twatmangle
-
Posts
2,177 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by twatmangle
-
-
Yep. The 'all Europeans are going to come over here and buy cheap houses coz of the currency and push the prices back up' argument ?
Made up by scared EA's IMO.
How many UK housing transactions involve 'foreigners' buying up cheap UK property due to the weak £ ?
1 in a thousand perhaps ? 1 in 500 ?
I bought my place with 'foreign money'.
-
They don't hold the title deeds though, those are held by the lender until such time the debt is discharged
.Utter rubbish.
-
BMW man's car is advertised at 46mpg but in reality he gets no more than 12mpg
Data?
-
A little like 'equity' in a house. You have no freaking equity if the price has gone up 10k but you still owe 150k.
My understanding of Equity is the saleable value of the house, minus the outstanding debt i.e your walk-away profit if you were to sell.
You could still owe £150K, but if it's saleable at £250k then you have equity. How can you say there is no equity?
-
Perhaps you could use the terms 'mortage holder' to describe the former, and 'outright owners' to describe the latter. 'Mortgage holder' does seem to be used by the media from time to time.
The same people are...
'Owners' - when the going is good and the market is booming.
'Mortgage holders' - when those nasty banks think about raising interest rates.
-
So that when people say they "own" football clubs that are massively in debt we find a better word for it.
Also for owner occupiers - they are only "owners" when it's all paid for...
They do own the home and this is clearly indicated on the deeds.
Please also note that the deeds are not held to ransom by the bank as some people on here think. They are held electronically by the Land Registry and a copy of any deed can be taken for a fee of £3.
-
No. I reverse in and drive out. The sensible option.
I live in a cul-de-sac, within a cul-de-sac, within a cul-de-sac.
I could power-slide out sideways with a handbrake-turn to finish and still have no chance of hitting anyone.
-
I don't know how it is in the USA, but in the UK the mortgage provider takes away your title deeds and keeps them in their safe. Presumably if someone else 'bought' the mortgage they would need the deeds as well.
They haven't been doing that for years. It's all electronic copies now.
-
Even better by getting the lorry to push you along for a bit.
-
Can't home "owners" afford a full tank of petrol any more?!
How can you come up with this conclusion?
It's about as analytical as saying:
I saw 4 pigeons on my way to work yesterday, and today there were only 3, that's a 25% fall!!!! Must be because people can't afford to feed the pigeons because they can't pay their mortgage because they borrowed too much for their silly little slave box, losers.
As people have said, there are a lot of reasons for putting a small amount of fuel in a car.
There are no valid conclusions to draw from your observations based on the information you have given.
-
Answer me one thing: Why should I pay to raise someone else'e kids? I have no vested interest in their welfare. If you can't afford children off your own back then use contraception.
About children in particular: they are the consumers, workers and tax-payers of tomorrow, and we will somehow expect them to wipe our arses and pay our pensions. That is the reason why children are needed, and it's all because of the pyramid scheme that we have for society. Yes the system is broken and unfair, and Gordon Brown should be hanging from a lamppost, but discouraging people to create future consumers and tax payers won't help current generations, or bring down the deficit.
So whether you like it or not, or even if you don't want to admit it, you do have a vested interest in the welfare of other people's children. Every single consumer who buys the products or services of your employer is the child of someone, and they're keeping you in a job.
-
But remember we are specifically talking about the people who don't actually need the payments.
Anyone who needs this money is more than welcome to it. Indeed, I'd glady take the money around myself rather than see a kid go cold / hungry / walk around with holes in his shoes.
However, it is not our responsibility to indirectly keep their parents in nice cars, their mortgage, nights out, piano lessons for children, foreign holidays, SKY TV and Capuccinos.
All of these things are fairly typical middle class trappings of a family earning £40k or £80k per year and they should be the first to go.
OK, but you did say:
Not being facetious, but what value do children put back into society in general? Lots of pleasure for the parents and I'm glad the human race will continue, but I personally couldn't care less and have no interest in funding them besides the basics such as education.Child benefit is £20 per week I think. It won't go far when you consider that nursery fees are about 800-900 per month.
In my day as a child, it was proportionately a lot more and really did make a difference. I remember going down the post office with my mum to collect it.
If you think 40k makes you middle class then you'll be disappointed when you get there.
-
The idea that shelf stackers on the breadline in Tesco should fund the children of the well off (40k a year is definitely well off) is just plain sick, sorry. Morally bankrupt. I cannot for the life of me see how anybody can support this state of affairs.
I suspect that someone earning 40K a year will be a net contributor to the tax system, and the Tesco under-achiever will be a net beneficiary of the same tax system.
The 40k person is subsidising the Tesco person.
-
So paying towards their healthcare, education and localised faciilties are not enough?
You were a recipient of child benefit or family allowance - or more specifically your parents were. Yet you would deny the same to today's children?
-
Not being facetious, but what value do children put back into society in general? Lots of pleasure for the parents and I'm glad the human race will continue, but I personally couldn't care less and have no interest in funding them besides the basics such as education.
They are the next generation of taxpayers and consumers.
-
Nothing against you personally, but I just can't muster any sympathy.
If one parent is earning £40k per year, or both, the family shouldn't be getting a sniff of a benefit.
Why is it anybodies responsibility to raise somebody elses kids if they physically can afford it themselves?
Taxes for healthcare, policing, all of those good things, yes. But to raise somebody elses sprogs puts no value back into society whatsoever after keeping them out of poverty.
The pay rise is a pay rise, the free money is a completely seperate issue.
Did your parents get anything for you when you were a child?I suspect they did.
If you think that children put no value back into society, then you clearly haven't been listening in class.
-
The situation then seems common sense, they are offered more money so why wouldn't they accept?
Self-respect.
-
Cant agree, the market can change between the time of your offer and the time you exchange, you may also find out more "facts" about the house and area that can lower the houses value to you, also the fixtures and fittings and home survey will all lead to renegotiation on the price.
I think there's a difference between last minute-gazundering and making a revised offer based on information received, eg from a survey.
I would have more self respect than to do something like this. I remember my parents being gazumped time and time again in the late 80's. It nearly destroyed their marriage. They lost three properties, all were barely a week before completion.
I have bought and sold a few properties overseas, and the normal practice is to go to the EA and express your interest. You put down a few hundred to secure the property, and to get them to stop marketing it. You agree your price and have a week to come up with your deposit. If you don't proceed then you lose your initial few hundred.
Not so different in Scotland.
-
Two people at work have exchanged in the past month and both were gazundered. Listening to their outraged squealing has been pure, unalloyed joy.
For many, it's not the money, it's the principle, and the annoyance of people going back on their word.
If the vendor and buyer have agreed a price, and the vendor has played fair the whole time, they have every right to be miffed if the buyer tried to stiff them at the last minute.
It's wrong to assume that the vendors would have done the same if they were given a higher offer from a third party, not everyone is a money-grabbing twunt. Many people are at peace with the world.
I am a man of my word, I wouldn't do this sort of thing either as a vendor or buyer. Money isn't everything.
-
With the recent Child Benefit coming at the one billion mark, and causing a partial meltdown among large constituents of the UK, what will the 83 billion cuts coming on Oct 20 do?
Or will they be spread out and spun etc so no one notices?
Monday: Government announce that they have to reduce spending and announce the biggest cuts ever.
Tuesday: Business confidence drops, house prices fall by an alarming amount, Tories decline in the polls.
Wednesday: Government announces that they may not cut as much after-all.
Let's see what happens.
-
Taking into account all the usual massaging and seasonal adjusting, thats one hell of a monthly drop!
Pretty big drop. My mate completed last week. I bet he's happy.
(Chart: MOM % from Halifax)
-
Get this. We stay in a council area in a town outside of Edinburgh. Rent is £180 per month (believe it or not) and some scumlord has bought the place opposite us and is charging rent at £600 per month!!!
This post has made me angry. Not angry with the landlord, angry with you.
You get away with paying next to nothing and still bitch and moan about others.
-
All child related benefit should be scrapped.
Furthermore those of us without kids should get a tax rebate commensurate with the costs incurred on the state in bringing them to adulthood.
-
I don't know if anyone has said this yet - I haven't read the whole thread, but it immediately creates a pay range that is not worth earning. If your pay rises to just below the threshold, the next jump would have to be a number of K more (say £5k for 3 kids) for it to have been worthwhile. I don't think being higher rate has had that kind of disadvantage before. Tax on dividends is different for higher rate tax payers but it doesn't affect many people. Those people on very gradual increases might try and go for a deal where they hold off on any rises for a couple of years in order to go for a higher rise later on that takes them past the disadvantage threshold.
Yes, as mentioned previously, salary sacrifice, benefit in kind, and various other options will suddenly be offered to those around 40K as alternatives to pay rises.
So Is This It Then? The Moment We Have All Been Waiting For Fast Approaching?
in House prices and the economy
Posted
Don't ask for much do you?