing in particular don’t give people a lot of choices. The banks have largely created this situation by lending stupid multiples of both salaries. When we got out mortgage offer in 2013 it was nearly 5x our joint income. I’m not sure if the MMR would change this. Being a hetro couple in our 30s it would have been statistically obvious what was likely to happen next. We were lucky/ sensible and borrowed significantly less, but there’s plenty of less lucky/ dim people who struggle to cover their costs and barely see their kids whilst, by inflating prices, create a rod for everyone else’s backs.  

  21. 3 hours ago, Mr Banks said:

    I couldn't live at home however renting a room or part of a house has suited me fine for years.

    I agree. Living at home just felt like childhood continued for me. I met some of my best friends through sharing houses, and it meant I could live in some nice places without being completely shafted by high rents. My last experience before moving in with my wife was really positive: nice house, cheap rent and people who I still have as good friends today.

    That said, finding suitable places as you get older can be tricky as shared houses are still mainly the realm of 20 somethings – living with a constantly changing group of party animals gets old very quickly. In the South you can also pay a lot of money for not much house too, and quality seems to be declining. I know at least two houses I lived in have had a conversion to split rooms and shrink or remove the lounge, changing them from nice spacious houses to cramped filing cabinets.

  22. 1 hour ago, Venger said:

    If they feared HPC to their overall wealth/financial positions, they would sell.

    This is where I disagree with you Venger. The caricature of people obsessively checking Zoopla whilst cackling "Mad-gainz, mad-gainz!!!" is an accurate portrait of my former landlord, but not of most people. People who are planning on buying a house, re-mortgaging with limited equity or dying sometime soon are forced to worry about house prices, but for all other home owners it's entirely optional.

    In the event of an imminent house price crash the logical thing for people to do would be to sell up to try to lock in their gain, but a more likely response would be for people to ignore it (if they are able to). Many people have friends in the area, kids in school and have spent time and money turning a house into a home. A home isn't something to buy and sell like a share, despite what the Daily Mail, etc have encouraged everyone to think. You say everyone is a market participant and you're right. But, as in many markets, people don't always act like rational calculating machines.

    If people don't need to care about house prices they often won't  - they may mutter some bland platitudes about how hard it is for youngsters, but it probably won't occupy their thoughts. But to be honest why should they? Once you've finished worrying about things that directly affect you you have a whole range of serious local to global issues that you can think about, and people tend to choose things that are close to them - if a relative or a friend dies of cancer, for example, you might start spending your time fund raising for cancer charities.  

    What I'm trying to say is that just because you and I think a lot about about house prices it doesn't mean that everyone else does (whether that's keeping them up or crashing them down). I bought a house, we're settled in the area and don't need to re-mortgage any time soon. But I care about house prices. Why? Because I still remember the disdain and arrogance with which landlords used to treat me, and I'm appalled that friends who haven't enjoyed my financial luck in life still have to pay rent to these parasites. If everyone I knew were home owners I'd be distanced from the issue and probably care a lot less.

    2 hours ago, Venger said:

    who think Ghost of Rod Hull will protect HPI

    I like this.

  23. 10 hours ago, Venger said:

    When they buy they buy, and they'd don't need to approval or blessing of anyone on HPC.

    Hi Venger, could you clarify your position for me. I get that you believe that everyone's a market actor, makes their own decisions and (if prices fall) should accept that this is a consequence of the decisions that they made. But you're also obviously fed up that prices are so high - is this because of BoMD, BtL and the Government propping up a failing market?

    Also for your own position, I assume from you posts that you're looking to buy, can either pay outright or have a big deposit, but have been outbid of late by BoMD types. I think you mentioned somewhere that you used to own a house (I might have got this wrong) - did you sell up through a relationship split, moving abroad or something?

    Sorry if this seems nosey - I'm genuinely curious (rather than trying to pick holes) as you're a frequent poster and obviously have strong views. 

  • 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.