Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mightytharg

  1. Why is spending more money than you get in income a great idea? If it's such a brilliant idea why can't householders do the same?

    I think you'll find that they already have. If they include this, the family in the rose-tinted view of the original post would owe another £140,000 in household debt, Californian families would owe an extra $30,000 in State debt.

    If you get in enough debt, Obama will give you $150,000 in FREE MONEY from the Bank of America. That's how much he likes debt.

    P.S. I think the household analogy is pretty good.

  2. I find comments on this subject quite funny.

    Basically people are saying "why should these public sector workers be given a pension that doesn't see them retiring on poverty"

    Just because private sector pensions are shit it doesn't mean public sector ones should be too, it means we should deal with the actual problem and make it so people in the private sector can get a descent pension without banks skimming off all the money.

    You know the private pensions are bad because the public sector stole them using a dividends tax, right?

    Ultimately, the problem should be looked at as a simple contractual issue:

    Work for me and I'll pay you X now and Y later. Thanks for doing the work, but I've just realised I forgot to put aside any money to pay you. Do some more work and I'll see if I can find some money, but I wont be able to pay you what we agreed.

    As I've already mentioned, this is the opposite of what happened.

    It's more like a builder arriving at your door and saying, "I'm going to build you a fence and you'll pay me a million pounds".

    "But I don't want a fence and I don't have a million pounds".

    "Tough, it's a contract"


  3. I understand the desire to see the 'feckless' punished, but I can't see what the benefit would be. By all means add a punitive % to the reduction if that helps, but a load of zombie households is really going to be a case of throwing all the toys out of the pram.

    If you reward the feckless and punish the hard working, you are likely to end up with more feckless and fewer hard working. This destroys the economy (including the feckless in the end, since they no longer have enough hard working people to leech off).

    The feckless won't have to pay their debts anyway, since we have an evil thing called bankruptcy that they can use. However, if we do it the honest way then at least some of the hard workers will have access to housing.

  4. My point is that, if we are talking about significant numbers of affected 'home-owners', then the impact on all of us from turfing them out is going to be too chaotic. Where, exactly, are all these places to rent going to suddenly come from? Who exactly is going to hoover up these (presumably) cheap assets?

    The places to rent are going to come from the places where the renters were living before they bought the houses ot the "home-owners" who are being turfed out. It's not difficult, all the houses are still there.

  5. I don't want to raise anyones blood pressure!

    Hmmm. I doubt that. Trying to drum up extra business for yourself

    For those benefits we contribute. I chip in 11.5% per month and my employer also contributes. If you add up my contributions I will currently get back what I put in.

    You chip in 11.5% using OUR money then your employer hands you even more of OUR money.

    Stop scrounging and get a real job, or quit your whining.

  6. Hmm. I see this a bit differently, which might be odd considering I'm more right wing than left wing in my views.

    Despite the failure of that person to comprehend the structure of how it does all work, as you say, I return to the fact these people had contracts and some will have done some life planning as a result of the contracts they had.

    I think you misunderstand the nature of contracts. If I promise to do some work for you and in exchange you promise to pay me £100, that is a contract. There is a meeting of minds, consideration, an agreement.

    Contrast it to this: Some public sector scummers promise THEMSELVES millions of pounds each in exchange for little or no work.

    I never agreed to it, I never even knew about it. Where is the contract? This is just some deluded scum trying to extort unreasonable amounts of money from the private sector.

    Now do you see the difference?

  7. True - but I'd rather not see mass-evictions - I really can't see the point.

    I presume you are one of these people who think that evictions of "home owners" is some sort of terrible shock. Whereas evictions of renters at two weeks notice is perfectly fine (since those sort of people don't really count anyway). I've never really understood this point of view.

    The good thing about mass evictions is that it would move houses into the hands of the people who can afford them. A happy side effect is that it would allow prices to normalise and the economy to recover.

    Whilst it's great that the BofA has so much money that it's giving it away, I'm not sure why Obama has chosen such undeserving recipients (is it because they is black?).

  8. Greeks work longer each week and work for longer in life than the Germans. I hope they tell Europe to do one and particularly on the island sell off.

    As for people saying it looks a shithole, well so do large swathes of the States and most countries if you care to turn off the tourist beaten track.

    Anyone who has been to a restaurant in Greece knows how lazy they are.

    Not sure how this compares to Germany, don't know anyone who likes sausages and sauerkraut enough to have ventured in one.

  9. Excuse me. How is 11% less than 1.1%? Please explain.

    Say the bosses were on ten million pounds a year at 40% tax rate.

    Take home £6,000,000

    Then they get two 11% pay rises but now they pay 50% tax, take home £6,050,000. That;s a 1% pay rise over two years.

    But their employees got 1.1% in a single year, and their tax stayed the same.

    So the employees did better.

  10. That video was nonsense.

    The obvious answer to all the problems is to run a trade surplus, they dismissed this (because they thought it might be hard, diddums).

    Similarly, if I'm $120 million in debt and I want to pay it back, I can just scribble a picture of some whining mummy thing and auction it. Then I pay off the debt. I could just build a house instead of getting a mortgage, which would increase my net wealth and reduce the debt in the system.

    How did he manage to buy the car and still have the value the same after he drove it off the lot?

    Why did they suddenly forget about the real assets and focus on the financial ones?

    Is it some sort of disinformation campaign to keep us happy slaves while the public sector get stuck into more caviar and champagne?

  11. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17996094

    'The typical pay of bosses at the majority of the UK's largest publicly listed companies rose 11% last year to £3.65m, according to research done on behalf of the BBC.

    Manifest, the adviser to shareholders, calculated the research based on data from the 60% of FTSE 100 companies who have published their annual reports.

    The news comes amid shareholder revolts over high executive pay.

    On Tuesday, insurance firm Aviva said boss Andrew Moss will be leaving.

    Pay at firms in the UK in general rose by just 1.1%, according to the Manifest calculations.

    While pay rose at big corporations for chief executives and executive chairmen, shares of FTSE 100 firms shed 6.6% of their value last year.'

    and on and on....but but 'they're worth it'....if we don't pay the talent,we'lllose it' ..and on and on

    Does 11% even keep up with the money printing and tax rises?

    I guess not, they need a 25% rise (over 2010, 2011) just to keep up their after tax salaries. So if they got 11% each year for the two years, they've taken a pay cut.

    The pay in general rose 1.1% so the workers did much better than their bosses.

    To summarize, bosses have reduced their pay, the people working for them have had theirs increased. Yet for some reason, the Socialists are still complaining.

    Have I got this right? :unsure:

  12. There was no way anyone could make the economy work after Brown's nuclear destruction, I said so in 2010. They should have reaped what they sowed. I wanted the kunts to, I voted for Nu Labour in the hope they would.

    Actually, it would be laughably easy. Raise interest rates, cut government spending in half, allow housebuilding. The coallition could have done these things in the first month.

    The reason people are struggling is because other people want them to be struggling.

  13. Except if you do that you shrink the money supply. Even worse because the total amount of outstanding debt is greater than the money supply you increase the net effective debt by doing what you suggest.

    For example

    money supply = 10 billion

    net debt = 20 billion

    ratio of debt to money = 200%

    pay off 5 billion of the debt

    money supply = 5 billion

    net debt = 15 billion

    ratio of debt to money = 300%

    Ain't fractional reserve banking great?

    So, is that a bad thing (having a smaller money supply)?

    Couldn't we give the people we owe money to other assets instead, property, water rights etc.

  14. The slight problem is that in a depression your tax take is likely to shrink along with your expenditure. Indeed, it may even fall quicker than you can cut spending. This is the classic problem of cutting spending into a recession. Government outgoings may drop but so also does the income from taxes. The net result is that a country can end up as indebted as it did before it started but with a smaller economy. I think austerity needs to be combined with debt default to work. Greece has had some success in reducing its current annual budget deficit recently but one suspects that this may have as much to do with the the recent debt write offs and lower interest payments than as with the austerity program. Meanwhile its economy is still shrinking at about 4.5% per annum.


    Yes, but the British government is so awash with cash, it has been wasting it on things like duckhouses, third homes and £100,000/year rents for unemployed Somalian families. They can afford to cut billions before anyone would notice.

    Debt write-offs are obviously nice for the deadbeats, but not fair on the people who lent the money, so for that reason I'm against them.

    A slightly smaller economy seems like a good thing - better for the environment, more sustainable etc.

  15. So you think we should adopt budget measures similar to Greece and Spain ?

    So far there no sign in these countries that budget cuts has resulted in a rush by the private sector to create jobs and investment. Surely this should happen if the state sector is no longer 'crowding out' the private sector as many classical economists claim.

    No, Greece and Spain are spending more than they take in taxes. I'm suggesting we try the exact opposite. Spend less money than we take in taxes and use the excess to pay back some of the debt.

  16. Take London for example. Half of everything that gets built goes to scummers on "affordable housing". Then scummers on housing benefit get the rent paid at the 30th percentile (I think 40% the people in London are on housing benefit).

    This leaves very few houses for decent people.

    If they reduce housing benefit and affordable housing in London, then it promotes fairness and equality. People will be more equal with their Northern cousins. Their will be fewer wealthy trade-unionists in subsidised accommodation lording it over the rest of us with our huge rents or mortgages.

    As housing costs come down, industry and employment will flourish, so fewer people will need housing benefit.

    If they remove the mortgage tax relief from BTL and allow more building (as they've promised), then the problem will be solved.

  17. And your an idiot.

    Do you believe that individuals living in the UK should pay higher taxes than they otherwise would, because of UK of monies being funneled through switzerland. Yes or no?

    No. Individuals in the UK pay lower tax because of Switzerland. This is because the UK government know that more people will move there if they raise taxes too much.

    It seems you've got it completely backwards again.

  18. which IS completely different than the UK.

    10% of swiss citizens are dollar millionaires which is the highest percentage in the world. Switzerland has 11 billionaires in an ~8 mill pop country, the UK has 29 in a ~68 mill pop country. As a percentage of its population it has a vastly higher number of tax exiles and wealthy individuals who service them.

    The same trend applies to corporate HQs.

    Switzerland IS a tax parasite and that enables it to lower its taxes on those living there.

    I think your metaphor isn't very apt.

    Think of the good citizens of Zug as bug-spray.

    Evil leech parasites (UK government) want to suck out 60% of your blood. Use Zug bugspray and most of the leeches are kept away, now you only suffer the loss of 20% of your vital blood.

    Switzerland is the anti-parasite. :D

  • 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.