Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

godnose

New Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About godnose

  • Rank
    HPC Poster

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Wow i just listened to this earlier while walking around town. BA Linguistics at Machester. MA Anthropology in London.
  2. byron78 gets to the point here, so I needn't rake over it: Thank you.
  3. They are not productive. Their employees are productive. The rich are parasitising their workforce. A worker produces / does £100 worth of work/capital. The capitalist pays them less than that and sells it for more, pocketing the difference. The capitalists live off the poor. Parasites. In addition, we all know on this forum where money comes from, so called "demand": poor people taking on debt. Without the poor the rich would vaporise.
  4. The whole "snowflake" argument / discourse, whatever you might call it, is so lazy, mutton-headed, unfounded and historically ignorant, it's actually depressing and reflects badly on anyone that uses it. People have always pointed out what is wrong with the world. The young (and some not so young) of this world have particular challenges and this is a reaction to that. The challenges are becoming increasingly tough and more are being affected by them. There is perhaps an ever increasing danger that young critical people are going to eventually tackle the issues / those that sustain them and so the threat has seen the snowflake discourse emerge to undermine these people and try to spin the problem as something about them, as if they are defective. It's a dangerous trick picked up on by those in power and control (i.e. the media) to produce this discourse. The whole premise of this forum is that house prices are too high, rents ("rent" charged in the form of sale, and lettings) are extracted unfairly from a system which has been rigged to benefit extremely rich people. Nothing snowflakey about me, that's just it.
  5. No, in that (hypothetical and unlikely) situation with my own two hands and my body and access to the resources of the island, I'd be able to survive with some hard work. But, chances are that island will be owned by a member of the top 0.1% and I would need to pay rent on wherever I chose to live, and equally any land I foraged from or any sea I fished from. Plonk me anywhere in the UK if I eked out an existence like this I'd be trouble with whomever's land I was on. I'd probably be vilified as a new wave of gypsy too.
  6. Yes, and the money taxed was extracted as capital from the workers' labour and hours to begin with. The choice for workers is effectively: work for wages or be homeless and starve. Are they paid or are they victims of entrapment, extortion etc.? The state doesn't swoop in and steal money like a TV from someone's living room. The original "theft" is the employer from the worker. The worker's labour makes x amount of capital, the employer separates the worker from the value of their capital, pays them a fraction of what it's worth and sells it for a handsome profit for himself, that's the fundamental basis of capitalism (it's in the name) and all value (capital) in the economy. Teachers, paramedics, are set aside and subsidised by this model (rightly so), unless we have private teachers and paramedics, then the same model would apply. As northernsoul said, this model worked ok when the top CEO was on 20 or 25 times the lowest worker, now it's several hundred times it's getting pretty awful (housing, health, education, happiness). To reiterate my point, this trend of top level greed was set in place by the dropping top tax rate. It wasn't just a cultural phenomenon arising from the age, it was fostered by tax cuts.
  7. Raise the top rate of tax. Disincentivise vast greed, this will see top salaries come down. For example if everything over £1 million is taxed 90%, the difference in net income from £1 million to £1.5 million is only 50k; far less worth the effort to extract all that extra money from your workers' labours, and far less incentive to seek another higher wage elsewhere. With less capital extraction there is more to go around, more to invest, more to pay workers who are on lower tax bands. Tax was not always about just raising revenues, it's a way of stemming the greed of capitalists and making incomes more equitable. This is precisely why wages have stagnated in the West for the vast majority of workers while wages and wealth for the top 1 percent have boomed, and no one seems to realise this: you pay one person a vast sum, everyone else has to take a hit to enable that (Jeff Bezos / Amazon warehouse workers?). When we see this incentivised greed in house builders, who pay their CEOs tens of millions per year, we see the mechanisms that make this possible, low wages to the workers, labourers etc. very poor quality of building and housing materials; in other less geographically bound industries it leads to outsourcing (ie paying as little as is possible in the global market: exploitative labour, low quality goods). Yes, the tax contribution from the rich will be less this way, but the money saved on the 1 percenter salaries would be realised throughout the economy elsewhere. Greed at the top has been Furnished this way. It's a Tory policy, it was Tory when Blair allowed it. It's blue through and through.
  8. I'm trying to keep it simple here mate! There'll be a gaggle of people creaming off Primark's greatest profits, other head honchos, mostly share holders, I imagine. The point is, that greed at the top is funded effectively through wage squeezes right through the business, i.e. the bottom (much of the middle, whatever you want to call it). Average salary for a sales worker is sub 9k; appalling basically. The government is subsidising big businesses, shareholder value and 1 per-center salaries, by allowing them to pay crap wages. The benefits system though, is benefiting the rich though on net, not the poor, that is basically my point. Stop the greed at the top and see wages rise, fewer need for benefits. As Zilly said above.
  9. As we all know her on HPC forum, demand (i.e. for housing ) is set by how much money can be delivered to people for them to pay with. Demand in the whole economy (consumer goods, food etc.) is the same, and that's what keeps the super rich afloat. The model may have been to be generous with benefits, but the benefit is to the top 1% ultimately. They have been permitted to screw people with such badly paid jobs, employment prospects, and feeling of worthlessness that people are so poor or won't work, and that ultimately is gonna see the 1% shoot themselves in the foot. If the population stops spending at Asda, Primark etc. watch the whole thing tumble. The top 1% are the people that extract the lion share of wealth from the economy, so the government gives benefits to aid this suicidal model of economics (the parasite 1% effectively killing the host - the populace). Yes, it helps the poor, but we are in trickle up economics. Labour's model was to forefront that they were helping the poor, but they were channeling major wealth to the top with this model. It was a great marriage of Thatcher and Labour policy, the Thatcherite winning out typically. And yes, as the other guy said, this is all down to coorporate greed. I support benefits, I don't support benefits being better than working, but that's the fault of employers, not benefits. Wages have stagnated and made been left behind by benefits, which is pretty shocking. If the CEO of Primark (insert name of any consumer goods company here) is gonna take £7.5 million a year out, then, wages of those shop workers are gonna needed to be squeezed.. Don't even get me started on the horror down the supply chain. Anyway, it's no coincidence wages have flat-lined...
  10. This place had potential but they really skimped on the bedroom spaces, would feel like a teenager forever in these small rooms https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/47617105 Price history Sold prices provided by Land Registry 1st Oct 2018 £500,000 Price reduced by £99,950 25th Nov 2017 £599,950 Price reduced by £25,050 9th Oct 2017 £625,000 Price reduced by £25,000 6th Sep 2017 £650,000
  11. Modest 2 bed flat in East London for sale https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/43002385 The owners obviously fancy themselves a bit as interior designers or something. They want to get out of there though. Price history Sold prices provided by Land Registry 26th Sep 2018£425,000 Price reduced by £25,000 22nd Aug 2018£450,000 Price reduced by £25,000 30th May 2018£475,000 Price reduced by £10,000 3rd May 2018£485,000 Price reduced by £30,000 7th Mar 2018£515,000 Price increased by £20,000 11th Jan 2018£495,000 Price reduced by £20,000 7th Nov 2017£515,000 First listed
  12. Someone tried this exact same ruse with me on Reddit. Quite crazy that a lot of people don't notice it!!
  13. Yes, definitely huge impact. Take Danny Dorling's work (professor of Geography at Oxford; from Oxford originally). His work follows that Oxford (for example) has a problem because London has a problem. Oxford has some very expensive houses at the high end (£2-5 million). That money pours in from London. For some rich, London is not to their taste, they like academic and quaint Oxford, have children schooled there etc. Then every satellite town around Oxford has a problem, house prices in Bicester, Abingdon, Wheatley, Thame all inflated at this rate. This is occurring across the south east. And then there are people who commute Oxford to London as well. Every car you see commuting in the morning that is priced-out money lifting house prices like a rising flood around where jobs are. And then the BTLers are putting money in houses to ride the wave too, and then normal people are actually buying houses (people taking on monster mortageges in London, Oxford central etc.). A 2 bed flat in central Oxford wouldn't be £500,000 if houses in PCL weren't £10-15 million etc. The effect is massive.
  14. This is in the right direction, but I'm older than that and renting in shared flat. Can honestly say £10,000 would not change my life at all (unless you count going on a holiday, buying nice clothes, a car etc. the things this money should not be spent on!). In terms of actual quality of life / life satisfaction improvement, which let's face it, at the very base, means not being fleeced by some landlord, we need serious systemic change. Living wage, taxing top 1%, taxing btl severely.
  15. Disclaimer: anecdotal: I grew up in a house completed in 1996. Bought for £190,000, now valued approx £850,000 . Classic family home for normal people once, now almost a millionaire street. Bloody ridiculous. Everyone who moves in now drives BMWs and Mercedes, we had a Peugeot 205 a few years back and now a Nissan Micra. To me it seems like the last estate they ever built that had any effort into making it look nice, not all built on top of each other in a mess and having decent gardens and space. The build quality is generally ok. The houses look of decent quality. The floorboards are a type of composite, however, and they creak, stairs creak and sound travels pretty well inside which is the biggest drawback. 2 people having a conversation not in hushed tones in the downstairs can be heard upstairs at night etc. In the same town my friend's parents house was built in the 1930s/1940s and was ex-council but it was a nice house. Sound hardly traveled at all, but you had to be considerate. My dad now lives in a Victorian house. Solid. No sound travels. Can watch TV all night / talk on the phone whilst people sleep upstairs. It's in the bricks and the wooden structure of the house. On my experience it seems really ever since the 2010s that they hugely dropped in quality. Now they are terrible. However, as many note above they have steadily decreased over the years. But the Victorian era to the 1940s etc. people weren't shafted. They were building loads more houses at the time to meet demand, but the houses were generally now bad. Probably not going to be able to afford a house for another 15 years, but when I can, I will not go near anything built after 2010. In my eyes it all links to greed and inequality. The more profit that can be squeezed out of anything (i.e. low top tax rate allows this) the larger the incentive to maintain the price and drive down the quality. How do you think Persimmon CEO is taking a £100 million bonus? Top rate of tax at 90% over £200,000 please and the penny pinching stops.
×
×
  • 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.