Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Ben from Dover

Members
  • Posts

    921
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ben from Dover

  1. the part of Brown's response where he talked about interest rates and how the important thing is to keep them low made my blood boil. He talked about it as if he was taking credit for it. As if he is proud of creating the worst recession for decades and his inept financial management causing the risk of a serious deflationary depression which causes interest rates to go to 0 and stay there for over a year. Low interest rates are an official labor policy. Not the correct interest rate or the economy but low interest rates. Obviously nobody challenged him. Oh and I've done it to death on the other thread but I've got to say it again - Shared ownership is a con, both individually and to our generation! It is the only thing they have left to support house prices with, don't fall for it.
  2. Actually you can see BP's property line quite clearly at the moment on any picture of the gulf of mexico.
  3. Hopefully horror stories like this will get around and such schemes wont last long. However there is real propaganda supporting it. I picked up a copy of the evening standard (boy that newspaper's quality has slipped) on my way back from the airport earlier in the week and there were about 5 pages soles on how great shared equity is, with case studies and the usual gumpf, But it would sound convincing to a lot of people I'm sure Also the fact that it supports high house prices on a macro level will not be realised by the average punter I'm sure. If no-body goes for these schemes we would be more likely to see house prices normalize. If people do go for them and they become common they will put massive support under prices. If all buyers took a 50% shared ownership scheme prices would double overnight. Ironically if they had all not taken the schemes they would all have had 100% ownership. I've even seen 10% shared equity adverts. What is the ******ing point. It takes the shit bits of owning and merges them with the shit bits of renting.
  4. No one (in the media) ever seems to question the idea though. It seems to be the default answer to what will / are you doing about housing? And I've never heard anybody question them on it. It could feasibly become the thing that does support current high prices. Imagine if the scheme was rolled out to all purchases, not just new builds. Despite the liquidity squeeze and all the sensible arguments about why prices must come down, if the government extend this scheme they can support house prices for ever. and they could do it with a smile on their face and say they are helping people afford their own home "creating a home owning majority". I guess the question is can they afford it? When they talk about financing 50% of the purchase what do they mean, in what form is the government's half financed. Presumably in some sort of loan which implies that they could afford to roll out the scheme without limit so long as they remained credit worthy. I'm temped to use my deposit fund to take out a full page ad in a national newspaper explaining why this is such a stupid policy and people should reject it.
  5. Might have been mentioned already, if so I'm sorry as I don't have time to read the whole thread but I wanted to express that how annoying it was to hear all of the leader's responses to the question that lady asked about house prices. They basically all said that shared equity schemes are the answer to the problem of unaffordable housing. Why does no-one in the media / with a voice ever challenge this? Shared equity is not a solution to anything but will further increase the problems. A widely available 50% shared equity scheme would instantly double house prices across the country. Going for such a scheme would be ruinous to your personal finances and liberty. I'm sure the politicians realize that through this scheme they can support high house prices. It is just so annoying how they all seem to present it as help to those who are 'priced out' and no-one ever challenges them about it's real effect or their real intentions. rant over - sorry
  6. Our paternal government would not let the great british home owners go insolvent / get repo'ed. How could they with so much wealth locked up in their houses. these insolvency figures are obviously to be found amongst the low life renter-class who despite having no permanent tenure have somehow found some saintly bank who will provide them with credit and then failed to keep up payments on such unsecured loans. Personally I blame the banks. How could they seriously take such irresponsible risks in lending money to people who have not even managed to get a foot on the housing ladder.
  7. I'm quite keen on the idea - think I'll steer clear of a fixer-upper though.wouldn't want to get that sinking feeling middle of the night. could also get a jet-ski to commute down the medway with - that would be fun.
  8. Crikey - they are not cheap are they, a 20 year old canal boat is 25K!. I've always had a soft spot for the idea myself but I didn't realize how much it cost. what are the on-going costs like?
  9. Can anybody here point to a time in either the UK's history or the history of other similarly developed countries when the size of the public sector has genuinely shrunk. I only ask because I can't, I may well be wrong, but I honestly can't. The way I see it is that it is the nature of the public sector to grow and there are not really many things that limit its increase. If you work in the public sector, the way you increase your status / power / salary ect is by increasing the size of your department. any 'efficiency savings' will simply be an excuse to hire new 'efficiency experts' or some other type of bean counter. Other than the sacking of Rome, I can't think of a successful historical example of the public sector being genuinely reduced in size. what this means is either it won't happen - or if it does there will be carnage
  10. So it looks like it is bull shit that merv said it, it is still true though, unless whoever wins the ge can from somewhere blow a bubble big enough to last us all another 4 years before shtf
  11. It is a troubling situation. People, both young and old, genuinely believe that they have a right to live in a prosperous world supported by high levels of government investment waist. The financial crisis calls for an end to this socialist nonsense but as times get tough socialist policies will become very popular. How can a broke state pay for socialism??? I can't work out where it will all end
  12. Debts are not being lined up for them, they are already lined up as a result of a whole generation voting for themselves to be given unfunded benefits / public services. By supporting labour these students are just saying, "hang on, we want what you guys had" Obviously it wont work
  13. guess that is the blue-print for injin-world becoming reality.; It actually sounds quite plausible the way you have described it.
  14. quite off topic of the thread so sorry but I arrived back from 2 weeks in Italy (diverted there because of the ash cloud thing), not greece I know but still one of the PIGGS. It seems much richer then the UK at present, I saw no poverty at all - even the institutional / state subsidized type we get here. All the shopping areas / restaurants were packed, nice (but small) cars on the roads. It generally seemed that people there were better off then we are here. I was also in dubai for two weeks the two weeks before hand. don't believe all the doom and gloom you here. It is in for a tough few years but is still prosperous despite the debt and HPC they have, I'm even temped to go back myself
  15. Does Swiss count as non-British white, if so I'd definitely take the £50K. If I was black / Asian I would definately vote BNP
  16. What are mandy's ties to the Rothschild? My family is distantly related to them as well - never helped me at all though
  17. That was the weirdest post I['ve ever read - what do you mean
  18. when I was at uni I worked in a CD packing warehouse on the night shift, you really do go mad with the strange hours and the weird factory environment. I would stand in front of a wall with holes in it that had CD's in them. they then had this system where red lights went off signaling you to pick a CD and put it in the box on the conveyor belt next to you. Those lights would go off really fast and the boxes would rip your fingers to shreds by the end of the shift. anyway I soon realised that if I made enough mistakes the convayer belt would stop and the whole factory would shut down for 1/2 hour while people ahead of me in the line sorted it out. After I realised I could do this without anyone knowing who was making the mistakes I was basically employed to sabotage the factory. Every hour or so I would just chuck loads of wrong CD's in a box and the whole thing shut down. after I'd been there a while I found a spot where none of the camera's could see me and I'd pretend to take the bins out and then just go and sit there reading a book. everyone else in the whole place hated it equally so no one ever dobbed me in and I lasted the whole summer. After a while I came worked out that as the camera's couldn't see me I could use it even more and I would take a load of CD's with me and Frisbee them over the ten foot fence to my brother. We then sold them at car boot sales and made a killing (for a student anyway) when will employers realize that treating people like shit just makes then screw you over. I'm half temped to take this job for a couple of shifts, steel loads of mail and use the info I collect to commit large scale identity theft. Edit - wow my spelling really is crap
  19. Or followed up that question with - "suicide is always an option... if not why not work for us"
  20. Even better is that cryptic life-coach message at the start: Would you prefer to work to live, or live to work? Are you looking for seasonal work? Can't work out what they are implying by writing this or why they have included it in the advert.
  21. If they are much loved in the sense that they actually love you back and you trust them you could always give them everything you own at 65 or whatever. Let the state pay for the care ect. Leaves you open to a King Lear type senario on the down side. For an example a couple of weeks ago my step dad called and we were talking about future inheritance. It is a bit of an abnormal one because they own part of a company in switzerland that they need to work out how to pass down to us one day. He was talking through all sorts of crazy ideas about how to avoid paying UK inheritance tax. anyway today the wife and I are going on holiday and he is driving us to the airport. however he is asking for petrol money to do so. Not that I mind but it seems crazy to me. If you can trust your kids it makes sense to hand everything down to them now and let them pay for all the stuff you need.
  22. anybody who doesn't recognize that in the medium / long term and on a macro-level incomes DECIDE house prices is an idiot. the only thing that is capable of changing that is leverage and we have just seen that come and go. who are you going to sell this £500,000 house to in 30 years. everyone currently on the property ladder will be dead. It is fine working out how to sell it to somebody else who is also expecting to raise the money by selling their house to somebody else who is also expecting to raise the money by selling their house to somebody else who is also hoping to raise the money by selling their house to somebody else but eventually that trail leads to a dead end and you are ******ed I do believe in an affluent society everyone should be entitles to decent shelter. Oh and you are a ***** Edit to add - why is the word ***** starred out its not even rude?
×
×
  • 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.