Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IMHAL

  1. Jeepers! I've never seen so much lather. The real issue is that instead of increasing income taxes our NuLabour friends have used stealth practises to increase council taxes over the last ten years instead of doing what is right - ie. increasing a very visible income tax. This means that the elderly now have more to pay as a proportion of their fixed income (their pension entitlements lag wage increases by a considerable margin ). So this arguement is really a problem of taxation and how the tax profile has been changed over the last decade due to the cowardly practises of our "courageous" chancellor. It is unfair to keep increasing the taxes of the elderly when they have fixed incomes - the workers yes - and if you don't like it vote for a government that will lower them and cut the bloated public sector. I am in favour of much lower council taxes and a corresponding shift of taxes to earning as that is fairer to society. After all why should pensioners pay for investment in public services when they are hardly likely to be around to see the benefits. HAL
  2. Your message was clear - I just wanted to say that there is much commonality with your sentiment by most. Also, in case you missed it - there is a post on "chris martenson" who does a really great set of minute internet lectures on how the whole money system works and how it ties into energy and the environment. It is worth your time to listen to this as it will affect how you think about what you do and how you may plan for you and your familiies future. www.chrismartenson.com - give yourself a couple of hours and I am sure you will like it. HAL
  3. Dave, Your main gripe seems to be about the level of bitterness here and by implication that we are just whinging so and so's that can get over the fact that house prices have risen and that we have suffered so want help. My experience is that most on here think that house prices have risen because governments and banks have been irresponsible and that that would cause hugh problems into the future for owners who have borrowed irresponsibly and probably the wider economy. In addition there has been much debate about what would happen when the bubble eventually busts - will there be a bail out of the feckless? will they be allowed to drown? how much agony will there be? The main reasons at the bitterness is that we are seeing the government attempting to bail out the feckless after encouraging them into hugh debt in the first place - at the expense of tapayers, savers and the prudent - the government is deciding to spend our moeny keeping people in houses that some on here cannot afford using their money. I will put in in your language. How would you react of the government decided to bail out one of your competitors for taking on debt to invest in their businesses when on the point of collapse. How would you feel if by bailing your competitor they then had the means to undercut you and take your business away by being provided with cheaper finance or a forgiveness of their bebt? Would you not be a little sour? Wellcome by the way. HAL
  4. His 4th relaunch should be to say that the 750k unused houses that the government currently has under its control (due to the pathway project and other Prescot idiocies) be brought up to use for those who find themselves in distress. He should also say that the government is very sorry that it has inflicted this financial catastrophy and that falling house prices are very good for first time buyer and that is why the government supports house prices falling to sensible levels for the current young generation of workers to those to come. The government should know by now that it is best to go with the grain than to fight it. HAL
  5. Except that the BoE remit is to keep inflation at or near 2% - given that (official) inflation is running at at least twice that figure then how will Mr RoastedTulip achieve that by lowering IR's?. So - I cannot see the berk ousting Mystic Merv. HAL
  6. I am not in favour of lifeboats being bult at tax payers expense AFTER the ship has sunk as a decoy for proping up the market. Labour have actively continued selling these 'life boats' to the passengers (who have profited from them at the expense of the tax payer) during their tenure and they are now going to tax the prudent to pay for more life boats to be built. I am in favour of council houses - but I am not in favour of paying twice for them and proping up the housing market as a political tactic at my expense. This stinks of desperation and short sightedness on behalf of the government. The government should purchase council houses (whole ones, not partial ones) at rock bottom prices. The governments current tactic is 180 degrees opposite to helping - the are bailing out lenders and the greedy at the expense of the prudent - the winners are once again the speculators. Why should the government favour those that are losing their house over those that do not have one. HAL
  7. Steady on now! If we get higher wage settlements (say 6 to 7% p/a) then I can see that we may get a shallowing of the falls (to say 30%) but until we see them then these pundits are misguided. Currently average wage settlements are about 3.8% p/a. With wage settlements of around 5% p/a the effect will be to create a low of about 45%. So we will need to see average wages rise by greater than 5% p/a to get substantial shallowing of the HPC. HAL
  8. - The BoE sets rates accroding to a two year look ahead - They allways plan for the best situation with no contingency for global upsets (oil spikes etc) - Every VI is happy to see people in debt as everyone wins (except for Jo Public) - They never take into acount the fiscal situation of the government (i.e. a war chest to smooth in case of bad times) - They are primarily focused on growth and jobs because the gov wants the revenues to pay its buddies - The BoE is new to this 'independence' thing so does not want to lose it (which it will) - The BoE would rather allow hyper inflation rather than look like they do not know what they are doing Does this answer your question? HAL
  9. Come on get real - where have you been for the last 10 years of Labour rule - we all know that the two fastest growing professions in the UK are single mums and chavs. Both get free houses and good benefits. Its become a career choice for the downwardly mobile FFS and its leading to social breakdown. I do agree that we need a safety net (the widow for example) before you also acuse me of being a fascist - but the benefits needs to be metered out and not chucked at the masses as the easy option (also see incapacity benefit, childrens benefits to migrant who may or may not have children etc etc etc ect ad infinitum). HAL
  10. Sorry to hve to break this to you but this phenomena is called the break-up boom. It is the false reporting that usually hapens when inflation is very high in that country. Take Zimbabwe for instance - every one of their companies and banks will be reporting big paper profits at the moment - the trouble is the paper is worthless. It may not be as extreem in Iceland but it is still a contributing factor (google their IR's and rate of inflation to see why). HAL
  11. I have been thinking along the same lines - i.e. the morality of taxation and how it is used. Why are we hell bent on utilising all resources at an ever increasing pace? This seems to me just another mall investment - i.e. producing tat for the sake of increasing GDP and giving those in authority more spending power which they also seem to spend on tat rather than long term projects to aid sustainability. We seem to be stuck in a rut that puts the quest for increased revenues at the top of all agendas - this is at the expense of our future and our childrens. I think of it this way - we are currently the lucky generation - we have a windfall power supply (oil and gas) and we are squandering it on producing DVD player that no one wants, food that is wasted, and driving around doing jobs that no one values. When the oil has gone our opportunity to research alternatives will be vastly diminished - then and only then will we question if we have spent our legacy wisely (that is if we are not too busy waring with each other). HAL
  12. No dead cat bounce is my opinion - we will get a constant stream of bad news (interspersed with the usual it did not fall as badly this month) until we hit rock bottom. Look at America - no dead cat rearing its mangled face yet! As someone else said - this is not the stock market - the sellers will soon be forced sellers and there will be many more of these than buyers (as there already are) - this does not make for a condusive rally. HAL
  13. If we do get a bull trap rally it will be next years buying season - we will be at >-20% by then. The glam of property will have worn off and there will be big time unemployment which will hardly be a time for people to think about 'investing' in property. I do not think we will get a bull rally this time. I do expect to get lots of VI style positive spin tho. HAL
  14. I agree completely! The VI's (that includes the government) have always protested that they could not state categorically if house prices where too high when prices where going up - what makes them think that they know when it is too low? The answer is that that they are vested interests and will act in their own interest. If I have learned anything during this whole debacle it is that there is no free market - be it house prices, gold, stocks and shares, savings you name it - its all manipulated by those in power (and probably always has been). What to do? Well that is the question - if you are going to be a contrarian against the VI's then you had better get your timing right and recognise, nay acknowledge that the market can be manipulated and act accordingly. Personally I still think that the housing market will correct substantially but this may be lessened somewhat by VI manipulation. They have painted themselves into a corner this time. I still expect >30% falls. HAL
  15. IMHAL

    My Story

    Ok I'll give it a go. There is no miracle cure, only hard facts. You have to accept that you are facing a loss - the question you need to ask yourself is how would I feel in 12 months time when the property market has deteriorated by another 10-15% and you are trying to sell into that - or in another 2 years when the market has fallen by 30% from this point. If the answer is worse then you need to mark down the property so that it will sell now and count your blessings. If you are stuck in negative equity and cannot sell then you will have to rent it out (if you can) and subsidise the rest of the mortage for quite possibly up to 10 years. In my opinion if you can get rid now that would be wise - you can then rent and wait for a better property for less money - the money you will save by renting will help pay back the loan for any losses incurred. You say that your salary has increased - well that helps too. In this game - you win some and you lose some. You will have to accept that this time around you have lost and there is a price to pay. Failing to accept that fact will lead to greater losses - good money after bad and all that. HAL
  16. And that is the trouble! You don't see a problem with these salaries when you compare them to other salaries that are financed from the public purse. Just says it all really! :angry: Try finding a private sector jobs that pay over £100k that doesnt demand blood from you - in addition you do not get gold plated pensions and generous holidays. Blood suckers now think its normal to suck blood - blow me! HAL
  17. I guess the Barcelonians and the Madridniks are having a rough time. Don't they have lots of houses that they can sell to prop up their failing economies? HAL
  18. Where do you think the money will come from? Sorry but I don't agree - the public sector is paid out of the public purse - if that purse is empty then no pay rise. The government is already in debt - are you advocating increasing that debt even more? Why should tax payers pay more when going into a recession and the tax take is decreasing? In fact the real solution is to cut the public sector because we cannot afford it any longer. If you take an analogy from the private sector and your employers business is making less money can you really expect a pay rise or even a job? The gov needs to acknowledge that we are in dire staits and that cut backs need to be made in our over generous welfare state. Speaking as a tax payer I'd like to see the state take responsible actions - i.e. stick to its budgets or increase taxes to pay for the increased costs of the public sector. I am sure that if they increased taxes right now just about everyone would vote them out - it would be political suicide. That to me says that the citizens who pay for these public services would rather have less or them and pay less tax than the other way around. HAL
  19. Just goes to show you - if they can't manage their staff well how on earth are they supposed to manage contractors. In short they are not up to the job - they have been distracted from their core remit. I agree with you that they should do what they are paid to do - it should be done efficiently and well - it should not be farmed out if it is core to what they do. The trouble is that sucessive governments have run the public sector as a companies where run in the 60's - little has changed - jobs for life culture breeds complacency. I also suspect that they farms the jobs out so that the future pension liabilities are lessened. HAL
  20. And? Its just an admission that the gov can't manage their own staff as well as the public sector can. If the private sector can do it cheaper and better than the gov run organisation and still make a profit then the question that should be asked is why can't the public sector be more efficient? The answer is to that question is because they are not run to be efficient, they are run to create employment - there is no other explaination. Hole diggers and filler iners. HAL
  21. As you say the bond is about living standards going up perpetually for all - its essence should be about creating the necessary pain so that there are losers and winners. The losers will have lost their jobs or accepted less than pay rises and the winners better than pay rises. Trouble is that the one size fits all public sector is not run as private enterprises are - they are communist is approach. Everyone gets a pay rise, good or bad and that is the trouble - you piss one off you piss them all off - you cant win. So the governmnet will lose. Sure they will PR spin it as a win win but they will give in and award a pay rise that will be packaed in hard to understand terms to Jo average so that the real news does not get out. I think that they will hardly try to squabble over who gets the pain - they will just revert back to type - delay the pain and mask it in inflation futhure down the track. HAL
  22. The government is in a right mess over this one. On the one hand they negotiate a pay rise based on CPI expectations, which is a kind of a bond between the government and the citizens and on the other the government break their bond by not keeping inflation to its target range and then expect pay rises to stay static. So what they are saying is that we have failed our side of the bargain and we still expect you to keep yours - what a fluffer! I support the strike but only because it has the ability to expose this governmnets ineptitude. The governmnet will break down over this and they will allow secondary inflation and higher wage expectations to take hold. As a general principle I do not support higher wages for public servants because they are already decently paid compared to the private sector and are inefficient. Inefficient you say? Yes because they are jobs for life - hardly any sackings, great pensions, not bad wages for skilled types, good holidays, lots of sick leave and "working" from home - its a doddle. In addition to that the quest for skilled mangement has led to a culture of overpaid executive types who really do take the piss and are encouraged by local authorities and the governmnet itself - this has created a rod for their own back and set off an envy culture - the ordinary workers now see that it is possible to earn more in the public sector than in the private sector and they want some of this. When secondary wage effects are in place the BoE will either need to act fast to create pain in the general economy or it will sit back and allow inflation to really take off. The government will need to respond by cutting bakc on the public sector - both highly unlikely IMPO - especially as we approach the next general election - they will both submit to the pleas of the union. My money is on te BOE and gov sitting back and doing nothing. HAL
  23. Great! But what we all need is a holiday from this bunch of half wits. HAL
  24. I strongly suspect that those queing where the depositors with more than $100k. When the news gets out that you can lose money by putting it in a bank - like it really can happen - like no really - no sh1tting - they will wake up and there will be panick. HAL
  25. It does look like a joke. Another point that does need to be raised is that the other hidden point about keeping inflation targetting is that wage demands are kept low - if inflation causes wage demands to escalate then I do hope that the BoE raises otherwise we are heading down a path that will be close to impossible to retrace. HAL
  • 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.