Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

kool4caats

Members
  • Posts

    435
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kool4caats

  1. I agree. If house prices drop significantly, then surely net lending will go negative as new buyers will be getting smaller mortgages whilst people who bought years ago will still be paying larger mortages. Net lending of zero sounds a healthy norm to me. Zero would be significant as a turning point, though. Now if gross lending was 6bn, that would be more of a story.
  2. I don't even know how that works. How do they intend to have affordable and unaffordable homes co-existing? Surely the prices will level out, unless they make the affordable houses so $hit that no-one really wants them.
  3. I thought Boris was alright, but I have lost respect for him over this. It should be clear to anyone that what London needs is lower house prices. We shouldn't have to subsidise people on an average wage to live there. Take the subsidy away, and let's see what happens. I thought Tories believe in free markets? Maybe Boris would be better off swapping sides.
  4. No, because if I had that kind of money I'd pay it not to listen to him.
  5. But surely if your wife gave up her job voluntarily, it would not entitle her to benefits? And if proceeds had to go towards building new housing this would eventually satisfy the requirements and put downward pressure on rents, resulting in cheaper rents for everyone in the public and private sector. Lower yields for private landlords would then result in lower house prices.
  6. Perhaps a slightly crazy idea, but perhaps council housing should be charged at the market rate for the property with a means-tested subsidy that could range from 0 to 100% of the market value. That way if a house is under-occupied, or the tenant(s) are now doing well for themselves, they can stay in their council house, but they will be paying most if not all of the market value of the property. This would then fund the building of new council housing.
  7. I thought this programme might be about how we can stop the banks doing exactly what you say - the irresponsible lending that lead to us having to bail them out. Instead it approached it from a whingy consumer point of view, like Watchdog. 'We've bailed out the banks, so why don't they lend irresponsibly like they did before?' The BBC have a lot to answer for their part in brainwashing educating the public, and making them think that nothing is every their fault. (See also: New Labour)
  8. Yes, and that's after he apparently negotiated 25% of the asking price! I thought this might be a serious documentary, but it turned out to be a load of gimmicks, and sypathising for the poor people that the nasty banks wouldn't lend money to to buy over-priced houses. Not much word on the poor savers, who are getting very little return for being sensible with their money.
  9. I found that a bit of a stupid example. As if you're going to go £1 overdrawn for a whole year, knowing you'll get charged £1 a day. I assume the same would apply if you went 1p overdrawn, so they could have said it was 365000%! At least this system means that if you go overdrawn accidently for a day (a more likely scenario, perhaps) you'll only be charged £1. I can remember being charged £27.50 for an unauthorised overdraft, even if it was only for a day! The £1 a day thing seems pretty straightforward to me, and as long as you keep an eye on your account it shouldn't cost you much. Simple rule: Only spend what you have! Perhaps it would be fairer for the banks to give people the option to prevent their accounts going below zero, if they don't want any fees - is that possible with a current account?
  10. I agree with this. We can't continue to allow bribing of non-productive (or negatively productive) people to win votes at the detrement of the best interests of the country. With the number we have on welfare now, anyone who tries to administer the bad medicine that this coutnry so badly needs will get voted out at the next election. Then it'll be 'here we go again'!
  11. I thought that's perhaps what they meant. Very badly written though, and an arrogant assumption.
  12. Why would house prices being going up because mortgages are hard to come by?
  13. Yes, except that there aren't enough council houses to go round, hence Housing Benefit paying for private rents, pushing up rents and house prices for the rest of us. The other differences were that kids could actually share a bedroom, rather ran requiring one each as they do now, to put an end to the have-another-kid-to-get-a-bigger-house idea and I also mentioned that rather than giving out cash, all the basic essentials are supplied, but by that I do mean essentials, and no fags, booze, drugs, sky, plasmas, games consoles, etc. If they want any of that they can go and get a job!
  14. I had about the same number of shares at the same price. I had was tempted to sell at 330p, but I had a target of 350, and was trying to be disciplined and hold out for my target!
  15. I've long been advocate of work-for-benefits, but I've seen a few points here that have swayed me off the idea slightly. The problems with the current system as I see them are that Housing Benefit costs each taxpayer a lot of our hard-earned cash and at the same time reinforces house prices and rents, which means we end up paying even more in housing benefits, creating a positive feedback loop, burning a massive hole in our public and private finances. Additionally there is no incentive for many on benefits to work and be independant, as they are 'better off on benefits'. It seems that the solution to this must be to channel all development into high-density social housing. Very basic flats, with communal gardens. All basic essentials are supplied, i.e. tesco value food, water, light, heating (no fags, booze, or games consoles, sky), families with many children can share 3 or 4 to a room in bunk beds, as they should. Residents receive very little, if any free cash to do what they want with. I think this would provide the essential safety net, but encourage people to want to get a job to gain independence, and there would be much less need for Housing Benefit.
  16. Has correct grammar been banned on this board?
  17. Out of interest I thought I'd see what this was like on iplayer. I don't know what time it was originally aired though. Was it on CBBC? EDIT: Seriously, though. A 10 year old would probably feel patronised by this.
  18. Well, it sounds better than the no-work house, of which we have many. I was only suggesting 30 hours a week of training or community work. Basically just something to keep them employable and not sitting on their **** all day, in the hope that they will soon get a job. I acknowledge that there is a danger this could be exploited to be a form of cheap labour, and undercut otherwise employed people, but I'm not sure that would necessarily be the case.
  19. Well, I think in the interim I'd like to see things like housing needs reduced so that at the very least, same-sex children share a bedroom, and don't have a bedroom each - up to three or four to a room might be reasonable in bunk beds. I had to mostly had to share a room with my brother and sister until I was about 12! Vouchers for food and bills, and donated clothing - once again, I mostly had to put up with hand-me-downs and jumble sale clothes as a kid. Much reduced free-cash so that it can't be mis-spent on what we used to consider luxuries. I think the principle is - Make it unattractive enough, and the number of claimants will soon come down as people will realise they can have a better life if they find a job.
  20. The benefits bill is the main thing I have a problem with as it not only costs a lot of public money, but it does not encourage people to go out to work, and incentivises them to have more kids! I'd propose this: If you have been in work for say 10 or 20 years, and you happen to lose your job, then for a year you will get your mortgage/rent paid, plus a reasonable amount for expenses for you and your family whilst you are given time to look for a job. If after a year you still haven't found a means to support yourself (and your family, if you have one), then you will be moved into basic accomodation social accomodation in blocks of purpose built flats (these will need to be built, of course). This would also apply if you have never had a job, or you are on incapacity benefit. You would not have to pay for food or bills, as this would be inclusive, and dinner halls would serve all meals. A range of basic essential clothing would be supplied so there would be no need for residents to have much cash at all, which would mean that it doesn't get spent of booze, fags, drugs, plasma TVs and Sky. In addition the residents would have to do at least 30 hours of community service or conservation work a week or take up a training programme for new employment, of which many different options would be supplied. Childcare facilities would be supplied on-site to allow parents to go out to work or training. This would be expensive to get started, but I have no doubt it would be cheaper to have everything under one roof and supply everything required than to pay out cash to benefits claimants to live independently, and we could get rid of Housing Benefit which is an enormous expense, and drives up house prices in the process. Plus the incentive would be there for people to want to get a job and move out, and serve as a deterent to anyone who thought a life on benefits was a career option. As this would bring house prices right down to an affordable level, anyone who is not working could aspire to owning a house if they got a reasonable job, and employment would be higher as lower house prices would make us more competitive. There may be some flaws to this idea, but nothing that couldn't be ironed out with a bit more thought, I'm sure. Obviously there are many more drains of the public purse than benefits, but gotta start somewhere.
  21. Most people think that there are only 3 parties to chose from, and this is reinforced by tv debates which only include Lib, Lab and Con, but it's really only these parties that offer little in the way of choice. Minority parties will offer policies that may more closely represent their view, but they won't vote for them because they think they have no chance of winning, but if people don't vote for them for this reason then of course they have no chance of winning. Even if they don't win, a vote for a minortiy party is at least as good as a 'none of the above' at showing displeasure for the main parties. I was listening to radio last night, and a caller said that she was going to vote Labour, because no-one else had a chance of winning where she was - Why bother voting Labour then, if they're going to win anyway? I really don't understand the mentality of people.
  22. That's it, I'm voting Labour. If it's good enough for Grant Mitchell, it's good enough for me!
  23. co-insides? what kind of shocking spelling is that?
  24. Is this why women fought their right to vote? So they could pick the best looking one?
  25. I heard this too. I couldn't believe my ears! Even at that time of the morning, when I'm still half asleep I could see this for the unbelievable amount of spin that it is. I suppose they think if they get the right key words in there, people might subconciously think it's a good idea to rush out and buy a house.
×
×
  • 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.