Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About waiting_to_exile

  • Rank
    HPC Regular
  1. House prices in Oz and NZ aren't cheap by local standards. However, if you're going out there with a fat UK deposit, you can still be putting yourself in a much better position than if you stayed in the UK even if your earnings drop. I never quite understand what is behind the "one-way ticket" argument either. There's no sure-thing bet on what will happen with exchange rates or relative housing prices so why would the cash you go in with not be extractable at some point in the future for a similar value? Having said that, anyone who emigrated just because of the house prices would be setting themselves up for misery.
  2. That isn't the general situation though, is it? People feel that they need credit and need to be in the system. Ignoring the argument about whether a personal commitment to repaying debts that you voluntarily take on is a moral obligation, the systemic implications of everyone considering that such repayments aren't worth worrying about and they should just make a "fresh start" are pretty obvious -- no credit for anyone. I don't actually follow the OP's point that it's getting harder to make a fresh start anyway. In the UK the path to personal bankruptcy seems to have been beaten into a dual carriageway.
  3. There's no logic to your question. The pricing of cars, in particular the valuation of cars over time, is very different to that of houses. You haven't actually demonstrated that you can't get a 15% discount off a Land Rover anyway. Try phoning around a few rather than just pitching up at your local dealer and giving up because you didn't spot anyone shaking the dealer's hand while wearing an "I just got 15% off this Discovery" t-shirt.
  4. Here we go again. This time we have a combo of two persistent scabs to pick at: 1. No desirable properties are dropping. There's no point in even debating this. Anyone with property bee can see prices being dropped, but equally, if somone is blind to it then they aren't going to be persuaded. "What about this one? It's down 30% on asking price." "That's not desirable, there's no nice school nearby." "This one?" "That's a semi." "This one?" "Tiny garden." "This one?" "Urgh, some horrible regional place. FFS, when I say desirable I mean a five bed detached with a double garage three minutes walk from a top-graded school and thirty minutes commute from my central London job. Nothing else is desirable!" "Here you go then. Everything you want and 20% off asking." "Blech! The front door is painted green!" 2. Why wont anyone accept my x% reduced offers? There is no crash! Wah waaah! Time has value. If you place a value on transacting now, then you'll have to accept the likelihood that you will have to hand over some money that represents your judgement of that value because the seller is playing the same game.
  5. I don't know anyone who is open about having problems with debt, but I'm aware of people who have taken on significant unsecured debt simply through conversations about what they're doing with the money. The thing is that it's impossible to judge whether someone is being financially irresponsible when you don't know the details. Someone on 40-50K taking out a 20K loan for a car... maybe their partner is earning decent wedge too, maybe they've got repayment insurance, maybe they're happy that they could sell the car if necessary. Who knows?
  6. I know I shouldn't expect any better from the Daily Mail, but that's a pretty awful article. The stats just show that bankruptcies amongst women are increasing faster than those amongst men. This is used as a jumping off point to some speculation about the socio-economic factors, which includes completely unsupported statements about women's relationship with credit and susceptibility to peer-pressure. It then finishes with the world's least sympathetic example of female bankruptcy just to lend some authority to the BS in the middle. Believe me, I'm a card-carrying misogynist as far as believing that society sends very mixed signals to girls as they grow up and effectively trains many women to be unreasonable in their view of entitlement versus personal responsibility, but I don't buy the message in this piece of propaganda at all. I did enjoy this quote though: 'If I can give people just one piece of advice, it's this - never get a credit card.' That's right, because it's impossible to have a credit card and not mismanage its use, right? The poor lady is just a victim of the credit pushers.
  7. Two thoughts come to mind: 1. Culling the bottom 10% seems about right as a standard policy. 2. I often regret the fact that I got a university place based on poor A-Level results. Being forced to go back and resit or rethink whether a degree was the right path would probably have been better for me.
  8. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7789784.stm
  9. You're a bear if you believe prices will fall, a bull if you believe they will rise. You can be a bear and still buy if you feel the value in actually owning the place you live outweighs the depreciation you face. The extent to which you value that snuggly ownership thing will probably leave you open to derision, but anyone who barks about you being a "bull in disguise" or similar isn't worth listening to. So who is going to do that? You're presenting a straw-man. If analysis leads someone to stay out of the market today, it doesn't mean they will stay out of the market tomorrow. The number of people here who say they will never buy is tiny.
  10. I don't understand the surprise or the fuss. The police are institutionally predisposed to dislike protest of any sort because one of their core duties is the "preservation of public order". Protests often threaten this order. The letter doesn't say anything about stopping people from protesting, it's from the British Transport Police and just asks those working on the public transport system (a service that can be a target) to notify them of groups they might need to keep an eye on. I wouldn't expect them to act in any other way. Comparisons to Nazi Germany ring every bell on the Godwin scale of ludicrous.
  11. I've never had an issue with the idea of couples gaining an economic advantage by both holding down jobs. The thing that grates is how our taxation and employment law does everything possible to remove all disadvantages and to carve up the taxation cake inequitably in favour of this lifestyle choice. Want jobs and kids? Sure, we'll force employers to support both of you, maternity leave, paternity leave, right to pursue flexible working arrangements (flexible for you, not them or your co-workers). Can't really afford the children? Here have some tax money. Not only will you get tax advantages from having two incomes, but we'll also ensure that you see full benefit from your tax contributions and also get a nice big chunk of the tax benefits from people who barely use the social supports that you rely on. As a society we really need to think hard about where the balance point really is, because right now we seem to think that getting everyone working and breeding and using the tax system to hide the real cost-benefit choice is the way to go. Somewhere in that, the idea of a family life appears to be getting lost despite all the empty preaching of family values and supporting "hard-working families" that dribbles from the mouths of politicians when proposing yet another benefit, tax-break or measure to protect house prices.
  12. It equates to savings going from roughly 70 quid per person to around 200 per person. I'd imagine that the bulk of the first figure was made up of people with significant savings, so it would seem that the increase reflects a large group of people moving from saving nothing to saving something. Other than that, asset liquidation, redundancy payments?
  13. This snippet shows just how meager the majority of savings are. How long would it take you as an individual to treble your current savings? Personally, it would take several years. Any pot you can treble in three months must have been negligible before you started.
  14. They are being blocked as in "obstacles put in their way" if, as Sibley states, they are being stopped from using features of the forum that aid presentation of opinion and debate. I, for one, certainly do not expect everyone here to "promote" the idea of a house price crash, I only expect that people here will have an opinion about it. What's the use in a discussion forum where everyone shares the same world-view? I'm aware of what troll means in the context of Internet discussions, well enough to remember when it was understood to be rooted in the fishing term and not the mythical creature. Then it was actually useful. Now it's just a label to plant on someone whose opinion you want to ignore.
  15. This statement would seem to be rather similar to statements about house sales that you have complained about Houses are selling at very low volumes, and those houses are on the market because sellers have put them there. For what it's worth, I support your comments about the troll status. I don't find it a very useful label and this forum won't really benefit from blocking out any dissenting voices.
  • 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.