Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Tummybanana

Members
  • Posts

    935
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tummybanana

  1. Got it accepted! http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/MPflats/
  2. Except that 95% savers have about a month's income in their account. 5% interest rates on savings of 2K = £8.30 per month. Conversely, 80% of houses have a mortgage on them. 5% interest on 100,000 = £417 per month. The average individual with a month's income and a 100K mortgage will be clamouring for low interest rates, not high. I think you'll find that STRs are a pitiful minority when compared with the rest of the country. Besides, as another poster pointed out, the rates for credit cards and unsecured personal loans are going through the roof!
  3. If someone can make money by going to their Bank Manager "Give 'us £10K, the house price rises will sort it out," piss it up the wall and then file for an IVA, why shouldn't they?
  4. If someone can make money by going to their bank manager "Go on; house prices will rise and sort it all out," why shouldn't they?
  5. 1. Innovation which means that certain processes of production can be carried out faster, meaning that more can be produced at a lesser cost for production and purchase, freeing individuals' time for other activities which are also beneficial to the country's continual well-being. 2. By implementing procedures which mean that the state no longer has to bear the burden for the health and maintenance of individuals who can, instead, produce essential or desirable products for those who have benefitted by having their time freed up, and possible wage increase by 1. 2. Exploiting people in other countries.
  6. Someday a rain's gonna come and wash the streets.
  7. Assuming Inflation, he has a point. In 1980, rent was 11.18 per week. In 2000 it was 66.52. http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ukhr/ukhr0405/ta...es/04%20072.pdf 11.18 adjusted for inflation is 38.91. Blimey, rents have risen faster than inflation - although property's a funny one. In 1980, an average monthly mortgage payment was 122.60, and as any fule no, near the end of your term your mortgage decreases (assuming no interest rate changes). In 2000 it was 420. Let's pretend that this isn't a matter of the quality of stock, or people shifting their assets. Now, assuming that you stay in the same property, regardless of house prices, your rent WILL rise over the next 25 years - in fact it'll probably quadruple. Your mortgage rate, however, will remain relatively constant - especially if you're on a fixed rate. Plus, you get a house at the end of it. Of course, anything could happen to interest rates, which will throw the whole thing up in the air, but basically, we're all gambling. Some of us are on black, some of us are on red - and we can't both win.
  8. Innovators don't get the money - the salespeople and marketeers do.
  9. Who would pay the insurance? Would everyone have the same premium? Would the poor be expected to pay more than rich people in gated communities? Ignoring the fact that you're advocating what is essentially a statist approach to law, I'm more intrigued by your fire birgade proposal. Do you know what happened when they introduced Fire-Inn-Sewer-Ants to Ankh Morpork? And I'd have thought that those who harboured hatred to the rapists would be pleased at their short sentences - if they went away for 25 years you'd forget all about them and probably be old and decrepit. Now, you've got three years to get hold of a gun and learn to use it, get a snitch prison officer on the inside to let you know when they come up for parole and go out there and bust a cap in their spine. Of course, then the NHS will have to bear the burden of looking after quadriplegics, so you'll have to leave them a week or so to cry themselves dry and then suffocate them in their hospital beds.
  10. My money (Okay, tax credits) is on it being a nicked one bought from the proceeds of cash in hand work
  11. Of course it is! Gays manage - mostly - happily without it. Just because it's good for the country doesn't mean it's not a lifestyle choice. And if you are right, then I'll point you at the anti-tax credits people and hide behind you. Oh! Found my Savers / Debtors post! http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...p;#entry1572281
  12. I wrote a BRILLIANT post about this a couple of months ago, but I can't find it now. It had links and everything. Basically, although there are more savers than borrowers; most savers are also borrowers, and assuming that the banks do what they're told and pass on fixed rate interest cuts would much rather have lower interest rates. Only about 10% of savers have Savings over two months' salary, and 70% of housing still has an outstanding mortgae on it. It's not hard to see that, in the short-sighted terms of an individual's pocket, lower interest rates are a much better vote winner than high ones. Of course, there are consequences as regards the propserity of companies, pension returns and other things, but for most people, it's only their own savings and debts that they care about.
  13. Oh, and the four guys who don't pay anything? They're the barstools.
  14. Yes. If the country's doing poorly, it has a low tax take. If the country does well, it has a high tax take. That's because the wealthy are both the net contributors to, but also the BENEFICIARIES OF the state that they live in. They've benefitted from a healthy and educated workforce, which they've been able to leverage at no direct cost to themselves. Poor Health + Poor Education + Poor Law = Poor Workforce = Poor CEO = Poor tax take = Goto 10. And, of course, vice versa. Of course, that's in an Isolationist sense of the word, and all the eggs fly in the air when you bring outsourcing into the equation.
  15. I'd like to hope that by the time I get to the stages of faecal incontinence my children won't feel obliged to give up their high flying careers to spend all day cleaning up after a dribbling incompetent who shouts at them and forgets who they are every day. I'm counting on them earning enough that they can pay for a professional to do that.
  16. Yeah, that was intentional. But thinking about it, housing is a lifestyle choice. You only HAVE to live in a place with four walls and a lock on the door. You can probably rent something for about £300 in a really crappy area - or I've even heard of sofa renting for about £100 pm; that's 1/10 salary, probably less than is spent on Frozen Food. But, you say, I have a wife and kids. Again, a lifestyle choice. I have a job that I need to look nice and smart for - lifestyle choice. Ultimately, the desire for solid, large, secure housing suffers from the same root as that for a shiny 4*4, and deserves no more moral justification. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, of course.
  17. No; what this does is remove the case for a flat tax system - which very few countries use anyway.
  18. £166,000 p/a in today's money. Plus, of course, we were acting in isolation in those days. There was a place for those "Brain Drainers" to go to. Now? Not so much.
  19. But why should it have to keep up with housing? Why not gold? Why not milk? Why not petrol? Why not Findus Crispy Pancakes? Housing is just an arbitrary yardstick which you have chosen to set yourself against - albeit a cost that represents about 2/3 of your monthly expenditure.
  20. Yep; like Sony and Microsoft it's the Second Hand and Aftermarket where they start to claw back some of the outlay.
  21. Because someone needs to wipe your **** when you lose bowel control, and the children of incredibly wealthy people are unlikely to want to work in a care home for minimum wage to do so. It's either that or import foreign workers, and we know how well THAT goes down.
  22. I think you mean Instant Access accounts, which are the equivalent of stashing it under the mattress. For realistic savers who are actually intending to 'save' as opposed to stopping it cluttering up their house until they need it, many fixed term bonds have been comfortably above cpi.
  23. I think this is only supposed to apply to publicly floated companies with IPOs. Not a bad idea in principle, though - you employ one person for 15K, another for 30K, you earn (roughly) 250K plus as many stock options as you like. Most small business owners don't take a huge salary anyway - too busy paying off their debts and re-investing.
  24. But this is a Global Recession, and protectionist policies are hitting the ground running. Where are they going to go - the US? Japan? Germany? Ireland?
×
×
  • 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.