Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jonboy

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. So for an over-valued "asset", an FTB pays an arrangement fee plus 10%, and then 6.++? They know this is prohibitive but they know that house prices need further correction. If the equity is there then the risk isn't and the new deals and SVR reflect that. They can meet govt targets for lending and mortgage availability in this population without the risk of FTB. The correction in HP can happen over several years and only in real terms. Banks' balance sheets are OK and there's plenty of public money for retail (even in the relative absence of MEW) with low IRs making large differences to people's disposable income and allowing the over-stretched plenty of breathing space. Meanwhile FTB getting further and further behind as deposit rqts getting larger, unemployment and real wage deeflation, and already high interest rates threatening to get higher next fix around. Borrow any multiple you can afford mind. Nice.
  2. Fair play. "Public spending cuts" ONLY refers to cutting spending on public sector services - you didn't know that?
  3. Now, I don't want to fight, you have too many legs for a start. When we 'privatise' these previously public services we still manage to spend lots of public money on them, they cost us more cos taxes don't adjust and we pay directly, we generally get a worse service especially over time, and the killer blow, any 'profits' go to exec bonus and shareholders. Now don't get bogged down in details but generally.... that's what I believe. The important thing is we need to prioritise what we think the state MUST provide for us from the entire public spend. Please note, "entire public spend" is not 'entire spending on public sector organisations', which narrows your scope for appropriate disinvestment opportunities and is just wrong. I'd like to cut back on/ scrutinise: "Defence": Tridant and current liberation efforts (cough) QE and artificially low interest rates 2012 Rate of return from from publicly owned banks Devolved budgets for supporting local inward economic investment Inefficiency in all public sector - particularly the way they commission services and manage delegated budgets (that's massive!) No time to really think about these ATM so I'm sorry if some are simplistic but the point is, we are often too narrow in our debate about "public spending". Oh yeah, and the public should decide on prioritisation and rationalisation of public spending; we can't trust the politicians to be apolitical about it.
  4. Here's a recent anecdote. A colleague of mine sold to buy in about 2007 (nice terrace to nice semi, nice location), I remember how vocal they were about how how short a time their house was on the market before being SNAPPED up. The new house is nice but they were clear, it was going to be on the edge of 'affordability'. Some time later they were looking decidedly concerned that the 4X4 would have to be down-traded as interest rates were not looking favourable - "just what are the BoE doing, they'll ruin the economy". Then of course HPC (cough) was happening and they were starting to feel a bit stuck with this increasingly unaffordable asset. I hadn't seen them for a while. Came in to our office yesterday talking about having to have another holiday before the American trip they've booked for the middle of next year. I'm still renting.
  5. That's me down the job centre plus then!
  6. Coffee... down.... w-r-o-n-g w--a---y. Actually maybe the prioritisation is better in the hands of the politicians. Things you never thought you'd hear yourself say.
  7. Maybe you do, I think you need to read my post again.
  8. D'you know what I agree with a lot of that. We are getting somewhere. Though you haven't priotritised. Now, what about all the other public spending we need to control that goes to the agricultural, private, education, manufacturing, financial etc, sectors. All should be on the table together and we decide - thrrough our elected representatives of course, who only have the public interest at heart.
  9. You find them and I'll sack them. Don't stop at public sector though. banks and schools and subsidised industry too. Lets ave em all!
  10. Sorry, could you possibly make a point rather than pasting a whole article to read? The point I was trying to make was there is waste in public and private and all sorts of sectors, of course and there are effective and ineffective staff and managers and directors and CEOs and Boards and shareholders... in all sectors. Not just private sector service provision. Increasing amount of public spending is on non-public sector services. There has to be savings from the TOTAL public spending... what should it be? You won't just make it from efficiencies. You'll have to prioritise.
  11. No. I'm sure we'd have to take it very seriously. And of course we'd have to try to negotiate if we could, as I'm sure you did. Mind you, we haven't had the big payrises and bonuses and health care and other package stuff that people seem to think we've had... it wouldn't be like going back tto the normal life of only one spanish villa and two short breaks a year. It would be a real pay cut affecting people's real lives. Not to say that hasn't happened to you too of course, cos it must be awful if it has. Though why turn on people in the same boat I dunno? What about the big cash and the big tax dodgers?
  12. Are we talking about spending on public services or public spending... on anything? What do you want to cut? What are the efficiencies? Our local CEO goes through the whole budget line-by-line monthly, cos all necks are on the block for financial break-even.
  13. But of course you're right. Same of any (most) organisations. Same for the banks operating with public money. Same of the companies located here facilitated by development agency or local government lead in money. Same for universities who give students little following big public investment. ....?
  14. I'm sure you are differentiating between public spending and public sector organisations/services? Why not have a little think along with some of the other balloon-heads about the difference and then decide what you want to 'spend' the diminishing kitty on. Try not to be too opaque though, we need some real content to inform what happens to our cash. Otherwise you're all a bit pointless... oh. New car or HRT? More jobs or more hip ops? More liquidity or more funded university places? More community regeneration or more lending? More borrowing/spending or more frequent refuse collection? Street lighting or high-street finance? Then some of the harder ones: cataract op or more cancer drugs, extended end-of-life care or euthanasia, operation or prevention services? Very difficult calls, well some of them and they're not mutually exclusive. But we need to get the whole thing on the table and prioritise based on people's need. That's not just directed at you harpic but all you guys who think it's as simple as "sack anyone non-clinical earning >£40K cos thay're ALL lazy cling-ons, fact". NEXT?
  15. Low interest while low inflation. *Rate* of inflation low because of low interest reflected in mortgage repayment. All other essentials are rising it seems to me. Once mortgage repayments level out of the equation - about next year or so once we're comparing with the now lower repayments and the majority of fixed raters come on to SVR (now a good thing of course) - CPI will rise fast, cos almost everything else is inflating bar mortgage repayments. So next couple of years lower inflation allows the w*nk*rs to keep the artificially low rate. But that's shorter than the "forseeable future", I see rises due to real inflation inevitable after that.
  • 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.