Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About leicestersq

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,341 profile views
  1. No I'm not. Every property affects every other one. If a rich person cannot buy a place in Mayfair because a rich foreigner gets the place, they buy somewhere further down the ladder, which in turn means someone else gets bumped down the ladder and so on. These markets are not isolated. Yes, I gave him credit for that. It makes you wonder though why these uber rich are spending so much effort ducking a trivial amount of tax. Yes it would. I would like to see a progressive land value tax, with a higher rate paid by non-UK nationals. This is in recognition that there isnt enough residential land for UK citizens. I dont mind foreign people coming here, but as the UK becomes poorer, there is a large danger that UK citizens are going to be pushed out of the housing market by richer foreigners. Sure we may get a short term kick of more money, but in the long run we end up paying far more in reduced housing space per head of population. We are all feeling the affects of that now in one way or another. As Boris said in the article.... Of course it is a good thing for London if people want to come and live here, and to invest huge sums in bricks and mortar. Well no it isnt. The Tories are supposed to be cutting back immigration to zero net immigration. If that is the policy, then it isnt a good thing at all for people to come here. And no matter how you care to frame the issue, if someone from abroad buys a house here, someone somewhere loses. When the little one says roll over, we all roll over, down the housing chain, and someone falls out of being able to own a house all together.
  2. RBS would only do this if they believe that the number of people who will leave (some will) doesnt cost them more than they will gain in extra interest payments. They might make the odd mistake in this calculation of course. And you cant be too sure what you competitors will do.
  3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9122818/A-billion-reasons-to-close-the-stamp-duty-loophole.html So Boris (is his name Russian by accident) makes it clear that he wants foreigners to come here and take all of our housing. I guess you can give him a modicum of credit for wanting these foreign legions to pay a bit more tax. Well Boris, if you are not from the UK, you should be paying a penal rate of tax to own property in the UK, levied every year not at the point of sale. It shows once again that the Tories are just about getting as much money into the country so they can line their own pockets, and there is no concern at all about the affects of immigration on the masses of UK citizens struggling to find somewhere to live.
  4. No, the ones with lots of equity will get good deals at the Halifax still. They are not stupid.
  5. Just get rid of it, and all child related benefits. Use the saving to reduce tax. Make people pay for their own kids.
  6. Is someone giving a big call, or is it a tiny whisper about a gut feel the ftse might fall a smidge?
  7. The only discipline over fiscal policy is exercised by the money markets. This treaty doesn't change that.
  8. Common or garden insurers are often reluctant to pay, not because they are ripping people off, but because they have to watch out for common or garden fraudsters that use insurance payouts as income. With Greece, there is less uncertainty as to whether bond holders have been paid or had their terms changed.
  9. that's how governments choose to do it Well that is how I interpreted your earlier statement in bold above.
  10. BB, not all government's do it that way. I think that Japan and Norway have funded schemes. Can anyone confirm this? The trouble is those funded schemes are often a worse idea than paying for pensions out of directo taxation. The state then has to invest the money somewhere, and the state isnt a good guardian of other people's money or a good investor of it. Norway has lost loads I think to US investment banks getting them to buy rubbish. In Japan I think that the scheme ended up with loads of Japanese bonds, which begs the question, why bother, when they just pay out of taxation anyway?
  11. Milton, they have been discussed. http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=175401&st=0 Conclusion is that the story is too silly to be believeable. Maybe if they had said $1.5 trillion a few Hugh Trevor-Roper's might have verified it.
  12. You fail to understand what saved money is. If it is in a bank, then it is actually invested in an asset somewhere, a loan normally. If the value of those assets fall enough through deflation, all the savings get wiped out. QE is probably defending his saved money by keeping the financial system and the productive system working. The cost is that real interest rates go negative for savers, but it ensures assets paid for with loans remain profitable. So you either lose money slowly thanks to qe, or lose it quickly to deflation. It is far better to make savers pay a little to allow the productive part of our economy gain. There is no free lunch.
  • 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.