Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Scooter

Members
  • Posts

    1,000
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Scooter

  1. Come off it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    People on those kinds of salaries are not paying their dues. They pay accountants to make sure their liabilities are minimised using every loophole in the book. The idea that they are paying 40% income tax is plain ludicrous. Just look at the so called 'lehgitimate' expenses MPs claim back for example.

    FFS!!!!

    Why do you think there are that many loopholes? You can pay into ISAs (£7000), into your pension for tax relief (uplift in pension and some income tax relief), pay into a venture capital trust for 30% credit but very high risk of losing capital and then you are left with funding British films for tax relief, equally evry high risk. You could go offshore but this is not that safe from tax either and it restricts use of your own assets. I am not sure what is left other than trying to manufacture losses through complex corporate/debt structures to offset tax on earnings and profits, not an easy task.

    S

  2. Spot on

    What does annot me about the huge salaries paid in the city is this fantasy that that wealth filters down to ordinary people. Like fekk it does

    And the other thing that riles me is the rich pay fekk all tax in this country and the middle class foot the bill for their measly contribution.

    Bonuses are taxed at 40% plus NI like any other income over the threshold-why do you think the rich (other than the handful of Mittals etc) pay very little tax? I guess it depends what you call rich.

    S.

  3. We're in danger of turning 'success' into a dirty word

    By Jeff Randall

    There's something in the air; something that's not quite right.

    After a decade of Labour government, dedicated to increasing equality, widening inclusion and improving public services, those who should have benefited seem unhappier than ever. The stench of naked envy is polluting Britain, like stale cigar smoke in a dining room.

    Perhaps Labour's core voters expected too much. Perhaps they thought that 10 years of Tony would be like winning the pools. More pay, less work, free ride.

    advertisementPerhaps they are confused. Gordon insists that the system is working brilliantly, yet experience tells them that property is becoming ever more unaffordable, NHS hospitals are closing and state schools are a lottery.

    An average house costs £200,000. An average salary pays £25,000. Trying to buy the former, while earning the latter, is enough to make even Happy Larry feel miserable.

    Ordinary people are painfully aware that, though they have little problem affording many household essentials, cheap food and discount clothing, when it comes to securing high-quality education and health facilities, life starts to get tricky.

    Despite Brown's injection of many extra billions of pounds into state schools and hospitals, voters know that there's a disconnect between what has been spent and what is being delivered. More resources going in hasn't meant better services coming out.

    Where there's private-sector competition, by and large, the economy is producing more for less. As a result, we're all better off. But where there are public-sector monopolies, it's often the other way round: value-for-money exists only as a concept.

    This has thrown up some bizarre anomalies. Minimum-wage earners can afford to fly to Spain twice a year, but they can't find a dentist. They can buy a ticket to Malaga in five minutes, but need to queue all morning to have their molars fixed.

    And it's not just those at the bottom of the ladder who are fed up. A breadwinner on £50,000 is forced to share his wage packet almost equally between his family and the Chancellor. British taxes are at their highest level for 20 years.

    For those even farther up the income scale, there is, at least, the option of paying twice: first through taxation and again via school fees and health insurance. Though galling, many prefer to forego holidays than condemn their kids to a second-rate education.

    By the way, for those who are keen to find out more about the shortcomings of state schools, letters and post-cards, please, to Labour MPs Ruth Kelly and Diane Abbott.

    For the majority who make up Middle Britain - the people who it is fashionable to call "hard-working families" - there is a mounting sense of injustice.

    Above them, they see City bankers and commodity traders earning more in a year than they will in a lifetime. Below, there is an underclass of benefits junkies who take whatever they can, while contributing next to nothing.

    When you're working 10-hour days and commuting on top, it's hard to accept that a financier can make your annual salary in a single phone call. Equally, it's tempting to be cynical about what Lord Browne does to earn £90,000 a week at BP.

    As for welfare scroungers, why does the Government allow 1m incapacity-benefit claimants (there are 2.7m in all) to continue drawing handouts, even though ministers believe that they could and should be in employment?

    If half a million Poles, many with no English, can find jobs in Britain, why can't all those domestic idlers earn a living? And why should we pay for them? These understandable anxieties, and others like them, are gnawing away at the silent majority.

    The upshot is the unfortunate growth of a grievance culture. In the 1970s, it was known as "the politics of envy" and manifested itself in the question: "If I can't have it, why should you?" Today's sociologists call it "success resentment".

    Early promises from New Labour about a positive attitude to wealth creation have wilted along with the Prime Minister's popularity. The Government says that it wants Britain to have a dynamic, entrepreneurial economy, yet ministers are taking cheap-shot swipes at the winners who are coining it. It's intellectual dishonesty.

    Peter Hain, Alan Johnson, Beverley Hughes are sending out signals that it's OK to have a pop at big earners. Unsurprisingly, the trade unions are on the warpath.

    In particular, GMB leaders are persecuting Damon Buffini for making so much money at the private-equity firm Permira. They claim his salary is paid for by the misery of others. Yes, Permira got rid of a lot of staff at the AA. But has anybody bothered to look at its other businesses?

    Buffini's team has created many more jobs than it has destroyed, but nobody wants to hear that. Voters are angry and politicians are delighted to pander to their prejudices. So, too, are parts of the media.

    In its coverage of the private-equity debate, Newsnight, BBC2's main current-affairs programme, depicted those in the industry as stand-and-deliver Dick Turpins. When I asked the editor of another leading BBC news show about impartiality and the internal reaction to Newsnight's approach, he said: "Nobody even mentioned it."

    We are, as a business-based economy, regressing, sliding backwards, dangerously close to the point where financial success is no longer admired; instead it has to be justified. Too many businesses that are doing well are pilloried rather than applauded.

    The vocabulary of analysis is changing, too. New codes have crept in. Markets are "casinos", profits are "rip-offs" and dealers are "spivs".

    When I was business editor at the BBC, I became bored by having to bridge the yawning gap between public concern that our pension funds should be well funded and general disgust that banks, supermarkets and pharmaceutical companies were making so much money. One, of course, is paid for by the other.

    I have moved on, but the debate has not.

  4. Now I'm as bearish as the next man - unless that man's Realist Bear.

    But sometimes this whole thing just leaves me depressed. The market just throws up more suprises all the time and a crash still seems like a LONG WAY off. It seems we're off the map here, common sense went out the window long ago.

    Retail spending up again? Credit card spending down? Taxes at a 20 year high? Where the hell is all this money coming from?

    Does anyone have any figures for the proportion of current mortgage approvals which are equity release?

    As in the boss of the $6m man? Excellent!

  5. ;) I just had visions of a purple alien wielding petrol bombs and storming the council meeting screaming "Save the play centre". Hence the scared smiley. :unsure:

    I wouldn't dream of interfering with your right to protest... I just wouldn't try it where I live. :)

    My purple skin is a little paler in the flesh after the winter. Actually I am likely to be protesting against the playgroup protesters as well. My anger/annoyance with Camden stems from my ever increasing tax bill and my non-consumption of virtually every service they provide beyond walking on the pavements and a bit of rubbish collection. I have had "hard working families" and "won't someone think of the children" and enforced settlement of Somalis on benefit (yes they really are by and large) up to my ears.

    I agree where you live you may get shot or crushed by a tank. I am more likely just to get locked up for vocally not buying into the Socialist Paradise (even with a few Lib Dems in power) that is LBC.

    S.

  6. Nutters all. Welcome to the asylum.

    But at least it's our asylum. :)

    Justice: I do wonder where they'd put all the people they tried to arrest if a hundred thousand actually got angry enough to march on Downing Street if they enforced the "no more than two rule" (a particularly ironic rule since suicide bombers rarely more about in groups of more than one!!! :blink: ). Aren't our jails supposed to be full? Do we really have that many holding cells in police stations in the capital? :ph34r:

    Scooter: "I think a few more job cuts would be in order. Had I know about the "protest", I would have shown these parasites a fecking riot." :unsure:

    Tim,

    Am I not allowed to be equally angry at the way my taxes are mispent?

    S.

  7. Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grubb... :lol:

    http://libcom.org/news/town-hall-riot-over...camden-01032007

    Town hall 'riot' over cuts in Camden

    March 1st, 2007 by libcom

    camden-council-storming.jpg

    Workers and residents angry at service and job cuts last night stormed a council meeting in the London Borough of Camden.

    Following a demonstration of approximately 200 people against the cutbacks, 100 attempted to enter the "open" council meeting. They were refused entry, being told there was insufficient room in the chamber.

    Those shut out, including staff, children and disabled activists began to chant to be given admittance and at one point broke through the security cordon to gain entrance to the meeting. Some squared up to the councillors and the Mayor's mace was knocked to the ground as the meeting was suspended.

    As a Camden council tax payer bled dry to pay for gold plated pensions, social-engineering non-jobs, massive absenteeism and local council propaganda papers printed in Somali and Urdu (English version a few pages in), I think a few more job cuts would be in order. Had I know about the "protest", I would have shown these parasites a fecking riot.

    S.

  8. I don't no what is going to happen. If I did I wouldn't be wasting my time on this site.

    But a correction is always followed by a few small rallies as the suckers believe the market has hit the floor. A dead cat bounce - we'll have to wait and see.

    Or are the suckers the ones who sold their shares/funds in panic? Time will tell. I am more interesting in buying a few things at the right level...

    S

  9. or let's not

    What do you suggest for anyone entering into this type of mortgage to be aware of?

    Do all parties have a clean credit history?

    How are the mortgage repayments made if one party was to lose their income?

    What are the legal implications if one of the group 'wants out' once the mortgage is up and running?

    This is just the 'tip of the iceberg' in relation to the potential pitfalls involved when considering these ill conceived schemes. What happens if a boyfriend or girlfriend wants to move in, or if a couple then have a child?

    Dividing up the illusory 'profits' could become equally a headache. On an average FTB (property priced at 150K ) should it rise by 10% this year then a party of 4 would on paper make 3.7K each, before taking into consideration selling fees etc.

    Now given that most analysts (such as Nationwide and Halifax) expect only 7% growth at best this year, the paper profits would be negligible and do not assist the FTB in getting on the first rung independently. If prices kept increasing by 7% over four years the percentage growth the co-buyer would enjoy would never keep up with house inflation overall, therfore their ambition of home ownership would never be realised, in fact the first rung would be slipping further out of reach. Individually the co-buyer would enjoy 7% growth in 4 years, yet the market would have moved on 28%!

    http://firstrung.co.uk/articles.asp?pageid...&cat=64-0-0

    Exactly-the pitfalls seem numerous and obvious. Who will buy a share in a house if someone leaves or falls out with the others? This just strikes me as incredibly desperate on a par with people priced out here buying a BTL in Bulgaria (or wherever).

    S.

  10. Let's all buy a house

    With the UK's stratospheric prices friends are clubbing together to get on the ladder, writes Liz Phillips

    Now that the average home in Britain costs more than £200,000 the first rung of the property ladder can seem a long stretch up for first-time buyers.

    advertisementAs a result buyers are taking less conventional routes to becoming home owners, including inter-generational loans where debts remain unpaid for decades. Another option to make high house prices more affordable is to club together with others to buy a property.

    Nearly all mortgage companies will now entertain the idea of lending to friends, siblings or even strangers buying a home together.

    Mel Bien of independent mortgage broker Savills Private Finance said: "More lenders are recognising this growing demand, allowing up to four people on one mortgage. This means borrowers can get a bigger loan than they could have done on their own, plus there are more people contributing to the deposit and monthly payments so it should be more affordable."

    But not all lenders calculate the amount they are prepared to advance in the same way. Even if there are more than two of you some lenders will only take the two highest incomes into account when calculating the amount you can borrow. This is the case with Northern Rock and C&G.

    Others such as HSBC and Britannia will take everyone's income in to account though most limit it to a maximum of four incomes.

    Further confusion comes when working out how much you will be allowed to borrow. HSBC and NatWest, for example, will arrive at a figure based on their calculation of how much you can afford, but whereas HSBC will take up to four incomes into account, NatWest only makes this calculation on two incomes and then simply adds one times the annual income of the other two.

    With only two of you the choice is easier, as all lenders will treat you the same as any other couple. Among the most generous are Abbey, Alliance & Leicester and Cheltenham who will lend five times joint incomes.

    Ray Boulger of independent brokers John Charcol said: "Many lenders have special teams who look at larger loans over £250,000. Professionals buying together could borrow the whole purchase price of their property and get five times their income. A good broker will know which lenders are likely to be most accommodating."

    If you have little or no deposit you are likely to have to pay a form of mortgage insurance now called a higher lending charge, which protects the lender if the value of your property falls below the amount of the mortgage.

    However, Scottish Widows, Standard Life, Portman, Mortgage Express and Coventry do not levy this charge even on 100pc mortgages. And C&G, Woolwich and Nationwide only charge it on loans above 95pc.

    However, there are more potential pitfalls to be aware of and precautions you need to take when buying with someone you're not legally and financially tied to.

    David Hollingworth of London & Country said: "Co-buying gives you greater borrowing power and maybe a larger deposit but you've got greater risks. If you're renting together, you can simply walk away if it doesn't work out. It's not as simple as that if you've bought together.

    "For a start you will be jointly and severally liable for the mortgage, which means if one of you can't pay then the others are responsible for all the shortfall, not just their share."

    So it makes sense to draw up a contract or deed of trust to cover off all the "what if" scenarios. Not only do you need to spell out who owns what share but also what will happen if one of you moves away or meets a new partner he or she wants to live with.

    "The exit strategy needs to be thought through carefully," said Mr Boulger. "Usually the co-owner has the option to buy out the other's share. You need to spell out how you will calculate the property's value at that point because your interests are not aligned. You could state that you will take the average of three estate agent's valuations. We recommend that you take separate legal advice."

    Most couples buy as joint owners, meaning they both own the whole property, whereas co-owners should buy as tenants in common which states the share each owns individually. One advantage is that tenants in common can will their share to a member of their family rather than it going to the other owners.

    Ms Bien added: "The biggest downside of buying with friends or siblings is what happens when things go wrong? If you fall out, it is much more serious than it would be if you were simply renting together.

    "Buying with siblings is arguably less risky than buying with friends as the former are less likely never to speak to each other again than the latter. It is always worth renting together for a while beforehand to see how it works out and getting a legal contract drawn up.

    "This won't stop disagreements arising but will make things more clear-cut if they do."

    The riskiest route is to buy with a complete stranger. Despite that, property matchmaker sites exist to put would-be buyers together. They include gohalves.co.uk, co-buywithme.co.uk and sharedspaces.co.uk.

    Co-buying tips

    • Try renting a place together first to make sure you can live together. Even if you are best friends the other's personal habits may be unbearable day in, day out.

    • Draw up a legal contract, typically a deed of trust, spelling out the deposit you have each put down, the share of the mortgage each is responsible for and how the property will be divided up when you sell.

    • Take separate legal advice to ensure your interests are protected. The exit strategy needs to be spelt out to cover situations when one person wants to sell before the other one.

    • Own the property as tenants in common rather than joint tenants so that each person owns their share outright.

    • Check that your co-buyer is financially sound. You are each responsible for the entire mortgage if one person cannot pay their way.

  11. Newspapers have succesfully predicted 15 of the last 4 stock market crashes.

    I know what you mean but I was not addressing whether they get it right or not, I was just questioning why it is ok to say the stockmarket is about to crash after a reasonble 4 year run on historically ok valuations but when it comes to houses, nothing will make it crash in the view of most newspapers and most will only concede a slowdown.

    S.

  12. As an IT worker I was on callout every second week, for this I got an extra £2.5Kpa, no bonuses and no pay rises or overtime pay for 6 years and never earning over the London average pay, on top of this I spent about 2 years in the city at various investment banks as an onsite support person taking dogs abuse day after day from the most obnoxious rude and arogant people I have met in my life, these were the bankers and traders who behaved like the spoiled brats they are every time they had a problem, Ive seen more screens and phones thrown on the floor and red faced tantrums than you would expect to see in any kindergarten, this was what you call stressful working (my job not theirs),. If I had been paid annual bonuses equal to my pay and enough to retire on at 40 then it would have been worth it, however unlike these w*nkers this wasnt an option. Best thing to happen would be a super tax on these nobheads then theyll go away and we can have our city back.

    Mate I was only joking.

  13. :lol:

    you could argue that the cold war wasn’t a real war because of nuclear weapons

    you could argue that nuclear weapons stopped many wars and will do in the future

    I don’t think iraq would have been attacked had they had the bomb

    apparently Thatcher threatened to use nukes in Falklands if france kept supplying exorcists and didn’t give us their destruction codes

    You mean "exocets"? It means "flying fish" in French and it will not banish demosn...

    S.

  14. You are either one of these parasites or your greatest ambition is life is to become one of them. Your understanding of economics is rather poor if you consider what goes on in the city as supporting the economy. Productivity is rather reliant on PRODUCING something. The city produces nothing, instead it steals the wealth produces by what remains of the productive economy in this country.

    And you do what exactly to help the country and the insatiable spending habits of the Nulab upper classes? Any idea where the money for hospitals and schools comes from, however badly spent?

    S.

  15. Hain says "Share City bonuses with the poor"

    http://*******.com/2wggfn (also http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article....p;in_page_id=2)

    Hain is attacking the symptom but not the cause. The cause is the monetary policy of the Bank of England and all central banks around the world. By making interest rates low they force people to accumulate property which they can lend out at above-market rates which creates an accumulation of wealth held by fewer and fewer people. To find out more visit http://www.economicsreform.blogspot.com/

    Alternatively, the perma-tanned w_anker, who moved smoothly from being a student activist to union "researcher" to Labour parasite, who has never done an ounce of good for his adopted country should go and stick a cactus up his aris. Can we deport him to live under his former friend Robert Mugabe?

    S.

  16. For me it paints a very depressing picture for the future stakeholders of this nation.

    I just hope that following Uni they are not hoodwinked by the Lefty Lecturers who are gorged on huge salaries, scant hours of work per week, long holidays, and final salary pensions upon early retirement to vote for the Socialists.

    How much do you actually think a lecturer earns? Not much (lefty or otherwise) last time I looked...

    S.

  17. the trouble with unions is there all pro immigrant and lefties.

    the interfere in more than jobs, they actually tell you who to vote and how to think.

    unions like the TUC ect ban people of nationalist parties from being members and actively smear and slander BNP supporters.This i feel is none of there buisness.

    So you wont find me joining a union as there all pro EU and pro immigration and anti british culture.

    They are not all pro-EU or immigration. Several have made noises about their members jobs being lost or wages deflated. I am not a fan of any of them and I agree they feel the need to comment on things outside their ambit (such as foreign policy) but they do differ on some matters.

    S.

  18. I agree with you that people who are relying on this for their future will probably end up disappointed but..

    If you knew the country well, and could speak the language, would it be different?

    Mr.Mangle

    I suppose it might be different. With the retards that our schools and unis pump out, do you reckon that there will be many Hindi or Czech speakers amongst them? I don't.

    S.

  19. Good to see that FTBs are taking affirmative action to secure thier future.

    As Ive said for a long time, this is the future, forget pensions, this is the place for your money.

    Far from foreign property being in a bubble this is just the beginning.

    The neg - heads tell us emmerging property markets are a bubble waiting for a pin, however this incorrect, Europeans and Russians are getting richer quickly so the demand for real estate in tourist areas will outstrip supply.

    ..awaits abuse from the negheads...................................

    I am all for taking care of your future but in terms of wanting somewhere to live, this is nonsense and to me bubble evidence beyond question, right up there with the Knightsbridge broom cupboards. The idea that for people in their 20s or 30s with no other assets or investments, a speculative BTL in a country you do not know and whose langauge you probably do not speak is preferable to say a spread of shares/unit trusts as a pension seems to me ludicrous.

    S.

×
×
  • 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.