Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jadoube

  1. Its orders of mangitude larger than any 'proper' market research in the country. The most widely used finanica research survey interview just 55,000 people annually - and folk happily take 6 months sample as relaible. The 'survey' certainly has an in-built bias - and it requires intelligent analysis to demonstrate that this is suficient to completely invalidate the headline. A simple assertion does not make the grade.
  2. 1978 £25k Terraced house 1983 £75k Detached house 1989 £180k Semi-detached 1997 £95k Terraced house (Restart from go following divorce. ) 2002 £170k Detached house Promotions, salary increases, inheritance etc. proved helpful with the larger jumps in that sequence but the effect of HPI is plain to see. (The 1978 and 1997 proporties are roughly comparable, in the same place, with the 1998 being less good.) Younger readers might care to compare the 5 year jumps 78 to 83 and 97 to 02.
  3. Why are you laughing at these young people? They did save. " Uli and Becky fit this profile perfectly — they took years to save after meeting in their late 20s and their parents were not in a financial position to help them. " "We had been saving for three years and managed to put down a £30,000 deposit. " On a £225,000 property. Does HPC condemn saving? Does HPC condemn people for not using bank of M&D? Does HPC condemn a larger than typical % starter deposit for the time? (A time when our folklore sometimes claims everyone was taking out 125% liar loans.) Does HPC condemn the idea that after a few years repayments you will have paid off some of the borrowing and may have created a little bit of equity? Yes, their timing was obviously crap. Clearly ill advised to buy in that market . Their aspirations are no longer realistic. They are lucky to have lost so little. Yes its the Mail using them as an example. Don't let these sensible HPC views morph into some prejudice that laughs at amoral people that save to put down a deposit.
  4. Chin up. She might have done better than she intended. Depends on which university your niece has chosen. The better undergrads on the right geography course may find opportunities of a paid internship, doing genuinely useful and stimulating work, (as opposed to making tea), during summer vacation. And from this they will have good chances of a good job and founding a good career. A number of undergrads did that with us this summer. Hopefully more of the same next year. They're a valuable resource - decidedly not common knowledge.
  5. The journalist may well have added those column inches - only to have had them removed by the editor. (Who also has to consider the non-news aspects running a newspaper; advertising revenues and similar commercial considerations.) The purpose of the newspaper is to make gains for its owners. News, accuracy, honesty, readability and similar fine concepts are an optional extra.
  6. No reason you can't sell it, or that it should take an excessive amount of time - unless you ask more than the correct market price. It doesn't have to take a lot of time if you're organised and you require the lawyer to be organised. Good incentive to sort out granny's affairs promptly. (And after all granny benefits from prompt action, why would you want otherwise?)
  7. +1 Well said. Something that benefits the people and the country (and is based around think in terms of helping others). Yet folk believe that sort of thing is wrong-headed. Judge standing up for all the people against the council - a bad thing or a good thing?
  8. Nowadays people do that online, which may mean fewer want the pub for its traditional (ie out of date) purpose. Like it or hate it that's life. (If you really hate it you could campaign for sites like HPC to be banned, in the hope folk twill instead go to pubs to discuss house prices )
  9. How do we tell the difference between the work-shy and the genuine job-seeker when both remain unemployed? Jobs don't grow on trees. We can't cop out with the notion that anyone who "tries hard enough" will inevitably get a job. Is it just semantics and its irrelevant whether the unemployed are truly job-seeking, the crime is to fail to find a job?
  10. So your idea is screw the young? I've been paying taxes continually for 40 years. A damn sight more tax, and for a longer period, than some feckless t0ssers advocating that, since feckless t0ssers have created circumstances in which there are no jobs around, and so other people's kids should be hung out to dry. Instead of focusing your effort on taking away from other people use that energy to think about creating something that can benefit you, and other people.
  11. The thing is you're not in the Halifax figures, while the people who think differently are. This is as they say life. Some people seek to maximise the financial in the transaction. Others may accept financial loss in order to maximise the utility/pleasure of their purchase. When people are buying with cash, and are happy to risk loss in order to live where they really want to live, who can say they shouldn't spend their money as they choose?? They'll get what they are seeking. Others will get what they are seeking. Everyone can feel happy with themselves.
  12. I must must I? Bull. If I see a footballer who plays dirty, takes dives or generally cheats rather than using skill, then I think less of them. I say so. While the game may offer incentives for the players' sub-standard behaviour, and should be changed, I also note that other players don't do these things and succeed through their skill. So I won't blame the game. I won't let the inadequate footballers blame the game either. Same goes for bankers.
  13. Yes. IT firm. Bits I've come across do boring crunching & processing of the databases in public sector organisations. Presumably the result of the trend over the past decades to contract this sort of thing to the private sector. An example of public sector money feeding back to the private sector. If as a member of the public you're complaining about the public sector having fooked up their files, lost or mishandled your data it may well be these private sector folk that you're complaining about. The public sector chap you're slagging off is merely the middle man paid to take the abuse. The (junior) people I've occasionally had to work with have seemed as dull, as one might expect of such work, but have proved competent, with a helpful attitute towards private sector organisations. (NB I stress the 'very occasionally' so its far too small a sample to say whether my experience is representative of the organisation as a whole.)
  14. Except the politicians didn't "offer" the bankers billions. The financial sector lobbied the politicians very heavily over a long period in order to have the whole system perverted to they could make billions. Yes the politicians ought to have turned a deaf ear to the lobbying but its disingenuous to suggest that lets the financial whizz-kids off the hook. There is every reason to feel extremely angry with the banks, and people do. There are also reasons to feel very angry with other groups, and thats an entirely different question. One does not preclude the other.
  15. +1 So many potential candidates for the presidency withdraw from the primaries race quoting/ bemoaning a lack of funds. Tells you the money decides who Americans are allowed to choose between in an election.
  16. +1 He's a politician, all mouth no trousers. If you were to ask him what he intended to do about it I'm sure he'd spout all sorts of reasons why somebody else was stopping his good intentions being implemented and he, as Prime minister, was powerless to do anything about it.
  17. Not really. Its very generous of you but I think you may be confusing directors with owners. I am a director (of what govt classes a large company). While I am paid moderately well (nothing like these reports!) the money made by the company is not mine, it belongs to the shareholders. I am a paid employee like everyone else in the business. The shareholders may (or may not) see fit to offer me an increase in my remuneration if they believe that will create greater profit for themselves. Absolutely no reason why the owners should give away huge sums to an employee for no purpose. Part of the reason for the growth in director pay is the process lacks accountability. If I were a member of a union the law would require that the union took a vote before they, for example went on strike. There is no such accountability for many executive's salary and bonus because so many of the shareholders are us - through our pensions. Our pension fund can vote to give as much of OUR money away to the employees (directors) as it likes. (Why should they care, its not their money they're giving away in bonus and pay increases.) There is no requirement to even tell the owners its doing so, never mind ask the owners permission before giving away our money. Moreover not all directors think like these greedy FTSE lot. My colleagues & I cut salaries across the business when the SHTF - and we cut ours at the top more than we cut the youngsters at the bottom! As we pulled ourselves away from the abyss we reinstated those cuts gradually - starting with the lowest paid first. Some time later we did it for the middle grades. And we left ourselves to the last. This was the most effective way of retaining value for the shareholders we have a legal responsibility to serve. Its always important for directors and managers to remember its not their company, its not their money. The point of any bonus scheme is to create the maximum gain while paying the minimum bonus necessary to achieve that gain. If a bonus scheme generates more profit that profit goes to the owners, not on paying the bonus to a small subset of the workforce. Point of all this - I think you should look more deeply at the rights and responsibilities of the people being paid the bonus, and about whose money it is that is being bandied about.
  18. Thank you for your message. I've just emailed my son to ask when we can go out for a pint together, after which I will join him down at St Pauls to offer support. Don't need a shoe-shine box thank you, I pay 50% tax. Not sure you'll be able to fit that into your world view of demonstrators, but I wish you well of the attempt.
  19. Indeed. . What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Lets see a 50% cut on all private sector emoluments above 25k Some might consider your application of equality in this way an extreme socialist position but.... since we're all in it together there may be a case for it.
  20. Just an idea - why not catch and stop the fraudsters and wrongdoers? Alternatively you could end up saying that the existence of tax fraud makes the case for no taxes, the existence of benefit fraud makes the case for no benefits, the existence of people misusing the NHS makes the case for no NHS, people speeding makes the case for no speed limits, people using drugs makes the case for no drug laws, people committing crime makes the case for no police people walking makes the case for scrapping roads...... The existence of an individual breaking the rules does not automatically lead to the conclusion that its necessary to scrap the circumstances that create those rules. Of course other factors may make such a case, but that is a separate question.
  21. From data dear boy, data. People were paid to assess variations in retail sales and correlations with weather patterns. (And all sorts of other things.) Weather had been observed to have some effect on (some) retail sales when I were but a lad in the 80's. I knew some retailers who would (slightly) adjust their forecast of regional weekly sales according to the regional weather forecast. (Admittedly I cannot recall which weather they said increased sales.) The idea that its all down to weather is of course ********. A change in weather is not going to bring about a boom. So many larger effects around.
  22. Part of it. The power to control their employees certainly lies with the council, and they failed in that duty. Guilt for failing in their supervisory duty lies firmly with them The criminal activity was by the private sector businesses that allegedly bribed individual council employees. Guilt for any criminal activity lies firmly with them, not the council. (Employing people willing to take bribes is unwise but not a criminal offence. The crime doesn't occur until somebody offers the bribe.) IMO it is valid to criticise both aspects. The criminal activity of the private sector businesses should not be hidden behind the failiure of the council to supervise its employees. It will be the taxpayer, through the council, who pays any compensation while the criminal element in the private sector will keep the ill-gotten gains. I think its reasonable to direct more of my anger at those who get to keep the loot.
  23. Yet it is a member of the ocuncil who informed the police. The alleged criminal activity seems to be equally on the part of the private sector building contrators who, it is suggested, bribed some (all?) of the individuals in a particular department of the council in order to create business for themselves. Said private sector building contractors then carried out unnecessary and substandard work while over-charging for these services. So, yet again - give the private sector power and lo and behold people abuse it. These people know no shame. A different but equally valid interpretation.. Ideal thing is to arrest the criminals. Unfortunately I doubt those who gained most - whether in the council or the private sector - will find themselves in custody. The money will certainly not be recovered.
  24. A desirable outcome. Unfortunately I suspect those who bankroll the system will prefer a 50% rate to the elimination of loopholes etc. Damn site less expensive for them. OTOH they will happily trade off the 50% rate for the illusion of the elimination of loopholes. A less desirable outcome.
  • 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.