Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

chriswov

New Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About chriswov

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. @wonderpup does that mean Homeownerism is a related mental disorder?
  2. Yes. And your other points will almost certainly come to fruition.
  3. Sherwick,you beat me to the correction I must improve my keyboard speed!
  4. Sorry,it was obviously the other way about and he got lots of $'s for very few£'s-
  5. In May 1980 it was very nearly parity,my brother went to Florida then and came back with tales of how inexpensive it was out there
  6. As a farmer in 2001 the Nat-West bank loaned me 1500 tonnesof wheat to buy a small cottage to retire to . I would need to give them 75 tonnes per year for 20 years plus interest. That was the deal on the day. Although I have paid off some of the capital if the original loan was the same I would now owe The bank 636 tonnes only 31.8 tonnes per year for the 20 years. If i had bought a house in 1970 after leaving school when houses were probably about £2000 I would have needed about 100 tonnes of Wheat @£20 tonne. This says as much about how real wheat prices fell for 40 years as how real house prices increased,most likely on the back of ever lower real wheat prices and by extension food prices in general. Could wheat prices ever get back to 100 tonnes per house? The average house is now about 1000 tonnes. It is almost a racing certainty(sorry for the oxymoron)that the weight of wheat needed to buy a house is going to reduce.
  7. As a farmer I check my outstanding mortgage against Tonnes of Wheat. 1500 tonnes 2001.Same mortgage 636 tonnes now . Have some of that!
  8. The Labour party is certainly all for HPI-"Talk to us" said their leaflet through my door. I asked them if they would welcome falls in the price of houses as they would lower prices for food fuel and clothing. The reply did not welcome price falls. I'm still waiting for a straight Y/N. There is something very fishy going on out there. I went on to point out that lower prices would save taxpayers' money on entitlements to rent and mortgage interest and the money saved could help hold down NIC increases-win,win. They're not interested.
  9. Merv said over the w/e he wanted us to learn about QE on his web site .I've just got to the section "How monetary policy works". I am now speechless.
  10. If prices rise due to a shortage then,correct me if I am wrong,your income is index linked up to match so you don't suffer from the shortage? If I am right then all those in the public sector and on benefits will never be aware of a shortage?So that means the shortage of these goods(usually food)will be shared only (paradoxically) by those that produce them?Zimbabwe here we come.(Hyperinflation there starts with the freshly printed notes being used to pay the public sector) If the above scenario comes about there will be bartering with the resultant loss of tax.
  11. You still don't get the maths leave alone the unfairness. The maths are that 80% of the working population are in the private sector a ratio of 4:1. That means every £1 I pay towards your public sector pay/early retirement/index linked pension is matched by another £3 making £4 available to you. IF we wanted any of your goldplated benefits we would have to pay the full £4 EACH on top of the£1 we've given to you-do you see where we're coming from yet?
  12. Absolutezero has confused jealousy with unfairness insofaras he sees jealousy is for the churlish whereas with unfairness it's tough ****.Most of the posters here just want the unfairness corrected and of course that's what is getting him going. If he was a maths and sociology teacher he could probably see where we are coming from and might even understand that the present situation is mathematically and( probably even more) sociologically untenable.
  13. This is an argument you can't win. All public sector pay/benefits /pensions are effectively paid net of income tax/nic/pension cont i.e. you just get takehome pay and don't pay tax like someone in the private sector who (mostly) hand over to the govt something tangible, albeit money we have been paid for said goods/services. The trouble is you're helping yourselves to unrealistic amounts of these goods/services/money to be sustainable-it simply doesn't exist. In the future the number of taxpayers(for the purposeof this argument private sector ONLY) due to demographics is going to reduce-what happens then? Answer,taxes go up. My reaction to this-sod it I'm not working my nads off and paying tax I'm quite happy to be on low income and top-ups rather than line your pocket result taxes go up another notch-this time affecting YOUR takehome pay bringing me more in line with your spending power. I can't wait! My sister is a teacher(economics!)so I've had all the rantings. Now that they are certainly better off than us in the private sector their riposte(given out centrally to make it easy for them)is "Well,you made your choice"-she implies that we can all be public servants and then there wouldn't be any arguments,at this point words fail me!
×
×
  • 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.