Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About labrat

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. What is the correlation between income and house size - The only correlation is that someone on a high wage is more likely yo be able to afford a large house at the moment - however there are a whole multitude of realistic reasons whereby there may be no correlation that cannot be factored in, for instance a young single mum has inherited a house from her deceased parents after a car crash, or a part time working mum remains in the house after divorce with the sale of the house deferred under a mesher order that retains her right to live in the house till sale when the kids leave home - that is in many ways more likely than the proverbial widowed old granny, and may have been a better solution on child welfare grounds in the eye of the courts than an immediate enforced sale, which may well have resulted in a greater drain on the taxpayer if mum was made homeless without enough to buy a new house and then fallen on social housing paid for by you and me! Why have income tax relief on low wage earners? if everyone pays a flat (say) 25% of gross earnings, then low earners pay less tax than anyone being payed more simplicity is the key, less admin costs - of course that extends to the top end too, no loopholes or dodges, everyone pays a flat 25% and thats all they pay! at the moment someone earning 15k is paying income tax on part of their wages, but also paying council tax on top of that - I'd be willing to bet tht their total tax burden was in the region of 40% even given the allowances. whereas someone on a higher wage may well pay a lot lower %age as the council tax burden is significantly lower proportion of their wage.
  2. If you're saying that theres an argument for local authority funding to be based upon income (personal or household) rather than property size or value, then I'd agree with you completely. However if you're saying that seven people living in one house should pay the same as two people in a house the same size, then you're talking out your ****! Personally, I'm a great supporter of a single flat income tax with no allowances or reductions, applied equally across the board to everyone, taxed at source and handed to local authorities on a per capita basis - the efficiency savings on all those local authority numpties employed in revenue collection departments would be enough to knock a few pence off the basic rate!
  3. I think that by the time the caps were introduced, the damage was done. as for the point regards four people in a shared house versus one pensioner next door, I see that as the biggest benefit of the system - everyone contributes equally since everyone benefits from street lighting/cleaning/libraries etc. - certainly a lot fairer than what we see now, the little granny on moderate pension paying nearly the same as four people earning 20k each! the only people rioting were the soap dodging skiving shites that suddenly were expected to contribute something toward society rather than taking everything they could get! Should have saved us all a lot of money and ordered five rounds rapid into the work shy little shites! - "targets will fall when hit". Being serious for a mo, yes, of course there were other errors, but the three biggies that she effected were above, unfortunately a lot of the problems caused (eg. loss of manufacturing)were largely knock on effects of the first steps of globalisation and economic reform, and I'm afraid that noone could have stopped that, only delayed it for a few years, (as france and other european countries are now seeing). Much as I'd like to see a strong UK manufacturing base, its a global market!
  4. Personally, I believe that thatcher made only three serious errors during her tenure! i) Not permitting revenues from council house sales to be ringfenced and put back into new council house development (on a 1:1 basis even). ii) Missing the vitally obvious fact that allowing local authorities to set their own poll tax meant that Labour councils could whack up spending beyond inflation and let central government take the blame for it. iii) Allowing herself to be talked into further European integration by her Chancellor and others within the party.
  5. Lot 37 just went for 113500! last sold: 8/05/2006 £194,000 Flat L Yes Map Block C, 36 Apartment, Pollard Street, Manchester, Greater Manchester, M4 7A Ouch, thats gotta hurt - another early retirement plan up in flames!
  6. Woohoo! At least now I know where to invest my share of that £30,000,000 the nice guy from Nigeria is sending me tomorrow. I've just got to nip out to the Western Union office to send him some money now, then I'll phone them!
  7. labrat

    Swindon Flat

    Found advertising their sale via gumtree, newbuild in 2005 flat, now for sale at less than the 2005 purchase price! Doesnt even look like they've ever had a tenant in - doesnt look like such a good investment now does it? http://www.ptebbutt.talktalk.net/34dovedale.htm but sold in 2005 for: http://www.houseprices.co.uk/dovedale-swindon-sn25/21/ Oops, looking behind their webpage, looks like they're even having to sell the second car to cover their "liquidity problems" http://www.ptebbutt.talktalk.net/car.htm and they've put their lease info prices up too: http://www.ptebbutt.talktalk.net/lease_info.htm and looking further at the price info - no 21 sold in Dec 2004 for 149,950, then in JUNE 2007 for 127,500 - god only knows how much they would have dropped by now!
  8. As heard being sung by several labour MP's after the rock nationalisation the other day "We'll keep the red flag flying here!"
  9. Right, so, you're the government! You now hold the deeds to about 800,000 homes, of questionable value and equity - you know that there is a good chance of you ending up underwriting a significant number more! You're fully aware that you have a complete undersupply of social housing (ie. owned by govt or housing associations) You know that if people living in houses under your control are repossessed and sold vacant, as a normal mortgage company then you have a legal responsibility to rehouse the vast majority of those made homeless (families/priority need). So, what you gonna do? i) Ride the storm, allowing the people to stay in the homes. ii) Ride the storm, applying for possession but deferring sale till the market improves iii) Allow (hope for) a large expansion in BTL, with houses going to private landlords, sold at a loss to public coffers at auction, then rented back to people (often under the risk of that rent coming from public monies) iv) Pass primary legislation allowing the houses to be taken into public ownership as a new boom in social housing, then rent them back to people. any other options you can come up with? What would be the effect on the private market values of your suggestion?
  • 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.