Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nicebuyer

  1. Yes, he did, see: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...p;#entry1364216
  2. You said your 6 month fixed runs out sometime in 2009. At the very least that means January. Therefore the earliest you put your money in is July/August. My guess is that you put it in a little later than that but we're getting off the point. I truly hope you get all your money back, I'm hoping I get mine back too.
  3. That sounds a bit like "Investing in property isn't speculating, house prices always go up". Yes, one will be covered by the FSCS. I'm making the point that people should stop moaning about the decision they made to put their money into Landsbanki. They were attracted by the IRs and chose to invest, that's what they did, they invested. It's what I did. I have a little more than the £50k in ICE. I doubt I'll lose any of it but if I do then I will go to my planning sheet and it will show that I covered that investment in other ways. You have to always make sure that any exposure is covered. I find it ludicrous that someone puts their money into ICE, doesn't wonder why IRs are above market levels, takes no notice of any warning signs and then blames Brown (when in fact Brown is responsible for the £35k and now £50k deposit guarantee.) If anything right niow they should be praising Brown for today's £15k increase.
  4. You chose ICE. You were not forced to do anything. You could have gone to NS&I could you not? But no, you wanted higher interest rates. If you really cared about security your money would be sitting safely with NS&I not bloody Landsbanki. So stop blaming Labour. Either you were too greedy or too incompetent. None of that makes it Brown's fault. It's your fault for not researching where you're putting your money. At worst you put your money into a 6m fixed in August. August? You didn't think to type in ICE or Landsbanki into Google before doing so? You put your life savings into a foreign bank because you were working? I feel really bad for you but I think you need to take some responsibility rather than blaming it all on Brown. Then again your attitude towards finances is fully explained by the latter part of your answer.
  5. Well, the FSCS passport scheme doesn't work like that, the £12k is not covered by the FSCS, only part of the £12k is. But in any case, there is always a risk when speculating in this way. It doesn't matter whether you put your money into property, gold, commodities or Icelandic banks, it's never 100% safe. The judgment to make is, does the return justify the risk.
  6. Landsbanki going into receivership is Brown's fault? How? And why ICE? Seems a strange place to choose to put all your money. KE I could understand but ICE? Landsbanki? The passport scheme alone would put me off putting substantial amounts of my money in. But I guess when you speculate for such high returns there are always risks. Aren't there? I suppose we could just blame Brown when we do get burned. Makes us feel better for being a little under cautious huh? And stop panicking, you've not lost your money at this point in time.
  7. Came into force today, 7th October. New compensation limit for deposits The Financial Services Authority announced today (3 October 2008) that the FSCS compensation limit for deposits is increasing to £50,000 with effect from 7 October 2008. The new limit will apply to each depositor for the total of deposits they hold with an organisation regardless of how many accounts they hold or whether they are a single or joint account holder. In the case of a joint account, FSCS will assume that the money in the account is split equally between account holders, unless evidence shows otherwise. * Deposit protection frequently asked questions. * More information on the change is available on the FSA website.
  8. Your £14k is safe. Do you have the CHAPS ref number or receipt? What time did you do the CHAPS? Was if after 4pm? If so it won't show yet.
  9. First, don't panic. Second you chose to invest with a bank offering some of the highest savings interest rates and didn't think there was any risk at all? Sounds like you speculated to me. Those people that borrowed 10x are the same people that enabled you to get the %IRs that you did. Third what has this got to go with the Labour govt? Landsbanki goes into receivership and it's Labour's fault? Hehe. Yeah, okay BTW, I have money with Landsbanki, I knew the risks, I liked the rates, if I'm burned then I will take responsibility.
  10. Has anyone reported this thread to the benefits office yet? Obviously this potential benefits cheat is someone they ought to keep an eye on. If no one else has then I'm happy to alert them via the online tool. https://secure.dwp.gov.uk/benefitfraud/ The idea that someone with £60k+ in their bank account should be thinking of defrauding the system really irks me.
  11. This is where you fail to understand what I'm actually saying. This isn't about benefiting me, if anything I would be disadvantaged more because I have more to leave. It's about benefiting society as a whole. I want to lose out, I want others who have a lot of money to leave to lose out. I want children to stand on their own two feet. I want to make sure that money earned during people's lives is used to the benefit of everyone, not just the few. That's exactly my point. Your child did not generate the wealth he will inherit.
  12. I've not thought about how this might be implemented and you are right, the practical aspects really need to be thought through but just because there are practical difficulties does not mean it's not theoretically a good idea nor does it mean one ought to give up on it. Let's be honest, apart from source tax I could avoid pretty much every tax there is. Income tax is an easy one to dodge, the same goes for stamp duty, current inheritance tax is more difficult to avoid than it was but still possible without too much effort. Should we simply abolish all taxes because it's possible to dodge them? I'm really not asking for one rule for me and another for everyone else. I don't wish to control what people spend their money on when alive. That's up to them. Of course I would much prefer them to spend it on educating their children, I certainly wouldn't want to discourage people from investing their money in this way. If anything I would encourage the spending of time and money on education not penalise people for it. I'd rather they took their children to see places of educational interest, spent money on books than on babysitters so they can go down the pub. I'm suggesting that we are all treated equally, that we can spend what we like on our kids when alive and when we die our assets go back to the people. I'm not denying anyone the right to spend what they like. Just because they perhaps don't have the means that others do doesn't mean that the idea is inherently unfair. People currently spend a percentage of their incomes on their children. This would not change. I spend 10%, others can spend 10%. The ordinary person who everyone seems to be talking about, well, they may be ordinary in what they earns but they're certainly not ordinary in terms of what the state gives them during their life times compared to their incomes. Let's take Mr X who earns £30k a year and owns a £150k house. I don't know current stats but I'll take a stab that overall, Mr X has been given, over his life time, 10X more money than he has ever paid into the system. Mr X pays about £5k a year in tax, over 50 years he pays in about £250k. That doesn't go anywhere near paying for all the services he has used, be it education for his child or the medical bills he incurs. Why should he not pay back society with the money he has saved? Mr Y pays £190k a year in income tax. In one year he has almost paid as much as Mr X does in a lifetime. Yet Mr Y uses only a tiny amount of the resources that Mr X does. He sends his children to private school thus not using the state system, has private medical and dental, even uses private GP services. He lives in a neighbourhood which needs little policing, he is contributing an awful lot to the system yet taking very little. When both Mr X and Mr Y die Mr Y might have paid out more money to educate his child but he's also paid out an awful lot of money so that Mr X could educate his child in the state system, so that Mr X's child had access to the NHS and had cheap prescriptions and free dental and eye treatment etc etc etc. I think it's only fair that Mr X thanks the state and gives the assets the state enabled him to make back when he dies. If anything I imagine Mr Y is thinking that maybe he ought to be allowed to keep his and give them to his children, after all, he's already contributed more than he has ever taken. But why should his child get the benefits? To some extent the child already has so let's make it fair and take his money too. If anything isn't this 100% inheritance tax system more unfair on Mr Y? It's an interesting argument isn't it? Why should someone who has only been able to build assets because the state has allowed him to be allowed to pass on those assets to his kids? In some ways it might be fairer for those assets to go back to the high tax earners who enabled his life. No?
  13. What do I have to be jealous of exactly? Huh? Keep up ith the Jones'? Why would I want to do such a thing? In any case, I can keep up with anyone I wish to, I just choose not to. Yes, I agree I'm passing on wealth whilst I'm still alive. I've already admitted the contradiction. However when alive I think it's right that one can do what they like with their money. They have earned it. Once I'm dead then I think that choice should end. To all intents and purpose it does anyway unless you have established trusts. As for those children in a family business, I was specifically clear on 'creation of wealth'. If the child plays an active part in the creation or sustainance then of course we need to make an exception. A will is not about choice, if you really want choice then forget the will. Spend a few quid setting up trusts, then you can really choose what happens with your money. Maybe people are better at making their money work for the community than the government, that's irrelevant though isn't it? First the individual cannot see the bigger picture nor contribute to a scheme focused on the bigger picture. Second, inherited money does not generally end up being spent on community issues, it's spent on buying a nice house or on a holiday or a car etc.
  14. I sometimes wonder why I bother paying tax when I see attitudes like this. Maybe I should just hoard my money, stop paying tax, stop giving to charity and then pass the lot onto my family whilst avoiding all inheritance tax. Maybe that's what I'll end up doing if your attitude, and others on this board, becomes that of the majority. It's very sad really.
  15. You're essentially putting forward an argument for abolishing the tax system completely. "I earned my money, why should I have to give any of it away?" It's nonsense. The fact is the state needs to tax the individual to provide for the collective good of all. I'm simply making an argument to extend the tax on those who have died. Face it, the state enabled you and me to earn the money we have. The state invested in us and as such deserves a return. What you're forgetting is that we are the state. Me, you and everyone else on this board. I believe that we should all pool our collective wealth upon our death and spread it around to others who need it. The only argument I'm hearing is about freedom. Can a dead person have freedom of choice? Isn't freedom gone once one dies? Irrespective of that answer I'm still waiting to hear why a relative 'deserves' the money that their parents made when they have had no hand in it's creation. I don't understand how anyone can argue that they do. When you're dead you're dead. It matters not where your money goes. You're dead. End of. The only person it matters to is those inheriting the assets. Why an individual deserves to inherit money and why the state does not is beyond me. What purpose does it serve? Give the money back to all of us, let's spend it on societal issues.
  16. I'm not just talking about the landed rich either, I'm talking about everyone. I do believe it's right for people to give up their possessions when they die for the good of society. Why not? If it benefits all, if it works towards the greater good then what's the problem? Your children should have no need to depend or rely on your assets in any way. Let them make their own way in life. As for my 'privileged' upbringing, I used to live in one of these: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-10923522.rsp I made my own way in life, I certainly don't need my mother's money when she dies. Why should anyone else? Go to school, get a good education, go to a good university, read something worthwhile and find a good job. It's really not that difficult. Why anyone needs hand-me-downs is beyond me. The very fact one needs it means they don't deserve it.
  17. It's slightly less than £30kpa but you also need to account for term money and bits and bobs, uniforms, school trips etc. I earn the money and I spend it how I see fit. I also pay more than a small house is worth in taxes so I think that after paying taxes (which, let's be honest I don't really have to and many don't) and giving to charity I should the be able to choose what I do with the rest of it. I choose to spend it on education, I suppose I could spend it on nice cars etc but hopefully, by spending it on education, the cycle continues and my family will continue to contribute a lot in taxes and hopefully give more than just money back to society. I think one should be able to do as they wish with their money, the money that they have earned. We can't nor should we prescribe how people spend their money, I can't envisage a system where that would work. However once they die why not give that money back to the people? Ultimately that money was state sponsored in the first place. Sure I work and earn the money but without the state I would never have been in a position to earn it. In some ways the state sponsored me, invested in me why should I not give back once I die? Give it to those more needy than my family? There's no need for family's to hoard wealth, I think it's very difficult to argue that there is.
  18. Of course it's contradictory, I fully appreciate that my efforts in life, and luck of course, will advantage my son more than some other children. I just don't think he deserves to benefit even more by inheriting wealth which he had no role in creating. He will have no need for it, he'll make his own way using the many many superb tools at his disposal. If he doesn't, if he fails with all the advantages he will have had then inheriting that kind of money will do him no good anyway. I simply do not see why children should live off of family wealth. Put the money back into the pot and use it to educate and look after a whole new generation. Rather than Mr X inheriting £50m of his family's money and spending it on a Ferrari, a yacht, a couple of massive houses and an excessive coke habit, wouldn't it be better if that £50m was used for educating thousands of children for example? Mr X can go and work for a living.
  19. We could get into this but I'm tired Briefly, I think that 100% should go back into the state's coffers with the ability of the family to buy back land (for example) at a small discount. There is no reason for the landed or the rich to pass that on to their children. The children already get the benefit through private schooling etc. As for the notion that the money is yours, I would argue that the the state enabled you to make that money, therefore it can go back to the state. I guess I'm just sick and tired of seeing dicks doing nothing with their lives and inheriting more money than they could ever spend on that coke habit. My son is going to earn his own way in life. I will enable his journey by paying his £30k a year for school making sure he has every chance in life but there's no way he needs millions to sit back on, he can earn it himself and value it all the more for doing so. Why should he prosper more than someone else's son just because I managed to get a good job. Everyone should start with a clean slate. I attended a nice public school and my experiences of those people inform my attitude to inheritance tax and the ridiculous amounts of money left to people who in no way deserve it. What have they ever done to inherit £150m? Nothing and the fact that they know they will inherit it has made them even more slack and unwilling to contribute to society or educate themselves. Sorry, a little drunken rant from me
  20. Unfortunately the government only takes a small percentage of the assets left, hopefully, as time goes by, 100% of it will be taxed. Unless of course if you have a good accountant and some nice trusts set up, then you won't have to pay anything back to the state.
  21. Wimbledon Incidentally, that place is now under offer. As for Wimbledon, it's a great place, sure parts of SW19 are a bit grotty but I've not found many places with a nicer atmosphere and easy access to greenery like the common. Very good private and state schools, it's a great place for families, one of the best places in London I think. That view is backed up by the Wimbledon 'house price bubble' which is still very apparent. It will decrease I think but there's a reason prices are so high, it's a very desirable area. That house actually looks like a good deal compared to say this: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-9627222.rsp or this: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-22448441.rsp
  22. Just back from work, it's been a pretty good day all round. Then I see this nonsense. Why would a 'city boy' need a science PHD or need to be peer reviewed? As it happens, amongst three of my friends, two of us, who read PPE went into banking and finance, the third is now working for a research lab doing something with plant mutations. He has his work published, more than a few peer reviewed papers and certainly has a PHD a few times over. I don't think I've ever heard him criticise us because we don't have a science PHD. Indeed I imagine the city would be in an awful lot more trouble if we read biology rather than PPE. Why you would think a science degree would be advantageous is beyond me. As much as I respect Richard Dawkins his peer reviewed work certainly does not qualify him to work in the money markets, I think he'd be the first to admit that. As an aside, I imagine Dawkins is many more times qualified in his field than you are in yours. The funny thing is, I very much doubt he would point this out nor use it in a discussion on a house price forum. As for your LSE comment, what a pompous ass you are. The LSE has always been a fantastic university producing some of the best names in the world of economics. Mundell, Coase and Sir William Arthur Lewis would agree with me I'm sure.
  23. The funny thing is that the £100k wideboys probably aren't even earning £100k, those lot that used to shout in the Sanderson on a Saturday about how much money they have...none of them are liquid, everything's on credit, up to their eyeballs in debt hoping that that bonus is imminent. To be fair nowadays most are the youngsters just starting, first time with a bit of cash, of course you blow it on silly stuff, haven't we all?
  24. I once worked in a factory to pay my way through university. I remember someone laughing at me because I wasn't wearing Ben Sherman or that other make, erm, YSL I think it was. Told I was a university tosspot or something similar. The factory was full of them, does that make everyone working in a factory a twit? Moreover, does my one stint working in one factory give me the ability to judge every factory worker in every factory? Pratt. Out of interest, which bank was it that this took place in and what year?
  • 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.