Ordinary Guy

The goal should not be to bring the banks down, but to stop them taking the piss with the rediculous bonuses. And yes, people power can work ... http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/27/dutch-bankers-bonuses-axed-by-people-power?cat=business&type=article Adrian

Any recommendations for 2 or 3 other Building Societies to use?

ok, since we are talking about more than double that ... Sounds like I need to open some other accounts with other banks and start spreading my savings about? Will that help or does the Govenment see that as the same thing?

I have a large amount of cash in my Building Society account. The Halifax as it happens. If/(when) things go belly up here in the UK, is there any danger that any of the Buliding Societies/Banks could go bust!?! I watch the large financial institutions lending more and more money to people on increasingly flakey grounds ... And then I realised that these are the same people looking after my hard earnt savings!!! How safe are our life savings?

Sorry if this has already been posted. US House Prices Since 1890 Plotted as Roller Coaster Ride http://www.yougottaseethisvideo.com/2007/0...plotted-as.html Adrian

Gravity - An interesting analogy ... "What goes up, must come down". Whilst I belive this will be the case, it gave me cause to ponder when my grandfather pointed out that this was only true if things didn't go into orbit or escape the pull of their local planet all together.

I'm amazed to hear so many educated people in positions of information and authority saying that the 5% move is bad and will hurt first time buyers. From where I'm standing, the housing market is a runaway train with many people not wearing seat belts. Sure, putting the brakes on is going to result in some pain. But that's because it's a runaway train. Whatever the resulting pain, it's better than leaving the train to get even faster and having to put the brakes on even later and harder in the future. Atleast a few more people may think twice about getting on now. The only bad thing is that they have been left off for so long up until now.

That does sound a little extreme. I was more thinking along the lines of phasing in some increased taxes over time to dissuade buy-to-let activities as a secondary income for people with money to spare. Just something to get homes back to being something that people buy to live in, rather than investments or additional incomes.

As I sit and watch the whole crazy situation, I wonder if there are not other ways to bring the whole crazy runaway train to a halt. Just how much is the housing shortage/price escalation caused by buy-to-let owners? I seem to remember that back in the 80's, Maggie was keen for people to be able to own their own homes, and that seemed like a good idea. But today we seem to have the banks and government keen to help the well off people own as many houses as they are happy to juggle. At the expense of those who would just like to have one to live in. Now, if the percentage of buy-to-let ownerships, is a drop in the ocean, then please ignore the rest of this append. Otherwise, in the interest of reducing the gap between the haves and have-nots, should the government not somehow make it less attractive to own multiple properties? Every time that property prices have looked like correcting, I'm wondering if the buy-to-let gang have been swooping in to expand their portfolios? I'm keen to hear opinions on the following (possibly naive) questions. 1) Is the percentage of buy-to-let ownerships significannt enough to be causing real trouble? 2) Could the governemt phasing in tax penalties for owners of multiple properties, help make the horders sell up? 3) Could this help to free up houses for people who just want to own a place to live? 4) Could this help to restore prices to sensible levels? Any opinions much appreciated.

Hi. I'm another lurker finally got around to registering.