Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mightytharg

  1. So, backwards man, have I got this straight? You think the people taking as little as possible are the parasites, and the greedy rapacious 60% taxers are not! What a maroon
  2. I presume an international labour organization is a group of communists? So their support for oppressive government isn't too surprising. In the UK we haven't had even one penny of cuts or austerity, spending has been rising out of control, and yet we have growing unemployment, especially for the young. Why not try cutting, just a little bit, and reducing the stranglehold the government has over the economy. For example, cutting SMI would perhaps affect the luxury cruise market, but it would also make house prices and taxes fall which might help the economy. If the damage done to the cruise industry was less than the improvements to jobs and housing then we'd be onto a winner.
  3. Seemed like an idiot to me. For example, he seemed to think that the "optimal" rate of tax was the one that takes the most from people, when obviously the best thing is to tale as little away from people who earned it as possible. The UK top rate of tax is 60%, right where the article says it should be, and the UK is a huge bankrupt mess!
  4. Lots of talk on Question Time about licensing landlords. The idea seems to be it will be illegal to stand on your own two feet and refuse government hand-outs. If you refuse housing benefit recipients as tenants because you feel that forcing taxpayers to pay for your lavish lifestyle is morally wrong, you will lose your license. What do the you think of this idea? Do you think the commies have gone completely bonkers? Would you accept the forced hand-outs?
  5. You mean your Mum's bum is the size of a continent? Or is she a MILF with a sexy french-chick-style bum?
  6. None of this is true. If giving money to scrotes so they can spend it in your shop was a sensible strategy, then there would be a guy outside pret-a-manger handing out tenners to everyone in a hoody. A shrinking economy is better than a flat-lining one. (flat-lining means dead). Reducing public spending gets the economy to grow because instead of wasting their money on useless parasites, people spend it on goods in the economy. More austerity (a strange concept of yours, so-far there hasn't been any austerity, only ever-increasing government waste) would cause the economy to grow if some of the former welfare-scroungers and public sector scum became useful members of society.
  7. Imagine the power this gives them... Parliament: We strongly condemn your treatment of the Buddhists in Tibet. China: We could stop murdering the Buddhists, but then we would be forced to LOWER OUR RENTS, which might affect your tax-payer funded buy-to-let portfolios BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Parliament: Sorry, our mistake. Do carry on.
  8. I think you're failing to include the money that would have gone to the government. Imagine you're in the private sector and fortunate enough to be in the 60% tax bracket. You are saving up for a house. If you pay the 60% tax you are left with 40% for yourself. Better than nothing? Well not really, because 60% has gone to your enemies who are now better placed than you to buy the house. The house you wanted is sold to a diversity co-ordinator and you're stuck paying rent to a pair of overpaid school teachers. If instead, you give the money to a cat sanctuary, you can buy the (cheaper) house for yourself, and the power of your enemies is weakened. Win for the poor cats, win for you.
  9. Well since they've gone mad with the presses, I think inflation is pretty much a given. If you can borrow then you can't really lose with BTL because you effectively don't have to pay anything back (except with worthless QE'd money). So even without any capital gains you get the houses more or less for free. The problem is bigger than BTL though, lots of businesses are in massive debt because of the huge tax advantages it gives them. Perverse incentives for borrowing instead of earning money have destroyed the economy. As far as I know, a company can combine BTLs with other lines of business, so I think the "you cannot offset property losses against other income" argument is probably bogus (if not, show me why not). If your answer is that it's less tax efficient to hold the BTLs in a company, then it destroys the argument that BTLs are taxed just like any other profits.
  10. Unless it's also the only Election year in history, that isn't much of an explanation.
  11. The one labelled Chart 2 is lending to individuals (doesn't say anything about BTL). It shows lending going up and up and up. The source is hardly credible though, aren't the Bank of England the imbeciles that pretend they are targetting 2% inflation?
  12. Am I reading that graph wrong? It seems to show that there has been no crisis or credit contraction at all. Far from it, lending secured on dwellings, has gone up every month since 1995 and continues to do so.
  13. I thought I explained it fairly clearly, but I'll try and make it easy for you since you're only an accountant. For taxation, profits and losses are measured in pounds. Bizarrely, they do not take account of the time value of money. Therefore savers pay tax on their interest even if it is less than inflation so they have made a loss in real terms. A large part of a BTL borrower's profits are hidden because the value of the money they owe goes down over time. This makes them richer in real terms, but is untaxed because it is measured in devalued pounds. An enterprise that makes 1 million pounds of real profits by making and selling real widgets can pay zero tax by offsetting it against 1 million pounds of imaginary losses on BTL interest. The losses are imaginary if the 1 million in interest payments are equalled by a 1 million reduction in the real value of the money they owe. Tax/NI can be up to 70% (more depending on circumstances) on real earnings. Capital Gains is taxed at a much lower rate (particularly for property) so even if the BTLs make little or no real profit the tax savings can be huge. MPs are given a free BTL portfolio through the expenses system, so the unfair tax treatment is guaranteed to continue.
  14. Simple. They have profits that would be taxed. Instead of paying the tax they invest in some BTLs, where the interest they pay is all tax deductible (plus they get all kinds of sorts of grants and tax write-offs for wear and tear etc). Their borrowings are reduced by inflation, e.g. imagine if you owed 10 million pounds in 1960 and still owed 10 million in 2012 you would be massively better off now. This huge gain is wealth is all tax free. Think of it as the flipside of what happens to savers. If a saver invests in an account which pays interest at the rate of inflation, he gains nothing BUT he faces a tax bill on his because of his imaginary profits. If a BTL borrower has rents that equal his upkeep costs, he loses nothing BUT he receives a massive tax rebate because of his imaginary losses.
  15. I don't get what the problem is. Surely even people who have a repayment vehicle won't be stupid enough to pay the mortgage with it? They can spend the money on a round-the-world cruise and a nice Rolls Royce and then wait for the taxpayer (through SMI) to pick up the bill for the mortgage.
  16. They are paid through taxation. The National Trust are one of the largest benefit recipients in the country. Then they use "charity" status to avoid paying tax on their massive profits. They need to be stopped. Otherwise they will end up owning everything. Family homes that should be lived in are stolen from the families and bestowed on this evil organisation. Their volunteers are misguided scum.
  17. When I applied for a floating rate mortgage (from one of the leading companies) I read the small print. It said that they could change the interest rate to whatever they wanted it to be (their standard variable rate). If you wanted to change your mortgage to another company (for example if they raised the rate to 10,000,000%) then you were free to do so, but you had to pay a fee of, wait for it, whatever they wanted to charge. There must be hundreds of thousands of people with mortgages with these sorts of conditions. I think the choice was, sign away everything, or rent. I imagine the bankers are so upstanding and honest that they won't actually raise the exit fee to £10 million and the interest rate to 10 million percent, but I can't really criticise anyone who trusted the banks and signed up to one of these things. P.S. I also tried to buy a flat with a 200 year lease and a service charge that went up 6% each year. Didn't know where I thought I was going to get the £1 billion pounds for the service charge in the last year.
  18. £10 billion for cripples?! The same people who steal all the decent parking spaces to park their brand new tax-payer bought BMWs. It's disgusting. And the whining crinklies who got the highest rise in pensions ever and still complained about the budget. Britain must be booming if they can afford all this generosity.
  19. Are you some sort of disinformation worker or do you really believe this? The Obammunists are printing not to enrich themselves, but to "stave off inflation"! Japan is in no danger of defaulting? I'll have some of what you're smoking.
  20. I think the choice put to the government workers was "spend less money or you will have to default*" *default means a huge transfer of wealth from the private sector to government workers So, spend less or be given billions, I think I can see why they chose the billions.
  21. Well that's the beauty of it. Since under my plan you only have to pay for one house instead of two, you wouldn't need the deposit scheme or the tax breaks.
  22. Seems sensible. This is the problem, at the moment 50% of anything built is going to the scroungers..That's why housing is so expensive for honest folk. Buying a house is expensive enough, but buying two (one for yourself and one for some disgusting parasite) is simply too expensive. Plus you have to live next to some disgusting parasite. Reduce scroungers' housing to 0 percent. To make housing affordable, we have to get rid of "affordable housing". (I'm good at thist, I can probably solve all the world's problems...)
  23. If they want more people to do full-time work instead of part-time they just have to stop giving the part-time scammers these ridiculously huge hand-outs. Why don't they? Perhaps they are deliberately trying to destroy the economy. Double good news on employment though, more private sector jobs and fewer public sector parasites dragging them down
  • 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.