captainb
-
Posts
4,533 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by captainb
-
-
3 hours ago, desiringonlychild said:
Offered £480k on a 3 bed flat listed at £600k. Was flatly rejected, said there were 'multiple offers significantly above my offer'. Was that before or after the 7% mortgage rates.
This is a probate flat too and has been in the same family for 40 years...
Tbh unless 600k was a mad price sounds realistic.
Nothing in the as sold data so far suggests 20% plus falls in nominal
540k might be a cheeky realistic bid
-
19 minutes ago, winkie said:
All loans underwritten by the government.
No checks undertaken...
-
The PM authorised the bounce back loan festival of fraud.
What does anyone expect
-
11 minutes ago, spxy said:
if there is lack of supply of housing why do 30% of houses on rightmove never sell? That would suggest it high prices that are stalling the market not actual supply
Because people buy something else and those properties arnt priced for the living with parents in an HMO or serco for DSS categories.
The nature of the hit price is a combination of factors but why it's so high in London compared to say Livingston is very much supply and demand imbalance.
If you really think there is no supply problem that's cool. But maybe consider why with the rate shift prices haven't fallen more substantially.
-
The amount of nonsense on here, oil producers "not accepting fiat" takes the crown for hyberbolic crap of the day
-
29 minutes ago, shlomo said:
I sometimes do wonder when I come across people like accountants who are supposed to be good with money have no money themselves, at the age of 30 he has no savings and only £40k in a pension pot, what does he do with his money go to Lithuania and spend the mney on hookers
Spent it on property in west London?...
-
The number of these staged crap videos appearing... The number of people who can sit through the terrible acting astounds me
-
20 minutes ago, Fancypants said:
We are not producing enough young people of working age to support our ageing population, so we need to import them.
I have to say, immigrants sending for elderly parents is a new one on me. All around the world, the overwhelming majority of people who migrate are young.
Doesn't make sense
You need 2X workers for each elderly that's a unsustainable model.
As if you import that 2x, they get old and you need 4x imported etc etc
Population chart can't rise ala 1960s forever
-
3 minutes ago, The Angry Capitalist said:
I have not seen any comments saying London is over or banking shares are collapsing.
But my personal observations indicate that there is a developing trend of people leaving the capital for better opportunities elsewhere.
I have commented in many threads highlighting why this might be the case.
We won't know for sure until in a few years time when we will see symptoms of this possible development.
It might not turn out to be the case but this is what I think is happening and will get progressively worse.
The title of this thread.
People have always left London for leafy pastures in their 40s/50s, replaced by a cohort of immigration and movement from regional university's. I don't see that stopping nor is there any as shared evidence for it.
Saldy as levels of immigration have increased to feed the city without building they have as observed been stacked into sheds or if eligible for housing benefit sent up north. Plenty of actual evidence for this
-
1 hour ago, The Angry Capitalist said:
I always view statistics with little conviction.
How are those statistics taken? What are they defining as part of the population?
Many people visit London and stay there temporarily. Perhaps for 6 months and working a part time job to pay for their stay.
Just for part of the experience. People from all over the world. Are they being taken recorded into the stats?
Furthermore, my comment was in relation to recent times particularly the last 2 years or so and that data goes up-to 2020.
I think when data is collected for the period 2021 to 2025 we will see a different trend.
I don't get it.
Such bold hyberbolic statements such as, London is OVER, banking shares COLLAPSE etc etc
Not a thread of remote evidence.
As others have pointed out the tube and everything is heaving, there's people queing to even view rental properties, Thames water has issues from too much demand, immigrants are sadly being stacked into bunk beds or sheds in Ealing Yadda yadaa
But no.. London is over. It's all empty. It's nonsense.
HSBC moving from canary wharf to the city is a story I guess and there's probably too much office space in places like Croydon. Oh and the council's are corrupt. There you go some reality...
-
7 hours ago, The Angry Capitalist said:
My comment was more in relation to the last 10 years as opposed to history in general.
The proof is in the pudding.
People are leaving once prosperous cities in droves.
London, New York & San Francisco etc.
Real world? Or just per this forum?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/910658/population-of-london/
-
On 6/30/2023 at 11:03 AM, Trampa501 said:
Remember all the smear stories from certain posters on here, claiming that EU migrants didn't contribute to our economy? Seems they put in a lot more than realised.
What's the average per capita of each? And average across whole of UK.
Without that graph meaningless aside from those from say France contributing a lot more than say Romania.
-
Meh, talk of peak rate of 6.5 or 6.25 or 6.75 isn't that interesting.
What is interesting is whether they come back down to say 2 or stay at a higher plateau like 4 or 5 for years
Markets have been pricing in 4.5 in 2025 now.
Flip side is that expectation is based on sticky wage based inflation so rates pushing prices down higher wages up.
-
1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:
That would depend on wider circumstances and how quickly/effectively we process those who do make claims.
Currently our very slow processing and large black economy economic migrants can work is a strong pull factor
Rapid processing of claims and deportation of those who fail would be a far greater deterrent than the unaffordable (£170k per head) Rwanda scheme. We could also massively increase the fines levied on those who employ immigrants without the right to work. Personally bankrupt a few dozen such employers and many more would get the message.
Understood and agreed with process ref claims etc.
But you do get the issue? If you limit number of successful safe route claims by number or country of origin (would Pakistan or Albania be on the list?)
There is still a very large cohort of people who won't be eligible for the safe route or will miss the lottery or whatever allocation is used and still use the 'old route'
On deportation the issue is the legal appeals and claims blocking them. I.e. if someone doesn't have any documents it's not easy to evidence they are from Pakistan rather than Afghanistan or 21 not 17, through all the court appeals.
I don't see how you can have the much needed safe legal routes without a total block on "illegal" i.e. anyone arriving is immediately deported to X. Otherwise any limit on numbers of legal route would have to be so small as illegal route takes up all the resource.
Get the 160k per head is insane but so was the cost of 150k per head of housing in hotels,legal bills etc etc of staying.
-
1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:
What is enough?
I am surprised they agree to do anything while the UK refuses to set up a safe legal route for people wishing to claim asylum in the UK.
How would you feel if the position was reversed and the UK clogged up with tens of thousands of asylum seekers wishing to reach France to exercise their legal right to lodge an asylum claim there.
Genuine question, how many? And those that don't fit in the quota will still come illegally no?
Or is there a deterrent as well?
(Note I actually support both but one without the other doesn't work imho)
-
Another suggestion...
Offer them private sector style pensions but give the huge saving to them as increase in base.
If we really are comparing pay in private v public hospital systems might as well be a reaosnable all in comparison
-
50 minutes ago, teal77 said:
Yes, but that 230k figure for training a medical student to be a Junior Doctor has been widely criticised.
For example, https://fullfact.org/health/cost-training-doctor/ , attempts to break it down further. Again, a criticism being that the money that goes to hospitals for supporting medical student training isn't really used for that purpose.
In America, the debt is due to predatory practices by the Universities. It's so high because they know they can charge it because Doctors in America will command such high salaries to pay it back. The salaries are high in America because it is private healthcare for profit. It has nothing to do with institutions not having to fund/charge for training.
Additionally, once they graduate in America, they apply for post-graduate training programmes run by the healthcare institutions they go to work for in their particular specialty, that lasts about 4 years, then they are the equivalent of consultant. It is my understanding that during these post-graduate training programmes they are paid better than some of the Junior Doctors here but will work much, much more hours. But in the USA Junior Doctors will get actual proper dedicated training and a lot of job perks that the NHS does not provide. Ultimately, they become a consultant earning far more money in a lot shorter time in the USA. Whereas here, Junior Doctors are stuck on an incredibly long training pathway before being a Consultant/GP with lots of additional expenditure for exams etc.
On your link the point made is that figure includes the loan, fair, which is why I deducted it to get the delta being the charge;
"The government ultimately pays less than £230,000 to put a doctor through medical school
The £230,000 estimate can be broken down into approximately:
£163,000 paid in grants that the government won’t get back. These either go directly to students, to healthcare providers to support clinical placements, or to universities to reflect the higher costs of delivering medical education.
Another £64,300 comes in student loans. These are similar to loans for other kinds of university courses, covering tuition and living costs."
I.e. it's the 163k additional. I wouldn't just dismiss the additional training debt by doctors in USA or aus etc it's just predatory loan companies. There clearly is whichever way you cut the cloth a significant cost to train doctors (understandly so) the split between individual/loan company and state varies between nation, alongside differing rates of pay for that risk/burden.
-
7 minutes ago, teal77 said:
Actually, that's not quite accurate.
Firstly, the 9k figure only applies to England. The medical students will meet that the same other students do.
Secondly, the figures for 'how much it costs to train an NHS Doctor' are largely pulled out of the air. I would genuinely ask you to try and find good evidence for how much it costs.
Thirdly, the money that is paid to Trusts to help train medical students arguably does not go to training medical students. There is a lot of criticism that this is spend in other places in actuality.
Part of the problem seems to be that it is hard to get concrete facts on some of the issues.
Ok so in Scotland they don't pay the 9k.
States 230k here from 2017 so with inflation 270k now?
Regardless what we do know is medical graduates in the USA where it's not state funded graduate with multiples of UK student debt to service.. hence the higher salaries paid by institutions who don't have to fund/charge for training
Not sure it would be reaosnable in any other industry to be allowed to jump from one to another like that
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/more-undergraduate-medical-education-places
-
19 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:
Well that is the issue in the past, the number of doctors being trained was too low and one reason was the expense that was being born by the NHS. so if you have a govt that thinks short term (is there any other kind) they would cut recruitment and poach doctors from overseas. This is what the UK has been doing for 20 years odd. In that time globalisation has made everyone much more mobile and doctors can pick and choose based on pay and workload. This has finally caught up with the UK. i talked over the idea of tying doctors to the NHS withg step son, he coud'nt see how it would work as it takes so long to train as a consultant that you might be siging contracts for 15 -20 years and no-one in the right mind would do that.
personally i favour the NHS paying off their student loans over say 10 years as long as they stay in the NHS.
Well you can do as in other industries a sliding scale where if you leave before x years y becomes repayable.
Wouldn't need a 15 year contract.
It's just if you jump ship after 5 to USA you get another 125k lumped into your student debt.
Noting that the additional 125k just puts you on par with your American collegues who paid themselves i.e. not the state.
-
4 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:
My step son is training to be a consultant. he tells me he is receiving almost daily emails from agencies offering him to double his wages by moving to Oz, Nz, UAE etc. Mu neighbour is a pakistani consultant, he told me he had offers from Canada, America and the UK before choosin the UK on family grounds (brother in law in UK) the other countries offered much more pay. It is an international market and the UK can hardly complain that its doctors are being poached as it has been poaching other countries doctors for years.
In a university, the management would usually (if they value the person) simply match their pay offer to retain them. The end result is that the professorial average is £90k p.a. - more than the doctors average but less than the consultant average and this represents a pretty good measure of what retaining a professor to the UK costs. The NHS cannot do this, it is a soviet style system in which the concept of retention is an anathema. Without changing this the doctors probably have no option but to strike.
btw there are 430 managers in the NHS who earn above the consultants average and do (according to step son) sfa, sack them give the consultants a pay rise and ask them to help out with management.
Do you not think then that doctors should cover the full cost of their training not capped at 9k per annum like in USA etc etc...
That's the stinger. The Soviet state pays the huge training costs but doesn't tie them down with any sort of retention penalty to leaving to places where pay is higher and student debt.
-
10 hours ago, 24gray24 said:
In defense of the water companies (since no one else is willing to try):
1. A million extra immigrants a year, has over stretched capacity beyond what the regulator will allow by way of price rises. All the problems stem from that.
2. Poor old thames water had to build a new sewer line under the whole of London, didn't it? (Or at least get ready for it).
Anyone offer up any better?
Ready 2025, costs 4.3billion walk past the billboard daily.
-
18 minutes ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:
However......
Windfarms help drive record profit for crown estate
Seabed fees lift annual profit to £443m amid talks over what proportion of windfall should be shared with King Charles
Cash and the crown estate: a look at the British monarchy’s funding deal
Absolutely none.
The idea that a hereditary monarch should get fees from the seabed is absurd.
-
6 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:
I guess, it depends on lots of factors.
Cost to build from scratch is about £1,750 per m2. Reasonable house would be 70m2 to 100m2 (2 to 3 beds). I stated an average of two per house so let's build two bedders at £122,500 a pop. This would build 147K houses per annum but this would also exclude the land and CIL charges.
Conservatively would add the same again for the land and scrap the CIL since it's a racket for local authorities. we're down to approve 73.5K houses.
However, £18bn saved could finance a much higher debt (say a loan of 5X that value and therefore build 5X the houses. You can see though that we arrive at £367.5K houses. Not even close to touching the existing stock of housing in PR and SR sectors sadly.
The other reality is you'd have to install all the infrastructure, roads etc around these houses (building a one off on an existing plot excludes those costs). There may well be efficiencies if the government is building en masse but I wouldn't say that, in general, the government procurement systems are especially efficient. Certainly no more efficient than someone building their own house which is where that £1,750 m2 figure comes from.
The council does own land typically, and has the right to award planning. I.e. should be able to compulsory purchase land without for low cost then give itself the right to build.
Additionally as stock goes up, demand for lower end PRS falls reducing the legacy benefit bill... (Unless you believe demand/supply has no impact on sales or rent prices Yadda yadaa )
Basically there's got to be a better long term use for that 18b!
-
32 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:
Another great post!
Guardian's proposal is simply to chuck in more money for these dossers so they push up prices for everyone.
Red beret wearing 🤡s
18billion bill? Per annum? How many social housing units could that novel idea build...
Auditors Refuse To Sign Off Department Of Work & Pensions Accounts For 35th Year
in House prices and the economy
Posted
Some got 10x 50k loans for the same shell company
Hang on why aren't the architects of this "bonfire of taxpayers money" (FT) in the dock .....