Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

leicestersq

New Members
  • Posts

    5,414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by leicestersq

  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.
  13. Maybe I should have stated my definition of deflation here. It means destruction of the money supply. Bankers are able to hold a gun to the head of the government, because if they collapse, the deposits held by depositors can get wiped out. It is great holding they keys to a bank. Which is why the government should get its own gun and make sure that all banks have a healthy amount of capital and properly marked loans. When you have crooks or fearful people overseeing the banks, they will go renegade, steal the money, and leave the financial system on the brink. A deflationary collapse here is very different to a deflation of prices that the Swiss may have seen now and again. When deposits go, people get what cash they can, and cease to trade with anyone not knowing who they can trust. Without trade, there is no production and all wealth generation ceases. It is possible that this nightmare can occur.
  14. They are. But there are two components to their income. Some have saved and invested in various things. For example if you spend some of your working time making a phone line. When you are retired you rent it out, and you make money because for the young person the cost of renting it is less than building a new one. You are able to derive income from that. This sort of income is a good income, everyone benefits from the work you did, and you benefit to. This should be protected and the goal of creating similar investments which will in turn be protected by the state incentivises current workers to do the same thing. That portion of pensioner income, which is a direct transfer of what is produced by a worker, to a pensioner, is a bit more dubious. It still has merit of course, because that worker would like some of the same if they make it to retirement. However, because it is a tax, you have to be careful not to tax too much or else it disincentivises the worker too much. It is these transfer payments I have my concerns about, not the wealth that has been stored up in assets produced by the hard work of the retired generaton.
  15. I do wonder what the affect of the current monetary policy is on output. It looks to me as if without some sort of QE we would be in a deflationary environment, and because of our laws and policies, the economy would find it difficult to go gracefully into deflation. Employment contracts and benefit contracts cannot easily be adjusted downwards. What would happen say, if the government announced a cut in the state pension of 10% to match a fall in the price level of 10%, there would be uproar? What would the court say about it? And in deflation, even if interest rates fall to zero, the real value of the debt accelerates upwards to a rate at which the burden becomes unsustainable. The paradox of thrift kicks in, and soon your economy collapses because no one can spend due to the uncertainty of not knowing if there is any work or money tomorrow. Pumping in new money, whilst at the same time restraining the banks by forcing them to hold a much higher percentage of capital, seems like a good way of rebalancing the debt to money ratio in the economy. As for returns on savings, well banks can only offer you a rate of interest that is based on what they can lend at, minus costs including bad loans. If banks cannot find safe places to lend at good rates of interest, the market isnt going to offer the saver a great rate. Mind you, getting poorer slowly by having your savings in the bank, is probably a better result than having them wiped out by a deflationary collapse.
  16. The effect of QE is a little bit uncertain. I believe that the basic idea of it is sound though. If you can use it to replace debt money with non-debt money, then that makes the economy more stable without having to go through deflation to achieve it. I think Steve Keen puts forward similar ideas. As for diverting resources into producing stuff people want, most of the responsibility for that rests with Parliament, not the BofE. I am sad to say I see a lot of schemes and scams going on that divert resources away from producers.
  17. Huh? I thought I was calling for less wealth to be transferred away from the producers? From what I remember of the Socialist workers party, they actually want free money from other people. I oppose that. My basic agenda is that each person should receive in income an amount closely equivalent to what they produce. Is your agenda to take as much as possible from those who produce to give to pensioners?
  18. On the contrary. Money that you have wisely invested in assets shouldnt be taken from you. It is the size of the fiscal transfers from the working to the pensioners that concerns me. Make that transfer too large, and working ceases to be worthwhile, and investing in a business ceases to become a sound decision. The huge increase in pensioner numbers is driving economies into treacherous waters. It is no surprise that the European countries that are in the most trouble are the ones of Southern Europe, with the worst demographics (not sure about Greece but that is just a basked case that would fail no matter what its demographics looked like). When you tax the working people, you should be careful not to overtax as it drives people onto benefits, and causes businesses to move overseas or to shut down. And yet it is that very same productive capacity that we all rely on for the things we need and want. When Pensioners campaign for higher pensions, and have little regard for the burden they are placing upon others should their policy be enacted, they should be careful what they wish for. One day the state may be unable to make any transfer payments at all. We would all like a pension. I recognise though that the size of that pension must be in line with what can be afforded.
  19. If the policy helps reallocate a portion of national wealth from pensioners to those working, then it will be a good thing. Diverting too much resource to those who dont produce is a massive drag on the nation.
  20. Is there a Godwin's equivalent for blaming someone for blaming immigrants when they were actually blaming immigration policy?
  21. Werent the Irish given a chance to do something about the situation last time? I thought that Sinn Fein gave them a choice of defaulting on their dubious debt obligations? Previous to that, the will of the Irish people, through the democractically elected Parliament, had decided to guarantee savings in their banks, which meant a bailout and a lot more tax for the Irishman. All along when it has come down to it, the Irish people have chosen to go along with the bankers game, and only a few voices dissent. If that is what they want, fair enough. This vote clearly means nothing, but I expect that the Irish people will vote Yes anyway.
  22. Spot on. This is why as many crimes as possible should be punished.
×
×
  • 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.