Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Tummybanana

Members
  • Posts

    935
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tummybanana

  1. Do you know what?

    I'm sick of bailing out the reckless borrowers

    I'm receiving pitiful interest so that the bloke across the road can have lower mortgage repayments.

    How about all us whining savers, withdraw our deposits?

    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!

  2. How are they unearned?

    They saw it was a bubble and got out at the right time by STR'ing. That is a good investment decision. They were smart. They took a risk and won. Good on them. The founder of Adams just bought his company back for pennies on the pound. Are you suggesting he never worked a day in his life?

    If someone can make money from investing their money in the stock market then why shouldn't they? How is that any less "work" then nailing down floorboards or making jet engines? Is JK Rowling's money un-earned because she happened to be lucky enough to write a series of books that hit some sort of cultural nerve? The "work" she did in writing it would be just the same if her books had only been modest successes and a series about an ancient civilisation had taken the public's imagination instead.

    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?

  3. If someone can make money from investing their money in the stock market then why shouldn't they? How is that any less "work" then nailing down floorboards or making jet engines? Is JK Rowling's money un-earned because she happened to be lucky enough to write a series of books that hit some sort of cultural nerve? The "work" she did in writing it would be just the same if her books had only been modest successes and a series about an ancient civilisation had taken the public's imagination instead.

    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?

  4. It may be secondary school mathematics, but unless you answer the question asked, you won't pass the exam.

    How will the wealth be generated to pay the higher rates?

    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.

  5. You don't even have to wait til 25 years are up.

    Rent will increase with inflation, generally.

    Whereas your mortgage payments won't.

    So even if we just had, say, 3% annual inflation on average, then after a few years, your mortgage payments will be cheaper than rent, won't they?

    After 10 - 15 years, the difference will be considerable.

    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.

  6. Very well.

    Mr. Plod can be paid for by insurance companies - the less crime in his area, the higher his wages. :)

    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.

  7. Some of 'em might actually post on i/net forums. :o

    I remember when my son was buying the bits and pieces to make his own 'puter, some mate of a mate he knew, had a top of the range bought one, despite living in social housing with a wife and three kids, where neither of the adults had EVER worked.

    Makes you wonder just WHO the dummies are. :rolleyes:

    My money (Okay, tax credits) is on it being a nicked one bought from the proceeds of cash in hand work

  8. You can hardly call a wife and kids a "lifestyle choice". The vast majority of mankind for millions of years has defaulted to that and without them, there would be nobody to pick up after any of us.

    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

  9. 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.

  10. Does it?

    What the example does is it sets out the distribution of tax between the poorest and the richest under the current US tax system and then explains why any tax rebates seem to benefit the rich most (as under the current system they pay most tax). If there was a flat tax system the same would apply. I would be in favour of a flat tax on all income over say £10k, except as I am a tax accountant by trade it may well cost me my job so I am dead against it.

    Oh, and the four guys who don't pay anything? They're the barstools.

  11. Does it?

    What the example does is it sets out the distribution of tax between the poorest and the richest under the current US tax system and then explains why any tax rebates seem to benefit the rich most (as under the current system they pay most tax). If there was a flat tax system the same would apply. I would be in favour of a flat tax on all income over say £10k, except as I am a tax accountant by trade it may well cost me my job so I am dead against it.

    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.

  12. And where, exactly, in all that did I say I had no intention of having children?

    The benefits system, and massive inequity in the access to property, is skewing the whole issue of having children. Hey, call me selfish, but all I personally want is the opportunity to do what my parents did.. you know... buy house, raise kids in a stable environment, all on a pretty tight budget. Despite my earning power dwarfing that of my parents (in relative terms), that opportunity is completely denied to me, not only because of the ongoing farcical situation with property, but because I have to pay for my bought-their-houses-in-the-mid-90s-and-are-in-no-way-in-anything-like-poverty neighbours kids!

    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.

  13. I think you'll find that the reason is in the last part of your posting above.

    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.

  14. The left have forgotten that this model has been tried before and failed - in this country in the 1970's with 98% tax, and in Cuba now. It can only work if you can prevent people leaving, otherwise the talented or entrepreneurial will simply up sticks and move. Which will mean that the economy goes backwards, making everyone poorer.

    I was once sent this by a colleague at work; it is supposedly by some professor of economics although he has denied it so I will not attribute it to him; however it sums the problem up quite nicely in terms of both high tax for high earners and other wage cap mechanisms:-

    "Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

    No; what this does is remove the case for a flat tax system - which very few countries use anyway.

  15. The left have forgotten that this model has been tried before and failed - in this country in the 1970's with 98% tax,
    In 1974 the top-rate of income tax increased to its highest rate since the war, 83%. This applied to incomes over £20,000, and combined with a 15% surcharge on 'un-earned' income (investments and dividends) could add to a 98% marginal rate of personal income tax. In 1974, just 750,000 people were eligible to pay the top-rate of income tax.

    £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.

  16. Except that first of all, CPI is a ******** figure with little basis in the life of real people. RPI has been closer till recently but I doubt that was realistic either, then to top it off and to add insult to injury, tax is taken out. The idea that you cannot save at a fast enough pace in order to secure your future housing needs on the basis of house prices rising at 4x - 6x CPI has proven the entire system to be broken. In fact the interest rate required to keep up with that would have been consistantly over 15% in order to keep up with housing and pay tax at the same time.

    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.

  17. That is probable just the cost of materials,, if you then build in the massive investments required for machinery, finance, R & D, etc I think you will find that there is not much left over. Most car makers have been losing money for years. Compare for example the cost of using a local company to say replace your windows, cost about 5 grand. Compare that to what you actualy get in a car for 8 grand and the car seems pretty good value.

    Yep; like Sony and Microsoft it's the Second Hand and Aftermarket where they start to claw back some of the outlay.

  18. Because we're stuck with a system that, if you happen to be around the borderline between "you don't earn very much, here have lots of child-related handouts" and "you earn cackloads", means you can't realistically afford to have children. The effect of this is amplified considerably if you happen to have been unlucky enough to be of a certain age during the stupid boom years.

    Personally, I very strongly object to having money taken off me and given to people who've made the decision to have kids, and can afford to do so anyway, purely and simply because they've got children. Why, exactly, should I subsidise someone with a small mortgage (not all parents are 20 years old...), or someone in a stable (well, currently ;) ) state job, simply because they have kids? I just don't get it.

    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.

  19. Think you've been jerkin the gerkin a bit too much this morning sunnyboy.. For your information, and you do need information, the interest payments in British bank accounts has for at least 10 years been less than the real rate of inflation, never at any time has it fallen into the catagory of being juicy.

    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.

  20. What about people who have built their own businesses?

    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.

×
×
  • 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.