Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

MrWallace

Members
  • Posts

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MrWallace

  1. I know, the word rich always means rich in comparison to something. I guess the question is what should that 'something' be? I reckon for us it's gotta be rich in comparison to society in our country now?
  2. Yeah... But oddly enough, land wealth would be the easiest inequality to fix if only we wanted too. It's not like they can chuck their dummies out off the pram and say that if they are getting taxed on unearned land and housing wealth then they're hiding their BTL's and land in an offshore bank account is it? They can bugger off if they like, but the assets stay here, so why this would be so difficult to fix is a mystery to me...
  3. 90K - 250K not rich? I'm not sure about £90K(ish) but people earning a couple of hundred thousand pounds a year are most definitely rich, if you take rich to mean having far more money than most other people. I would say that less than a half of one percent earn more than a quarter of a million quid a year. If a person with an income like that doesn't feel rich it's probably because their work colleagues, family and friends are also all mostly very high earners and the people they spend time with aren't representative of society as a whole. But that doesn't mean they're not rich, it just means they live in a bubble and don't see things the way most people do.
  4. What would happen if all the developed nations of the world got together and each agreed to print more money equal to 50% of each of the GDPs and then only use that money to pay back government debt and build infrastructure. Could the Pound be devalued by printing 50% more of them if there were also 50% more Euros, 50% more dollars, 50% more Yen etc? if those newly printed notes were mainly used to pay back government debt and not poured into general circulation (although I suppose they'd end up there in the end anyway?)
  5. The answer is probably bloody obvious but what will happen to us if Santander go under? Our mortgage is with Santander.
  6. Completely agree, I'm loading up on shares at the moment. I'm looking for solid companies with strong balance sheets that have a good history of paying dividends. In particular I want natural resources (oil and miners) and high-tec companies (i.e. Microsoft etc...). It's best to get those companies when nobody wants to own them so I'll be staying away from the likes of Apple, not because they have a bad product but because they're just too damn popular with investors at the moment. In the short-term, the price you pay for a share depends on the public mood on the day you buy it, in the long-term the value of the company will determine the price of the share. The time to buy property is once it has been falling for sometime and everyone believes the value of property will just keep going lower because it has been going lower and lower for ages. We're only now at the START of this process with property. Saying that I do jointly own a place, but I do believe house prices need to fall, all that money being tied up in something that is pretty much non-productive is bad for the economy, and it isn't right for hard working young people who just want to get a decent roof over their heads.
  7. It looks like Iceland did exactly the right thing http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100013462/iceland-wins-in-the-end/ Now if only some action could be taken against Gordon Brown for using anti-terrorism laws on them.
  8. Good post I share your feelings on the 'control obsessed, power hungry gits'. I can't remember the exact quote but I think it was the comedian Bill Maher who said that a Tea Party activist was like a family dog thinking that if it behaved then one day it too would get to drive the car.
  9. I'm sorry to hear about that. You're one of the victims of the Labour Parties housing bubble, and there have to be victims, bubbles by their very nature transfer wealth creating winners and losers. More often than not, whether one is made a winner or a loser out of a bubble is down to luck more than anything else. Events rarely unfold as we foresee when events are manipulated by politicians with their own agendas. Hearing about someone on the losing side really brings home how nasty it has been for some. Many people who have been screwed by the housing market often hide what has happened to them while the winners boast - so it's easy to forget just how many people have been hurt by this. While I do believe property is over priced it is actually 'real', that's why the Americans call it 'real estate' I guess. So when we have out of control inflation property is probably still better than cash. As for Labour, they're not really much worse than the Tories except when it comes to hypocrisy and civil liberties. On economics Labour are the same as the Tories; they just copied Tory policies and even stuck to the Tories budget for 2 years. The only difference between Labour and the Tories is Labour are anti-civil liberties and are hypocritical by pretending to represent the less well off. If Labour were in power they'd be looking to scrap the 50p tax rate, they would be cutting public services, putting up VAT and tuition fees and doing almost everything the Tories are doing now. The only difference would be that we would all have to have ID cards and public protest free speech would probably have been further restricted.
  10. They're not worse, they are the same as NuLabour. If Labour were in power they would have no problem with this either. The problem with all political parties is that once you fall below a certain socio/economic level no political party gives a damn about you. What we really need is the housing shortage at the very bottom (i.e. those who need council housing) taken care of and it will filter up. But if you're not a potential home owner they couldn't care less about you. The solution is build more high quality council housing and end the right to buy. That'll get rid of the buy to let slumlords and give poorer families a good option, but unless you're a homeowner at the very least you're so low down on the ladder that you won't even enter their thoughts. Remember that trader that pissed of the BBC by saying governments didn't rule the world goldman sachs did and his job as a trader was to make money from the financial crisis not to fix it? He said one good thing about a recession was the price of housing might fall and they were absolutely aghast http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY_jNrUVu_U
  11. +1 We got the government we deserved. I was very angry with New Labour, but they I realised that we actually deserved them. The only way we as a society will change is if we suffer the consequences of being so greedy and shallow. New Labour could only have been elected in a country where people were mostly shallow, greedy and deliberately ignorant.
  12. I don't. The young people in England were just told that there was no money left and we would all have to tighten our belts and for them that meant if they wanted a university education they would need to borrow £9,000+ interest per year for the fees alone. Yet there are no cuts in pensions or the NHS as the government have decided that the 'baby boomer' generation will decide the next election as that is what the PR industry have told them. Another random example. The government are attacking employees rights are the moment, especially the right to claim for unfair dismissal. Yet they've introduced extra legislation to protect just one group of workers, the over 65s. From now claiming unfair dismissal will be harder and you'll have to pay cash up front to do it, but it will be illegal to retire somebody on the grounds of age. F*** the young is the new political way, I'm in my 30's but even I find it sickening.
  13. I don't. The young people in England were just told that there was no money left and we would all have to tighten our belts and for them that meant if they wanted a university education they would need to borrow £9,000+ interest per year for the fees alone. Yet there are no cuts in pensions or the NHS as the government have decided that the 'baby boomer' generation will decide the next election as that is what the PR industry have told them. Another random example. The government are attacking employees rights are the moment, especially the right to claim for unfair dismissal. Yet they've introduced extra legislation to protect just one group of workers, the over 65s. From now claiming unfair dismissal will be harder and you'll have to pay cash up front to do it, but it will be illegal to retire somebody on the grounds of age. F*** the young is the new political way, I'm in my 30's but even I find it sickening.
  14. I think wooden houses are nice, they have a lot of them in Norway and they're really nice. But you have to paint wooden houses (preferably in nice colours) and keep painting them every few years or they'll rot.
  15. Hello, I'm trying to write an article for an internet site about why house prices in a UK rocketed. No doubt there are many reason for this, but I believe that Labour gave the Bank of England a remit to keep inflation below 2%? Did they also remove house prices and asset values from the calculation to allow them to rocket and do you have sources for this?
  16. Will all this debt be paid back though, if not it's the lenders that will suffer, not the borrowers. Then again if the borrowers don't pay I guess the lenders can demand that the government make the tax payer compensate them.
  17. His comment is silly because money loses it's value over time. For example, if your house was worth £150,000 now, but you wanted £250,000 for it, but it was believed that it wouldn't be worth £250,000 until say, the year 2035; then the only reason it will be worth £250,000 in the year 2035 is because £250,000 will be worth a lot less in 2035 than it is today due to inflation. His quote is silly in my opinion, of course people can ask to much for a house. Now is what counts. There is only ever now, the time is always now and the past and future don't exist except ones in the mind either as memories or anticipation.
  18. Why not do as someone suggested and tell Sky that you'll cancel your service if they don't come and move you satellite dish? I doubt it would take anymore than that to sort it out. Or you could even ask your neighbours nicely to help you with it. But if you phone the local council your neighbours will have some jumped up bureaucratic jobsworth ***** from the council crawling all over their home for the next year and the would be a nightmare for them. Do they *really* deserve that? Only you can decide that I guess...
  19. I think Michael Moore was right when he said that we he was a boy people didn't hate the rich. The rich built the factories and created jobs meaning that the American working class could have homes, cars and nice lives. Not only that but the rich also paid a lot more in taxes back then too. But that just wasn't enough for the rich, they just had to have more and more, there was and is no such thing as enough for the owners of capital. They had to outsource the manufacturing jobs for cheaper and cheaper labour. They had to buy the politicians too and demand tax cut after tax cut from their political servants. Now people have just had enough and are saying this shit's got to go to paraphrase it. He's right, 'enough' is a dirty word in capitalism. There are three main ways that the mega wealthy get their wealth - 1. Inheritance. 2. Creating it for themselves. 3. Redistributing it from others to themselves (usually via speculation). We've always had inheritance (although many of the mega wealthy are now asking that inheritance tax be scrapped) but it seems to me that creating wealth has been largely replaced by the redistribution of wealth in recent years. How many of today's super rich built up companies creating products and performing services that people want or need? Not as many as there once were. It seems that now people get super rich by speculating via hedge funds which creates almost nothing except a large profit for them at someone else's expense. How many property millionaires were property developers building new homes, and how many were simply property speculators flipping properties during the bubble and BTLing? In America the wealthiest 400 people have as much as the poorest 150,000,000 people. Yet multi-billionaires are still funding the likes of the Tea Party to demand that they be given more. And people have just had enough of it and are starting to say no more.
  20. What do you suggest, that the able bodied refuse to work and just claim benefits and watch day time TV instead? Tempting but no thanks. Start a business of your own. No thanks, I've done that it's a huge amount of work and bloody hard work. Working for someone is much easier. What's your solution. Oh wait, you said "the capital owners". You want a communist workers paradise right?
  21. In my experience your friends do represent those in the above earnings bracket. It's because people tend to associate with people like themselves, so they're comparing what they have with what they see those around them having; not what most people have. People often think that their neighbours and social groups are representative of society as a whole when they're usually not. Salaries of around 35K are about average in the industry I work in (oil and gas). Someone on this type of salary once asked me if he thought most people earned more or less than we did. I said 'A LOT LESS' and he was surprised. My response was ask yourself this: 'Do you think most people in Scotland work in the offshore oil and gas industry like we do, or do most people work in places like factories, supermarkets, McDonalds and the likes? How many people do you think work for the local council and what is the pay like for 90% of them, how many nurses are there, how many people are in the army and how much do you think a soldier gets paid etc?'. Then he got it. But it's easy not to get it when you're not friends with many people working in those jobs, out of sight out of mind as they say.
  22. Hello, I just wondered if anyone has any stats about the amount of money borrowed to buy property in London, particularly in Central London. Basically, what I'm trying to figure out is if London's property is mostly owned by cash rich buyers who have paid down large deposits, or if most of London's property has been bought with mortgages for nearly 100% of the property's purchase price. I'm just trying to figure out what is likely to happen if the London property bubble bursts. Are the loses likely to stay with cash rich sellers? Or are they likely to damage the lenders (banks) again?
  23. They don't. The average pay is around £25K, all that means is if you add up all the wages and divide that by the number of people it's £25K. But that number is skewed by extra high earners. Almost nobody gets less than minimum wage but there is no upper limit. A better value to use if the mean (middle) value. If you do that you'll notice that only about 25% of people earn the 'average' wage or more. It's more like around 16K
  24. Bought for millions ten years ago and left empty?! Not bought to live in then. Sounds to me like foreign money is buying places in London to speculate. Sounds like a speculative bubble that could burst at any time, and a way for the Russian Mafia to launder cash. How soon will the London property bubble burst? Any takers?
×
×
  • 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.