Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tummybanana

  1. There's an old saying; both ends of the see-saw can't be up at the same time. I'm going to ignore the ad hominem bits, except to say, and I'm breaking the fourth wall here, that I try to season my posts with an element of irony. To clarify, I don't really want old people or children to be shot at birth. However, as Converted Lurker has pointed out, people who have paid off their mortgage (regardless of age, I'll grant you) have been given an unearned injection into their assets. Because those assets and the stock exchange have soared as a result, pension plans have been performing well. Pensions are now screwed (and yet I still pay into one), being based on commodities, gilts and the stock market. There will be a correction in asset value inflation. This is only natural. The parable of the grasshopper and the ants springs to mind; those who have benefitted from high interest rates should, instead of taking umbrage at lowered ones, simply average out the last ten year's rates - they'll still be doing better than those without savings. The point of my post wasn't to offend or rant, but to make a point about the dynamics between savers and borrowers. It just so happens that most of those who own their home outright seem to be of pensionable age. That's correlation, rather than cause. Now, to quote Mr Green in Clue, I'm going to go home and sleep with my wife* *We'll probably just have a sandwich, actually.
  2. Woo! £50 per month off the Tracker! I will never get my comeuppance! Never! You hear me? NO COMEUPPANCE!!
  3. They've worked here, are looking for new employment and whilst employed paid tax. That makes them more eligible in my book than these English Speaking layabouts. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7746174.stm
  4. If I was starting a business in retirement homes, I'd set up a pre-pay insurance scheme. People with savings a retirement pay a certain amount up front, based on a certain fee; say 100K. In return, the retirement home agrees to provide for them when they can no longer look after themselves until they pass away at Private Standards. Sure, it's a gamble - they might last two years, they might last twenty. Plus, you'd foreit your right to change your mind about which home you go to, unless there was some trading exchange for these annuities between homes, and you'd have to confront your own mortality sooner than you'd rather. But you'd have the security of knowing that they were taken care of until the end of their days. The only snag, of course, is how you stop people erring on the side of "turning off the machine" for financial reasons. But then I suppose that's an issue now.
  5. The trouble is, most proposed parties resemble either Respect or the BNP; solely concerned with the aggrandisement of individuals or sections of society and hang the rest. At the moment we have a consensus of democracy at which the major parties can quibble over tweaks at the edges, but follows the line of least resistance because it's actually the one which works best for our country's long term prosperity.
  6. Then you flog your house for a further 100K+ (depending on market) and get the agency to rent it back to you. After all, there's no shame in living in rented accomodation, and at 85, you'll probably find an agency willing to take that risk. Can't take it with you.
  7. Self-bumping is the act of a scoundrel, but I put research into this, people - RESEARCH!
  8. Unfortunately, it's not a quantity thing, it's a quality thing. Most people who are "savers" (official figures of which includes current accounts in the black) have about a month's salary in them. http://www.cheaploans.co.uk/news/average-s...cy-fund-55.html http://www.moneyexpert.com/News/Savings-Ac...two-months.aspx Said people usually tend to have mortgages as well, the ANNUAL payment of which is greater than their total savings - average £130,000. http://ukhousebubble.blogspot.com/2008/10/...19-percent.html The exception, of course, is retired people, who can often count their houses as full assets, having paid off the mortgage. http://www.datamonitor.com/industries/news...p;type=NewsWire In addition, 35% of owner-occupiers own their home outright. http://www.hbosplc.com/media/pressreleases...section=Halifax The average debt for an individual in the UK is about 10K, excluding mortgages. http://www.creditaction.org.uk/debt-statistics.html Now, given those figures, it seems that the vast majority of people/voters have more of a vested interest (in terms of their own personal short-term finances rather than any export/import consequences) in interest rates dropping, rather than raising. Concur?
  9. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7813791.stm Now, I'm not a great fan of old people. In fact, like children, I think they should be shot at birth. However, I do acknowledge that there are those who are in dire financial straits who deserve state support and public sympathy. Those with substantial savings DO NOT count, in my book anyway, especially when they're bleating about having to actually use their capital. That's why they're called savings, people! You have to have a lot less than 100K sitting merrily in your bank book before you get a single salty drop from my eye. I mean, fercrissakes, by the time you're retired at 68 you've got what - 20 years to piss it away before your mind and bladder stops working? That's a good 5K a year to piss away before you get that far, on top of pensions and annuities, before you even need to sell off your mortgage-free positive-equity house. Gah, some people. Think the world owes them a living.
  10. Leaving aside the fact that he worked in Finance, so it's possible his contribution in encouraging debt was actually negative (possible, but not a given, in all fairness) there'll are now extensive money laundering rules that come into play when you suddenly roll up with a lump sum of 10K or so. If you are going to keep your cash in a sock under the bed, you need to make sure that you're only buying small ticket items with it. Houses, for example, are a big neddy no no.
  11. But the rise in council tax is tiny when you compare it over the last hundred years to gold. . .
  12. Do you relinquish all rights to land yourself? If you leave your door open, do you accept that people have the "right to roam?" in the place in which you live?
  13. Funnily enough, we had a little ruction in my town a couple of months back. There's another tiny town stuck to it that has no facilities and council tax about 1/3 lower as a result. The council who run my town suddenly realised "Hey! Those people are using our street lighting, libraries, clean streets, parks and other amenities" and tried to push through a boundary change to annex them into our slightly larger town. They failed, but I'm not sure how I feel about the rights and wrongs of it.
  14. Damn the Agricultural Industry which allowed this to flourish! No, hang on. . . Damn the Pottery Industry which actively encouraged this for short term gain! Wait, I've got it . . . Damn the Carpentry Industry which has benefited from this surge and overinflated itself. No, you're right - it's the fault of the poor and immigrants.
  15. Missed the last three pages, so apologies for any duplication. But surely the multiple will remain relatively similar to now. It's just the Average Wage that will drop, due to the finance industry haemorrhaging (sp?). If you're still employed this time next year, guess what - you move up the Wage index!
  16. N-no, still not seeing it. BTL: Buys house for 100,000. Mortgage is 500. Charges 600 rent. Tenant pays 100 Council Tax. BTL: Buys house for 100,000. Mortgage is 500. Charges 700 rent. Tenant pays no Council Tax. Assuming every landlord does the same thing, What am I missing? Not that the death of Buy-To-Sit wouldn't be a bloody good thing.
  17. Admittedly, it does make home buying more attractive - but if all landlords have to pay it, then I fail to see how it disadvantages one landlord over another.
  18. Council tax is 25 billion. Income tax 155 billion. VAT 84 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_taxes.svg That'd give you an annual 25 billion shortfall. How would you decide who got how much from central government? How would you reconcile the needs of Oakham (pop 9,975) with Birmingham (992,400)?
  19. Rationally, the contracts will go in whichever direction the contract drafters determine. If the onus was on landlords to pay council tax, then they'd just put it on the rent anyway - it's a zero sum game as far as the market's concerned, because everyone would have to do it.
  20. That's disappointing for you, Injin. Those "services" exist because they've been paid for at the point of delivery. Now, if ASDA opened a bakery which you could take as much bread from as you liked, but would have to pay a monthly bill to be able to access the bakery, then you'd have a case.
  21. The trouble is, which is why the Lib Dems have moved away from the idea, is that this idea keeps rich areas rich and sh1tty areas sh1tty. What do you do for places like Wales, where unemployment runs at 25% in some villages. And what about pensioners, who are the net recipients of much of council spending, but generally have incomes well below the national average?
  22. Our police station is open 9-5. Anything happens out of those hours, they have to send someone from the next largest town - about 15 miles away. That said, we do only have a population of 18,000. Hmm, kind of queering my own pitch there.
  • 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.