Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

MrWallace

Members
  • Posts

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MrWallace

  1. It's completely feasible to tax buy-to-let profits at a higher rate than other capital gains, in fact other countries have done it in the past. The problem is politicians of all parties are neo-liberal who believe that it should all be left to the markets and wouldn't want to do it. In fact, after the crash Labour wanted to introduce special tax breaks for buy to let landlord. So it's completely feasible, but if anything the powers that be would do the opposite. Always remember that politicians are mostly corrupt self seeking scum and that they're all bought, then things will make more sense.
  2. The FTSE is down around a quarter since 1999 but in value terms shares are around four time as cheap is they were then. Creatmont Research do a lot of research into the value of stocks and is a good site to look at. Basically, stock markets tend to go through cycles lasting around 10-20 years where P/E ratios are either falling or rising. We are currently in a bear market that started around 1999/2000 with the dot com crash, it's nearly over. The last bull market started in 1982 and lasted until the dot com crash. I believe it's a good time to start loading up on shares as the next bull market isn't far off. If the past is anything to go by it will probably last 10 - 20 years when it starts. http://www.crestmontresearch.com/docs/Stock-PE-Report.pdf Buy when everyone else is scared, sell when everyone else is telling you what a great investment it is.
  3. I'm the same. I wouldn't touch gold with a barge poll. Why? Because I don't even know how to value gold, it could be a bubble. Like I said, the stock market is a value weighing machine in the long-term. If you're going to need the money soon then don't buy shares because they could go up or down in the short-term as sentiment can drive the market either way, but the company's earnings and underling value will drive their share prices in the long-term. I believe in looking for good companies and buying them a good price as measured by the price/earnings ratio and investing the money in that for the long-term. Price to earnings is a great way of valuing companies. I know of no such way of measuring the value of gold, and I suspect it could be one giant bubble. In 1971 when Nixon took the US off the last remaining parts of the gold standard gold cost $37 per oz and world GDP was around 3.3 trillion USD. So using those figures gold is now worth about $600 to $700 per oz. But like I say, I'm not sure that (or any other method for that matter) is a good way of measuring it's true value so I won't touch the stuff. Who buys an asset with no way of measuring it's 'true' worth? For what it's worth I believe the next bull market in shares isn't far off, P/E ratios have been falling for 11 or 12 years now.
  4. 0.5% for the foreseeable future? Now if I could get interest above the rate of inflation I might be interested.
  5. Cash is always king in the short term - you can buy anything that is for sale if you have the cash. In the long-term, cash is trash. Example: I bought my first flat in 2005 for £72,000. When I got the deeds through they said it was built in 1890 and valued at 'no less than the sum of one hundred pounds'. Nowadays I could spend £100 buying a meal for a few people. In 2010 I sold that flat for £115,000. Shares are a good investment right now, you can get good companies like BHP Billition and BP for P/E's of 7 to 1. Shares return dividends and unlike property you can turn your shares back into cash in an instant with the click of a mouse. The time to buy shares is when they're cheap in terms of their P/E ratio. Right now P/E ratios are low because there is so much fear in the markets - but they do say the time to invest is when there is blood in the streets... I said cash was king in the short-term but trash in the long-term, but what about shares? Well, in the short-term the stock market measures feelings, in the long-term the stock market measures value.
  6. Because the are, the Tories are nasty. Labour are illiberal control freaks who want to abolish free speech and force everyone to carry an ID card. And the Liberal Democrats are totally unprincipled two face risk adverse liars. And every 4 or 5 years around 50% of the population vote for one of them based on which of the three parties they currently hate the least - the other 50% of the population have realised that spending five minutes putting a cross next to any of them is a complete waste of their time. The corrupt seek power.
  7. Read generations, the history of America's future or any of the follow-ups. The baby boomers were born after a crisis and spoilt as a generation, generation X'ers were brought up being told that they weren't as good as their parents generation etc... X'ers will have to sort out a crisis that the boomers will cause with their selfishness and lack of pragmatism - they're a real idealistic generation the boomers, self indulgent hippies in their youth causing trouble in the 60's, selfish yuppies in the 80's and war mongering neo-puritans in their old age demanding that their pensions are protected whilst the young are no longer entitled to a funded university education like they had. ****** the young is now their motto... Well that's the theory anyway, and the book was publish almost two decades ago.
  8. I don't get it. Since when have the Tories got all upset about this sort of stuff? It's surely just another PR branding exercise like when call me Dave was doing his 'hug a hoodie' or looking at melting ice in Norrway? If the Tories thought this was so terrible why are they so insistent on deporting people back to those places? It's like they're ashamed of who they are, which I wouldn't totally argue that they shouldn't be I suppose.
  9. 17 year olds aren't really treated like 7 year olds though, are they? Are you seriously telling me that they are? Firstly, no sane parent would treat them that way. Do you know any parent with a 17 year old who treats them exactly like they did when they were 7? The criminal justice system will not treat a 17 year old like a 7 year old either, but nor will it treat them exactly like an adult. In child custody dispute for example a judge will probably not take the child's opinions into account if they are 7. Sex is legal at 16, just another for example. But in Scotland I think it's illegal to have sex with anyone under 18 if you are in a position of authority over them, i.e. teacher and student etc... The driving age is 17. Mopeds are 16 though. Age for marriage is 16, but I believe parental consent is needed in England and Wales if under 18? Society at large won't treat 17 year olds like they're 7 years old either. If a cop saw a 7 year old wandering around town they'd probably enquire as to why they weren't at school. A 7 year old couldn't even buy a cinema ticket for many films, nor even get in to a movie alone without questions. If I saw a 7 year old wandering around town late at night alone I'd probably be worried and ask if they were OK or call the police, I certainly wouldn't do that if they looked 17. But I can't believe that leaving school at age 14 is acceptable. If it were up to me (and I'm going using the Scottish system where there are six years of secondary school, the first four standard grade, then highers for those that are capable, then sixth year studies or the last year of a higher if it's taken over two years) people would have to have had to done 12 years in school or be at least 18 to leave. In education you typically do this nowadays - 7 years in primary school. 4 years to get up to (standard grade/GCSE level). 2 Years for A level or 1-2 years for higher level + 1 year for sixth year studies if a higher was completed in one year in Scotland. 3-4 Years to BSc/BA level. 4 more year to get up to Phd level (but there is Masters and Mphil in between). The current bar is set at GCSE/Standard grade level. Our education system is not what is should be and I believe the exit bar should be set to higher or A level. To reduce it below GCSE/standard grade level, would, I believe be a terrible mistake. We'd probably end up with lower educational standard than anywhere in the developed world that I can think of.
  10. It doesn't. Sate schools cost around £6,000 per child per year and university is around £9,000 - £12,000 per year.
  11. Looks like some wasn't kicked out of the UK because they had a good family life with a British person? Part of the evidence for this was that they'd bough a cat together. So the cat ownership was part of the evidence, not the reason. Right wingers do themselves no favours by distorting the truth and lying. You want the UK to be out of the human rights act? OK, fine. Make the argument based on the facts and tell me which rights you'd like to scrap and why. Don't go lying about it though.
  12. The person? You do realise that we're talking about children here, don't you? Would you let a 14 year old drink as much alcohol as they liked, leave home, drive a car, sign a mortgage, get married etc...? You seem to be saying that if a kid doesn't see the point of being at school then it's fine for them to leave and claim money on the dole? If you said to me at 14 'would you like to go to school or get some dole money instead' then I'd have taken the cash. I wouldn't have been responsible enough to do otherwise.
  13. "Wow. So kids are forced to go to school for seven or eight years and at the end of that they can still barely read or write?" Just to be clear, 7 years of schooling is the end of primary seven. How were your skills in reading and writing when you were leaving primary school for secondary school after 7 years of education? It typically takes four more years after these first seven years to reach GCSE level. That isn't just true of young people today, it was the case when I left school too. "yet your prescription is to force kids to spend even more time locked away in a room with them?" And your prescription is what? Sack a load of teachers and reduce the minimum educational standards even further because our educational system is not as good as it should be? We both agree that there are problems with the education system. I want to improve it and see minimum standards raised, and I think in a modern globalised world it is essential that we do so. You want to do the opposite by the sounds of it? If you do that then I think the UK will be falling behind south east Asia within a generation.
  14. Children aren't properly educated by age 14, and they <i>are</i> still children at that age. They are children who haven't even sat any exams. Make the school leaving age 14 and in twenty years from now there will be millions of people who, after leaving school at 14, didn't get any formal qualifications and can barely read or write. You could say that's already the case now but cutting mandatory education down from 11 years to 9 years will only make things much worse. In countries like China and Malaysia they are educating their young well and they will have a population far better educated than ours soon. We need a well educated population to be a civilised, modern, prosperous nation capable of competing in the 21st century world. The last thing we need to be is a country where millions left school at the end of their 2nd year in high school and didn't even begin to study subjects to standard grade (O level) level. Take education out of a country and the country is screwed. I say make the age of leaving school 18 and do more to allow teachers to keep order in the class room so the children actually learn something. Our education system is a disgrace as it is, making the standard of school leaver it produces even lower by scrapping the requirement to study certain subjects to at least standard grade level would be appalling for this country's future.
  15. I think 'Pent Up' has hit the nail on the head. The house in question has been on the market for a year, so even if you made an offer today it would depend upon you selling your own house first, which could take another year. They're really not interested in waiting a year until you sell yours and prices could be considerably lower by then.
  16. I'm OK with builders getting public land if they sell the houses cheaper as a result, especially if the homes are only be going to be sold to people on low incomes or those without a house. Selling of state (council) housing is wrong in my opinion. And doing it at a discount is even worse. Typical Tories thought, I hate the Tories, I think they're a bunch of c***s.
  17. Handouts aren't so bad when they're there to help ordinary people. It's when rich bankers and rich corporations get massive handouts from my tax money that I get pissed off.
  18. PS. I'm also not sure printing money will hurt the likes of the Chinese as much as people seem to think. The West decided to ship it's manufacturing over to China and China held it's currency down so that they could make our jeans for £5 per pair. If the west devalue their own currency China can still produce those goods, it's just that the west won't be able to afford to buy them anymore. The Chinese will have more money though as their currency will be worth more as a result of the economies of the west devaluing theirs... So in short, all that will happen is the Chinese will now be able to afford to consume the goods they produce, which is probably how it should have always been. Their seems something wrong with a country not being able to afford to consume what it actually produces, perhaps this will correct that. Sure they'll still be holding a few trillion worth of devalued paper, but hey, we did ship our manufacturing over their wholesale as they bought the worthless bits of paper, so it's not like they didn't get any for it. They bought a few trillion of worthless paper and got the west manufacturing facilities in return. Not a bad deal really.
  19. Ha ha, yeah... The Daily Wail is a heap of crap mostly. Saying that, Labour lying and covering things up (especially before an election) is hardly new. The Labour party are professional liars, and going by the behaviour of some of their MPs, professional criminals too.
  20. If they print loads of money owning just about anything would be better than owning cash, but saying that, I don't expect housing to increase in real terms House Price Forecast
  21. The Labour government aggressively courted the billionaires from places like Russia, deliberately leaving tax loopholes like the 'non-dom' tax break open for them so they could live here without paying taxes. I shouldn't have said 'loophole' though, those were tax breaks for billionaires not loopholes. Loopholes are things that are only open by mistake, these were deliberate. The Labour government just didn't want to admit it. Anyway, since these homes are way beyond the reach of most British people if the foreign billionaires stop investing then with few local buyers to under pin the market it could be one hell of a crash.
  22. Saw they had another headline today saying that cheap home loans were on their way...
  23. I'd have to agree with you. 2 years ago I sold my first place and moved in with my partner in rented place. We had two choices, buy and risk the value of the property going down or keep paying rent every month. Renting a decent place in Aberdeen costs around £10,000 per year. Since I can get a place for about 15 years worth of rent in the this city, waiting five years would mean p1ssing a way 1/3rd of the asking prices on rent. If the government print more money inflation will only get worse, that will destroy the value of money (and debt), but not the value of property. If I were you I'd shop around and when you see a place you like offer below the asking price, if they take it fine, if not plenty more sellers, it's definitely a buyers market at the moment. In the short-term, cash is King, have enough of it and you can purchase what you want. In the long-term cash is trash, inflation destroys it's value, it need to be invested not hoarded.
  24. I expect there is rather more to it than this. Firstly, inflation is at around 4% - 5%, if house prices aren't keeping up with this then they are falling in real terms. OK, most peoples incomes aren't keeping up with inflation either at the moment so there is that. Secondly, in many parts of the country house prices are not only falling in real terms but in actual terms too. Property prices are still rising in posh parts of London, this is skewing the figures. There are a number of reasons for this. Only the mega-wealthy can buy in posh parts of London and the mega-wealthy are pretty much immune to the effects of recessions, for the bankers for example there is no recession and big bonuses are back. Foreign investors are also taking advantage of the weak British Pound to buy property in central London, but with few local people to underpin the market, property in central London might turn out to be the biggest housing bubble of them all.
×
×
  • 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.