Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

dipstick

Members
  • Posts

    1,258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dipstick

  1. I can't help wondering just how old you are? Thirty? Backtracking slightly, I think I now come under your 'boomer' category - age wise, because of course we all know the term actually derives from the middle class US citizens of the 1950's, so I'm never quite sure who are these 'boomers' that you are talking about in the 1980's???? Back in the 80's some people did quite nicely, thank you. Mainly, as I recall, people who at the time were in their 50's.(So by your definition they are not boomers now, right?) Secure jobs, mortgages, if not paid off, then very small because they'd been paying them for 30 years or so (counting in they'd moved house once or twice) and money in savings. ... and do you know, I didn't begrudge them their quality of life one bit. They'd worked for donkeys years, saved and built a life for themselves. It didn't make me bitter. From our point of view (unmarried couple in their thirties) things weren't so good. I don't remember these interest rate falls but perhaps that's because my thoughts revolve around the fact that I remember my ex losing his job and me having to work about 3 at the same time. We didn't have any savings because we didn't earn enough to save. We lived in a cheapo semi. We couldn't afford to take part in the stock floatations that were abounding - we just watched other people do it. And then of course we got to the bit where the tory government brought us to our knees. The interest rate rises, the job losses, the nightmare. But still some people were doing fine. Mortages nearly paid off, good interest on savings. It hurt but I didn't want them to be in the same boat as us. You seem to make an awful lot of wrong presumptions about people. You seem to look through puke tinted glasses where your bitterness assumes the world owes you something because everybody has had a 'better' time than you. You haven't walked in my shoes fella. And you still couldn't walk in them today. Stop stereotyping, it just makes everything you have to say worthless.
  2. ... and another thing to consider is that the Brits don't have any security of tenure with rented properties - ultimately our alternatives are crappy. If we got legislation like France for instance, where they prefer you to have a longer tenancy, then maybe our property ownership obsession would dimish greatly.
  3. Okay, I give in, what's a 47" wonder (Boys, don't even consider lying!) I agree that the trends are changing and, like you say people will put a certain spin on things like not having a telly. To be honest I've thought for a good few years that the five bedroomed en-suite thing is going to bite the dust, and hard. As fuel costs continue to rise, smaller more economical homes will become popular. Of course it will again get spun that people are doing the best for the environment, not that they can't afford to do anything else. You have to remember that for the majority people feel safer as part of the flock. They will attack and deride anything outside of the flock because they don't understand it and it makes them feel insecure (what people seek is security). So, as anybody who was on this forum a few years ago will tell you, we got hit with the 'doom-monger,' tag more times than you can shake a stick at - we were seen to be 'spoiling it' for people. To be honest even now I feel that people I associate with don't really want to consider falls in house prices. They like their homes being worth 1/4 million, it makes them feel good. To tell them it's only worth 100k gets them all narky! The irony of all this is, if I'd had a telly back in the early noughties, I'd have known there was a boom, not put my house on the market and wouldn't even be sat here ...
  4. Just to clarify something here: I originally lived in England when the boom was in full flow and vanity played a huge part in the property myth. I now live in a part of the UK where, to all intents and purposes, it feels like England in 2004. Snobbery abounds, vanity is plentiful, it's all a bit daft. But down in England now more and more people are maintaining their 'investment' more out of necessity rather than vanity or fashion. They've pumped their life savings in and can't see them flushed down the aforementioned bogs. So that's what I'm saying: even though the passion for fashion is dwindling, it can't disappear if the owners can help it because there is too much at stake.
  5. Snicker - spend some time alone: snicker, snicker, snicker. Have you not been on this forum very long? Again, to a certain extent I am agreeing with you, and when this housing boom first kicked off it was truly laughable. The main topic of conversation anywhere you went was how much people's houses were worth, and it was all vanity and the politicians played on that vanity and to a certain extent still do. Don't know how many times I've said it on this forum but I'll say it again. G Brown did a political broadcast back in 2004 and said, "You are all so much better off now your homes are worth so much more." This was a party political broadcast, this was what the people wanted to hear. For all the reasons you mention above the idea is plain stupid, but it made GB popular with a lot of people. But houses, even fashion wise, are different to cars because most cars are guaranteed over their lifetime to depreciate, houses, over the long term, always do, and as such this made it easier for GB to perpetuate the myth that people were 'better off.' Even though throughout that period prices could have fallen off a cliff and in the short-term, or now, even the mid-term people could lose a lot of money. So the idea, the self-perpetuating thing, is that people have to be focused on their homes even if they didn't want to be. As quite a few people have pointed out, if the thing is to have en-suites, or wet rooms or a dozen bogs, then people will in some cases a) want to do it, and in others do it because they have to maintain the value of their 'investment.' So yes, in part, a large part is down to a weaker form of fashion and, when house prices fall off a cliff, sentiment may change and our national obsession with properdee with diminish somewhat. But people can't, for the time being, walk away from the 'investment.' (Although some may be forced to and the mere mention of houses in the future will make them want to vomit) Psst: On the impressing the neighbours front. I don't have a tv or even a washing machine - wrong tree barking up ;-)
  6. Wasn't it always going to end up being that way though? The banks employ surveyors to do the surveys for them that the potential buyers have to pay for. These could probably be the same surveyors that did the HIPS that the seller has to pay for. Were the banks really going to insist the content of the HIPS measured up to one of their own required surveys and favour buyers/sellers over the surveyors - I think not. It was a rigged game.
  7. Come on, BL, just look at the people building ecologically sound homes - they are HUGE - Biggest contradiction in terms going. And they usually have a least one wall made out of glass; gas filled, triple glazed, the whole kit and kaboodle. Why didn't they just put a cottage window in?
  8. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Starts with food/water then shelter. Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong. But if you don't think shelter is important then just hitch up on a park bench.
  9. But the problem was that the HIPS wasn't relevant in most cases other than providing potential buyers with basic information. Mortgage lenders still wanted a survey done, so the repeated survey problem was still happening. Plus the HIPS (depending on where you live and who you talk to) had a lifespan and sellers were having to do it over and over again. Admittedly, here in Scotland things are different, and I still don't know if the Home Buyers Report is going to go the same way as the HIPS. But here it could only be done by somebody with 'local knowledge of the property market,' hence there is no competition from anyone outside specific regions and no regulation on the amount surveyors charge. Nice little earner!
  10. The surveyors are going to be upset, aren't they (hahahahahahhaha)
  11. It's different because homes are also, unlike cars, seen as an investment. Their value and internal decor are, rather like cars, seen to reflect the status of the occupier. That's why these days people can't walk into a country home and think, 'It's perfectly serviceable, I'll leave it as it is." If you do it is sneered at. I mean, no granite worktops and laminate flooring - how do they survive????? And remember it doesn't matter if you get up to your eyeballs in debt to get it - the point is, you've got it. Which, financially speaking does, in some form make sense. Who's going to be able to sell their house for a profit in line with their neighbours if they haven't got everything immaculate and hi-spec? It's self-perpetuating with the ever present thought that you've invested in something not bought a home. The demise of pubs was more brought about by large corporations rather than the socialising public. They bought up one man bands making minimum wage and pootling along and turned them all into places that would attract the younger generation. Refurbs cost money, line managers cost money, and big corporations expect a hefty wage packet - they had to encourage it to recoup their costs. Then we got the smoking ban. Must admit I think the OP does make some valid points but I also get the impression he/she needs to socialise a little more or they could get too isolated.
  12. Anybody know if this is going to include the Home Report in Scotland? Has a looskie but couldn't see anything and folk tend to talk about the HIP and Home Report as being the same thing. £150 my bottom - blasted things cost £750 where I live ...
  13. Not big on reading other people's post then, Satch? I am on House Price Crash forum aren't I? This is the site where people think home ownership is a good thing - but not if you are laid off apparently, then you become one of THEM. And of course Satch, you will never ever ever be out of work... Crackpot.
  14. ... and on the subject of selling and then renting. For starters, as I said earlier, you CAN'T sell. And, even if you could, you're usually at this point in negative equity so you have no money to buy. Neither will the building societies touch you with a bargepole. Again, in the eyes of the government you've made yourself homeless so you have no right to be rehoused by the council (and there aren't that many council houses left now anyway) ... and which private landlord is going to touch somebody who is a) unemployed and can't claim rent allowance, or defaulted on mortgage payments? Although I do remember at the time quite a few people with young children were put in to B&B's as temporary accomodation. Whole families living in one room surrounded by cardboard boxes. Gee, it looked like real fun!
  15. ... and while we're on the subject of mortgage protection; it's always worthwhile checking out those policies v the government allowances. Last time round most people found they were only covered for the same period that the government money covered them for - hence they were a complete waste of money. Remember you are only truly safe if a) interest rates don't rise, you are absolutely certain you won't lose your job, c) you are sure you won't have a relationship break-up or illness and d) you have lots of protected savings. And bear in mind last time around neither myself nor my partner lost their job. We bought a 39k house and put down 9k. We didn't stretch ourselves on the original mortgage in any way, shape or form. What happened was a) the rating system changed, the interest rates went up, and up, and up and up and up, and c) they changed my partner's contract at work, so basically he was earning less. Believe me, you've no need to lose your job to get shafted.
  16. Just seen the post on downsizing etc. The problem in a stalled housing market is that NOTHING moves. You can drop the price or whatever but if there are no viewers then you are screwed. We had ours on from 1990-1993. We had 3 viewings during the whole of that period. Erm, I'm taking it you weren't involved with the housing market last time around? What happened was, if you defaulted on your mortgage payments you were classed as making yourself homeless therefore the government are under no obligation to provide you with another one. Yes, you got it, people were out on the streets. If I remember rightly quite a few moved abroad. If you lost your job and went to claim for mortgage payments I think you got the interest only for something like 12 weeks. Originally it was something like 6 months but it kept getting lower and lower. The argument was that you had an asset that you could sell, so bluddy well sell it! See, if you 'owned' a house, you were considered better off than the rest of the population and shouldn't need help from the government. Oh, and they would also ask why your family/friends couldn't help you out. Literally.
  17. Oh you wanted a long answer - here you go then. No, you can't carry a shotgun and blast dogs willy nilly. Apart from the fact that it proves you aren't much of anything without a weapon in your hand (and a non--contact weapon at that) - you'd get locked up. Edited to say - I don't actually know of many dogs that would stand around long enough for you to shove a gun up its ****, but I suppose you could try. It was a stupid question put forward by somebody who was just stomping because he wasn't getting his own way.
  18. Go steady, you'll be upsetting the anti-hunting lobby.
  19. Because children are precisely that - children. And it would be irresponsible to allow children access to dangerous weapons. Now, children walking a pet labrador, you of course would see as a terrible threat ... See where the man/child/Nanny State argument comes in ... you are asking not only for the state to protect you from all risk (no matter how unbalanced) but also from getting dog dirt on your shoes.
  20. Never seen foxes use a pooper-scooper - maybe they do.
  21. You really should get around more forums Bill - large contingency want cats banning because they shit in/dig up flower beds! And a strange cat is more likely to give you a bite and a claw than a dog. And think about your unrealistic argument. Ban dogs today and loads will be kicked out into the countryside. Before long you really will have packs of wild dogs roaming free and unrestrained. But then again, as you said yourself, you can't ban wildlife.
  22. ... and how many people who have fallen through the bottom of society have you ever met, Bill? And I didn't say she had fallen through the bottom of society - she was just completely uneducated in how to treat a puppy. Saw this also once when I got a dog from rescue. I was paying for my mutt and a man was bringing back a staffie puppy. He dumped it on the counter, said "it's bit little 'un" and the girl behind the desk asked him if he wanted something else!!!! Thing is, I swear that pup was no more than six weeks old, looked terrified and I felt like biting the bloke never mind anything else. But unfortunately dogs in our society, like most other stuff, are treated by many as disposable consumer goods And the more distanced we get from reality - and believe me, we are distanced from the real world - the less we learn about it and ultimately the more vulnerable we become.
  23. So you do want a Nanny State to protect you from all risk - be it dog shit on your shoes or a dog bite. You want the State to ban all dogs because these things worry and upset you. I gave you a perfectly good solution to dog shit - but that still didn't help. It didn't help because it would be better for you to irradicate anything you personally don't like. Of course this wouldn't run to mobile phones because they are convenient (Believe it or not people used to manage to have jobs without them) It wouldn't run to not going out of a Sunday because you like it. So when do you stop being a child and start being a man? Has the State made life so comfortable for you now, so risk free, that you cannot bear the thought of facing any inconvenience or threat?
  24. Many, many moons ago I bred my first and last litter of puppies. Took one to the new owner's home and the toddler immediately began lifting the pup by its tail, ear, anything it wanted really. I watched Mum as she gazed on lovingly ... and then took the pup back with me. She wasn't happy, but I could see problems in the making. Kept the pup nearly 14 years and never had any trouble with her - can't say I think it would have been the same scenario if I'd left her in situ. There really does need to be more responsibility placed on people who sell dogs sometimes.
×
×
  • 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.