Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Caveat Mortgagor

Members
  • Posts

    1,368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Caveat Mortgagor

  1. My mate who works in the job centre says the difference in your two figures is down to the JSA bill figure you've used including the department administration costs. He reckons the actual figure paid to claimants is around 4.5bn and the DWP figures for payments to claimants would probably back that up.

    You spectacularly missed my point. JSA is only one payment to the unemployed. Yet the statement says only 2.6% of benefits go to the unemployed.

    It is a huge misdirection to suggest JSA represents total payments to the unemployed. In fact based on people i know claiming, i would hazard a guess that JSA accounts for less than 20% of the overall benefit they get.

  2. Fact 1 2.6% of all benefits go to the unemployed.

    This is nothing short of a lie. They may say it was misworded, but the figure for JSA alone in 2011/12 was £5.91bn. From a total bill of £159bn this is nearly 3.1%. Then add on the payments for housing benefit, council tax benefit, tax credits, etc.

    Fact 7 Immigrants are 60% less likely to claim benefits than a British-born person

    Ive found a telegraph article from 2013 which states immigrants are more likely to claim benefits, though granted it is rather short on hard stats, and high on someone elses analysis.

    I wonder if the 'quality' of immigrants has fallen in recent years along with the real terms pay they receive, and will the stat regarding claiming some form of benefit increase? I have noticed that the influx of romanians has meant a wave of near illiterate people applying for work. Polish, Latvian, Lithuanian etc applicants all have a style of writing which is easy for them to read and more difficult for my english eyes. But the romanians all seem to have style of writing which resembles that of a 4 yr old holding a pencil for the first time.

    If i am right, i can only foresee long term low paid 'desperation jobs' supported by in work benefits and no ability to improve their lot and get out of needing benefits.


    I

  3. Times, they are a changing...

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-45664646.html

    10/06/2014
    Price changed: from '£1,200,000' to '£995,000'
    09/04/2014
    Initial entry found.

    If you put the postcode into the rightmove 'price comparison report' then look at 'no longer on the market'. It seems to me they have floated this house on the market a few times in the past. Doesnt show as selling at any point so on that basis i guess its the same vendors all the way through.

    £945k in 2009

    £875k in 2010

    £825k in 2011

    So there you have it. Dropped the price to sell between 2009 - 11, but now wont sell it 'for less than its worth'. Havent they learned anything in the last 5 years of failing to sell?

  4. Ability to service debt is based on disposable income. Alas this is not the same thing as wages.

    Today i had an applicant ask me if i had any part time work. She is in a full time job, but is willing to leave and take anything part time. The reason? Her in-work benefits are being cut. She will be better off if she works part time than if she works full time.

    In an environment where the lowest paid tier of the working population (and ive no idea how big that tier is, i guess it could be as small as lowest paid 10% or as much as lowest paid 50%) are are incentivised to reduce hours to increase their disposable income then i cannot see a significant increase in wages. I can however see that these people will be better able to service debts than they currently are.

    Transfer payments have corrupted the long term link between earnings and the cost of the average house as much as any other govt based interference (int rates, relaxing regulation, htb, smi).

    In short, the thread should be re-titled, "the housing recovery will only be possible with continued and increased govt interference".

    Edit: How could i overlook funding for lending?

  5. A lot of people obviously do not see that the money they overpay for a house means they will have a reduced standard of living. I did kind of hope this would focus the minds of the less financially astute. They have a choice of paying for an overpriced pile of bricks, or having the odd home cooked steak / contract mobile phone. A lot of people obviously do not see that the money they overpay for a house means they will have less money to spend on other areas of their lives.

    Wonder how the little darlings would squeal if the bank didnt bother with interviews, but rigidly stuck to 3.5x single income or 2.5x joint. Whats that? You get a shit load of tax credits and you dont smoke? Great, you might have some money left over every month for a pint or a weekend away.

    The way they squeal about wanting to give a bigger slice of their income for a bubble priced asset is alarming, but sadly not surprising. Anyway, F_ck em. If the lemmings are prepared to let the bank see just exactly how much they can rinse them for, they deserve everything they get.

  6. 1. More traffic on the roads.

    2. Presumably there would have to be a disincentive to working more than the prescribed number of hours. I guess this would mean a lot of people going underground, meaning tax revenues suffer

    3. Culture - especially amongst older industrial workers (who didnt have chance to play tax credit system). Normal time pays the bills, overtime pays for holidays, the pub and fags.

  7. Is this a real phenomenon or just lazy journalists being used by a VI to whip up a frenzy?

    Say an EA has agreed a sale for £200k. They have a buyer who can complete and they can get paid their fee. Why would they cancel the deal and start the process again just to sell for £205,000 and increase the fee by £50?

    Sell the same house twice and bill £2050, or sell two houses and bill £4k

    Even estate agents arent stupid enough to make themselves busy fools in this manner.

  8. The bloke only gets what his advertisers want him to get.

    Had a twitter spat with him over a couple of days when he recommended student fees as good value. At the time he couldnt see that young people get a really shit deal in terms of paying for uni, low paid jobs, high housing costs all coupled with huge public debt which should mean (if govt ever has any sense) higher taxes than would have been the case if public debt was lower.

  9. Amazing that prices have to get sooooo far out of control for our lords and masters to start to identify a problem.

    Why the fvck were they ever elected to any position of power and responsibility for making important decisions?

    As aSecure Tenant says, the solution will not be to allow prices to fall, it will involve some market interference.

    I foresee HTB3, where 20% equity is provided for essential political workers and if the recipient completes a full 4 year term the equity becomes a tax free gift.

  10. My employer had to start auto enrollment 3 months ago. I immediately opted out. At least, it would have been immediate if the pension company systems worked smoothly.

    Would it be cynical of me to think that they make opting out as difficult as possible in the hope that a lot of people would get fed up and give in?

    You have to create an account in order to opt out, so they can use the following tricks.....

    • 'enter your payroll number'. What they meant was enter the amended payroll number that is recorded on the enrollment letter we haven't sent you.
    • Create a password. It doesnt tell you how many minimum characters, that you must have a mixture of upper and lower case and both numbers and letters. It will tell you one by one what you have done wrong.
    • So if you enter the password 'today' it will say 'not enough characters.
    • try 'tomorrow' and it will say 'must have at least one capital
    • try 'Tomorrow' and it will say 'must have at least one number
    • When i eventually entered my password it said 'congratulations your account is now set up'. It didnt tell me it was sending an activation e-mail and i should check for it. Instead i spent 10 mins trying to navigate through a new website, but found I couldnt use most of it as my account wasnt activated.

    I know a lot of my colleagues gave up until some kind soul eventually put together a guide to help others to avoid the pitfalls and frustrations.

    Reckon this one will be a future mis-selling type claim for hundreds of thousands / millions of people

    Edit to add - Despite opting out in October, "administrative issues" mean I still havent had my contributions returned. Wonder if i count as one of their 90%

  11. I am sure it would be possible for the anarchic members of this board to advocate some form of mischievous 'rent strike' message for the 200 affected tenants.

    Using social media, I am sure it wouldnt be hard to get a message to the affected tenants.

    Assume he loses 3 months rent on each tenancy before he can evict, and an average of a couple of months voids per property when he has regained possession, then throw in the court costs. I reckon Fat Fergus could have a real headache. Surely something like that would cost him upwards of a million quid. Would that bring him down if he's under pressure from lenders?

  12. The government believes consumption of this resource, or at least excess consumption, is a bad thing. Thus it institutes a charge to the individual based on it's consumption. This has the effect of increasing the relative cost of the resource to the individual, and if it is consumed, the amount that the individual can spend on other things is reduced. Am I talking about -

    1) Alcohol and cigarette duty

    2) More bedroom's than the government deems is necessary relative to your household size for social housing tenants

    If you cannot distinguish whether I am talking about 1) or 2) then the two charges are fungible. So either alcohol and cigarette duty are not taxes, or the bedroom tax is indeed a tax. Which is it?

    I dont smoke, but if i did, i would have to pay the same duty on cigarettes as everyone else - regardless of the source of their income.

    I dont live in social housing, but if i did, the removal of the spare room subsidy would not cost me a penny more. The reason? My income does not include a penny in benefits.

    I think the left would gain (a little more) sympathy if they dropped the term 'tax' and focussed on 'an attack on the poor'.

    But whilst they continue to foam rabidly about non-existant taxes they will remain an ineffective opposition to a f_cking useless government. And meanwhile any semblance of democracy suffers.

×
×
  • 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.