Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Redcellar

Members
  • Posts

    2,783
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Redcellar

  1. I don't know much about these things but i feel like this is a bit like the start of a crack up boom

    If the world wishes to deplete savings via subversion, inflation and potential forfeiture then the money will transfer to assets

    Do you mean tangible assets? As savings, aka cash is also an asset.

    There are other choices. The world may decide to save more and I heard that this is typically what happens. Or some may decide to spend it on useless tat, like shiny new cars, kitchens and holidays.

  2. There's almost no correlation between the performance of the stock market and the economy proper.

    Full-time job creation is non-existent.

    Our trading partners are as threadbare as we are, inside or outside of the eurozone, including the BRICs.

    At its present rate of growth the interest on the UK's national debt may be somewhere north of £100bn/year by 2017.

    Ka-boom!

    +3

    Only point I am not sure on is the interest charges.

    The stock market is booming because there's nowhere for serious investors to sink the mega bucks and get a decent return. Absolutely no true and fair link to the value of the company. And hasn't for many years.

    Full time versus part time is definitely the elephant in the room. And I am surprised more aren't talking about it. With expectations both work to pay down debts, seems like a bit of a big assumption and therefore mess.

    Back on topic though, as many wise people have said here before; the ability to pay ever increasing sums for housing is based on the ability to borrow and that is ultimately controlled by the banks and not the whimsical decision of the prospective purchaser of what they guess a value to be.

  3. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/co-ops-swoop-632-lloyds-branches-1767084

    The Co-op blamed the big banking loss on loan impairments on non-core operations mainly relating to its 2009 acquisition of Britannia and a further provision of £150m to cover payment protection mis-selling.

    However, its core banking business still saw profits fall to £120m, from £173m a year ago.

    Group results, including its food arm and specialist operations in pharmacy and funeralcare, showed an 18 per cent fall in operating profits to £431m. Including the banking hit, bottom-line losses were £599m.

    And this is one of the main reasons the subsidized deposit scheme will fail.

    The banks are still short of cash and limiting loans to only the most credit worthy. The people on HPC seem to forget that this is a two part deal with banks like co-op still needed to lend 80%. 80%!!! Yes the larger part of the loan.

    HSBC and Barclays are still making decent money but Barclays have a 60% LTV policy and I suspect HSBC are pretty tight too.

    The co-ops and other low end bottom feeders are suffering. Kind of reminds us of the USA sub prime fiasco. Same sh1t then of the low end bottom feeders making great money in the easy days and going to the wall later. AKA ResCap.

  4. Low interest rates are great, but they're the party that wants to encourage savers. Debt is bad and the cause of the problem they acknowledge whilst wagging their fingers at labour, but at the same time come up with wheezes to encourage people into debt to buy over priced housing. Not enough for a deposit? Hey we can lend it to you. Bank won't lend at the high ltv you need because WE TOLD THEM NOT TO because irresponsible lending is what got us in this mess in the first place? We can encourage them to now, by guaranteeing bad debt with your tax money.

    How they can hold these polar opposing views at the same time is utterly bizarre. It came across in camerons little speech on the economy a few days ago as well. Debt is the problem and also the solution apparently. Precisely what they accuse labour of thinking.

    What is wrong with these people?

    Short sighted, seeking applause from the gullible.

    It simply won't work.

    20% deposits hasn't been the main limiting factor. Plenty of people with that are turned down because they don't have perfect credit records, the house they want to buy is overpriced. There is little to lend so the banks pick the best of the best.

    Here's what will happen. There will be a slight uptick that everyone will herald a success. Then it will be back to today.

    And what happens to all those remortgages. They aren't part of this scheme and are stuck with their current bank on a variable rate and a house that has them underwater. And you want to join that party when the deal runs out?

    Wall papering over the cracks. Or crack addicts being given subsidized heroine. Both would be appropriate analogies.

  5. Well seeing as I am free to take a piece of idle land and build a house upon it without paying any fee's at all, then I suppose your right, it ain't a tax.

    Oh, wait, hang on a minute...

    I am not free to use idle land without paying a tax.

    Even if I own land, I am not free to build a house on it without paying a tax in the form of planning permission.

    Even if I own land with planning permission I am not free to build a house on it without paying a tax, in the form of purchasing materials from people who exercise monopolies over their production.

    I could go on...

    There is no free-market in housing, it is as simple as that. For if there was one, then house prices would tend towards 0, they would fall down to build cost. Build costs would fall, and in times of low demand, they would fall below build cost.

    You may have wandered off the topic. You may or may not have a point on general taxation or benefits.

    Back on topic though. The benefit pays for housing. The benefit being paid will be reduced if there are bedrooms not being used. They are not being asked to handover money they receive, which would be a tax. They are simply being given less. Correct me if I am wrong though.

  6. You explain.

    Also explain to me why "we" pay the Duke of Westminster millions each year purely for the fact he owns land, land which his forebears stole in the first place?

    I don't see the Duke or wealthy land owners being forced into one bed flats.

    If we are going to have benefit cuts, lets start at the top. Lets start chopping corporate welfare and fat cat land owning parasite benefits.

    Either that or we (forciibly) start taking land back that was stolen in the first place?

    I have to explain why you said what you did???? :huh:

    That'll be interesting.

    I think we'll end this one here as it becomes nonsensical.

  7. A handout is something you are given that you can do with as you please.

    Housing benefit ain't a handout. It a susbsidy for property.

    At the same time as the bedroom tax comes in, the unemployed will be liable for council tax due changes to the council tax benefit system.

    Next you will be saying that, that ain't a tax, because it is a reduction in a handout (in the form of council tax benefit).

    Injin is right when he says most things are just the government, making and cancelling demands.

    If you imposed a monopoly currency on a Mr A. Mugger, and denied him the ability to brew his own beer, then allotted him a proportion of said monopoly money to buy beer, controlled the price of beer via taxation denominated in said monopoly currency, increased the level of taxation upon beer, and simultaneously reduced the amount of money allotted to him for beer purchase, whilst denying him from being able to brew his own beer. Then yes you would be taxing Mr A. Mugger.

    A tax can only exist when you produce something that has a fee levied upon it.

    Since this is a benefit, which is someone giving you something for nothing, then it cannot be a tax. It is a reduction in a benefit and nothing more.

    It's not a tax. It is a reduction in a benefit, but then that doesn't make it sound the way some people want it to.

  8. Because that is what their Labour handlers told them to call it. To anyone with an ounce of rationality, calling a reduction in a handout a 'tax' is ludicrous.

    I suppose if I spend a tenner in my wallet I have 'taxed' a mugger who then steals said wallet from me?

    +1

    It's a reduction in benefits to pay for what is required and no more. If you don't need extra rooms why should society pay for them.

    Oh yes, 'because you got used to it' ;)

    When the country is running a huge deficit and pay is going down in real terms, how can someone complain that their benefits have been reduced but they still have what they need. IMPO seems selfish to me.

  9. The thing is... Their struggle getting to the second step is fantastic for those of us who have avoided the first step altogether. Very happy for my rental place to be my first step. And I've avoided the stamp duty and crazy legal fees.

    I've (almost) got my 20% deposit for my second step place without the need for the capriciousness of the housing market in helping me there.

    +1

    and I expect that will be +1000.

    If the second steppers don't have the deposit because their first place dropped in price, and it's considered too small, why won't I just buy a second stepper place since they will want my cash.

    Average age of FTBers is heading to mid 30's = kids en route, so why buy an overpriced shoe box? The fun and games ensue.

  10. Or, to put it another way, the non-interest part of a mortgage payment is invested in a house.

    If you rent, that money can be invested in something else, such as gold, Nazi memorabilia, or one of Grant Schapps how to get rich books.

    I loved his "make $20,000 in 20 days guaranteed or your money back". I became a politician too.

  11. You can't compare renting against owning using the BTL analysis.

    If you rented compared to buying over any period you've lost out as unless there is a large reduction in house prices you've missed out on 5 years worth of payments into a mortgage instead paying rent onto the pocket of a landlord.

    Of course you can.

    BTL pay maintenance and insurance as the reports said. Owning you also pay those two.

    Renting you pay neither, another person does.

    Of course you're absolutely right about it being dead money. Get on the ladder now before it's too late. Blah blah blah blah blah :lol:

  12. This isn't seasonally adjusted so before everyone gets too excited I suspect most people on here would think January is one of the quieter months so we shouldn't be too surprised and expect that we should possibly expect increases stating in a month or 2.

    Still it looks like FLS is largely replacing other more expensive sources of money rather than being largely an additional source of money to lend.

    Santander seems to have been taking a hit in Spain lately and their UK lending had gone down in the autumn does any one have any new data? It may be that Lloyds and RBS have increased lending but that others (Santander, certain BS etc) have cut lending.

    Compare like for like - "a 3% fall from £10.7 billion in January 2012"

    That'll do pig, that'll do.

  13. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00tw84c

    First of 8 episodes...

    Part 1 - NIMBYs...ten grand for a dropped kerb! ruddy nora...

    One hour of f*cking nimbyism. I don't want to overlook houses. These fields have been here since X.

    Lets go find some great crested newts. Grab a newt everyone and stick a crest on them.

    Yet they all live in newish houses and forget that Englands green an pleasant land is a relatively new concept anyway.

    8 episodes of this sh1t all paid for by us. Where's the refund form for the licence fee.

  14. Can't see this posted elsewhere:

    Radio 5 6am breakfast show today.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01q96w0/5_live_Breakfast_28_01_2013/

    52:50 sets the scene, about a minute later. "Did young people just suddenly not need a pension" .... and .... "can people afford to pay the pensions" .... "increasingly difficult not just for a young person to get on the property market but also to get a pension" .... "EMIGRATE"

    Said completely in jest or perhaps a hidden truth?

×
×
  • 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.