Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IMHAL

  1. I like what you say. Local authorities have been defocused for for many a year now - our local authority has recently bought a golf club - they think they can run it better than the professional managers that they bought it from . In fact they even think they are good enough to provide services to other local authorities Oh how I laughed. Should they not be concentrating on doing what we paid them to do. I will have no sympathy when the cull comes and I suspect that many a redundant council worker will stand zero chance of getting a job in the business world. HAL
  2. "Hard to say. First you need to define "infrastructure" - people seem to mean different things when they use the term; road, rail, schools, doctors, police, sewerage, water, fire etc etc. Then you need to work out the funding authorities in each case. Then consider that we run a hugely multi-tiered local government system. It's a nightmare." Good - I like being taxes on stuff that is imposible to define. It is what I expect from central/local and bods like you. "You obviously have an opinion on immigration - an opinion I suspect I don't share." Quite honestly - stop this muppetry - it has an impact and that period of time that our masters called it heresy to not discuss its impact has disappeared. No I am not racist - and yes this is an issue more relevant to that which you are agueing. "Is it a stealth tax or a means of avoiding increases in general council tax?" That was the question I asked. "I am familiar with one County Council. For years the local planning authorities used s106 agreements for a very limited range of costs - namely roads, affordable housing and public open space. Basically, the districts used s106 to meet their costs but the County Council never bothered. Last year the CC realised it was utterly skint while at the same time having to accommodate the added costs of tens of thousands of new homes. They could no longer balance their budget without whopping increases in the Council Tax." I wonder why it is utterly skint and what makes them think that the tax payer should be willing or able to meet its ongoing expenses? "They looked at other means of raising the revenue that they could use instead of increasing council tax. It didn't take much thought to identify s106. Which from now on (I think; not sure if it all went through) will cover not just a contribution for roads but also for schools etc." Did they consider reducing their costs, becoming more efficient, or putting their gold plated pensions in line with the private sector or reducing their benefits? No thought not. "This was a clear example of a targeted tax on the cause of the problem to save the resident taxpayer from the burden. It was not a stealth tax." You are saying that you approve of targetted taxes even when you cannot define what the definition of infrastructure is or even how it is affected - or how other factors affect it (i.e. immigration etc) - You also do not know what proportion of general taxes are spent on infrastructure. I would say that local government is out of control. You obviously work for a local authority - sorry, you make very little sense at all. HAL
  3. Well said OD. However most authorities would just send a standard letter out and most people would just pay up - the public cannot afford to invest time in checking out those legal documents lodged in Alpha Centura. Hell most people do not even read and are not capable of understanding their mortgage contracts - what chance do they stand with this legislation? Do you see the problem? In case you do not - local authorities are imposing another stealth tax - no matter that you can contest - it will in all probablitly not be contested by the average Jo. In addition they are using the tactic of making you justify that it does not have an impact - not many have the resources to contest. HAL
  4. Yes back to the point - why is there a tax on extending ones house irrespective of how this impacts infrastructure? HAL
  5. I am not saying that there should be no taxes. What I am saying is that it is time to look at what the money already being raised in general taxation is being spent on as we have reached a situation whereby, given the current tax take, and the likelyhood of that tax take going down - it is then also time for the public sector to show that they now have to reduce their costs - substantially. The public sector may be a law unto itself but the economics of the current situation makes it an imperative to reduce its costs, otherwise it will require the working population (which is in decline due to unemployment) to pay more and more. The public sector can always find ways to justify new taxes - indeed this is where they have been most sucessfull. This is not about planning - my point is wider than that. But since you know so much about it then you could perhaps tell us what percentage of the wider taxes we pay go towards local infrastructure and why this is now deemed insufficient? We work and we pay these taxes and I assume that this money also finds it way to this area too. Also whilst we are at it - why was the government so reluctant to acknowledge that imigation could possibly have an impact on infrastrucure? Surely 2 million people moving in is going to have more of an impact than extending ones house? Or is it that the tax take for stamp duty has fallen so they now need to raise these taxes some other way rather than accept that we can no longer afford to pay for our 'public servants/masters' (not sure which anymore). This is just another stealth tax being tried out hoping that no one notices or cares - eventually as the other poster has said - they will tax your feet. If this government had the guts they would raise general level of taxation instead of giving us high general taxation and a plethora of stealth taxes, this then simplifies the administration situation and we can get rid of those pesky snooping busy bodies to boot that use terror laws to spy on us. Admit it there are too many of them with not enough to do so they get creative. Finally - this country has been building extentions to houses for centuries now - the impact funded from general taxation - what has changed? HAL
  6. The issue is that they are not using the taxes for any purpose other than proping up their highly inflated work force and highly paid sorry a55es. Green Taxes- look no further - this government has used any excuse to tax and they will come a cropper sooner or later. If they used the money for something usefull then fair do's - sadly they use it to pay themselves more and shore up their gold plated pension funds. I am angry about this as there has been so much waste, all this during the good times when we could have used the money to invest in greener energy, better public transport etc - and what do we get - more public servants earning eye watering salaries. Bring on the Tories and let the cull begin. HAL
  7. In that case why don't they just tax us for having babies? Surely that is 'intensification of use' - more people need more infrastructure. The issue is that taxes are already too high - the solution is to reduce the size of government. But my guess is that we are supporting you too - and turkeys do not vote for Christmass. HAL
  8. I expect to see more and more councils raising taxes via more and more nefarious means in the near future as less and less central government handouts are available due to lower tax take. The solution of course is quite simple - get rid of most of them and bring pensions and benefits in line with the private sector - otherwise I see every lampost being adorned with its own limp highly paid diversity/outreach/inclusion officer - we don't really need them - they where a 'luxury' in the ZanuLabour job creation scheme. HAL
  9. I think that the market is at hysterysis point - ie. when the market turns there is a stickyness to asking prices that does not reflect demand - on the way down the asking prices stay high relative to demand as the populus changes their expectations - then when they do - BAM - we get a steeper decline in asking prices which eventualy align themselves with demand. I expect that the denial phase is over and we are about to get a good few months of 2% plus declines whilst that bridge between asking price and demand curves catch up. From that point on we are at crash cruise as Bubb would put it. So from what is going on now I would thin that we will see approx -15% down YOY by end of year and -20% from peak. HAL
  10. Thow is missing the point - the point being that higher interest rates = pain = less money to spend = redundancies = reposessions etc etc etc..... If you want lower inflation then you must destroy demand. Without the pain of recession /demand destruction then wage spirals will rule and we will have greater inflation. Can't make an omlette without breaking eggs as my manager said to me whilst handing me my P45. HAL
  11. Yes - it is now time to thank Gordon - he has played a blinder by starting to help first time buyers be able to afford houses by lowering house prices - house prices will now go down to sensible levels. We knew all along that that canny Scot/Britisher was pro the poor and working class and now at last he has come to our rescue by helping to deflate what is an essential in life - housing. There are people who will suffer - so Gordon will have to be strong and not bow to those greedy rich landlords who act as a tax on the working class or those self serving estate agents or those capitalist builders - they will start screaming when Gordon rebalances the housing market - after all we don't mind paying extra taxes for good causes only if we have money left after paying our rent or our currently outrageous mortgages (if we could afford the house in the first place). So Go Gordon Go! Here's to sensible house prices - make that about 3x average salary please! Lets face it everyone one else hates him - so I thought I'd go all contrarian. HAL
  12. And I wonder what their excuse will be when CPI inflation reaches 5% (i.e. real inflation is at 15%)? These guys just don't seem to get it - if inflation is out of control then pain has to be inflicted and this means higher interest rates and redundancies - otherwise its all just Zimbabwenomics. Talk is cheap - lets see some action from our highly paid economists. HAL
  13. I agree - and that is why I can hardly bring myself to read the sheer drivel that appears in the Times. They really should stick to reporting the event on Corrie and other TV soaps. The Times yoyo's between house prices are decoupled from inflation when the going is good to house prices affect the economy when times are bad - as far as I can tell they just have one policy 'cheap money at all costs' - hardly economic literacy is it. To think that the Times was a serious paper before Murdock turn it into a comic - what a great shame. HAL
  14. Caught in the same predicament - my policy is lend a little and then no more - only lend what you can comfortably afford to lose (on the premise that you will not get it back ever) - in ths way you have done your bit. It they continue with the pressure then you need to explain to them that you will need the money and offer to talk about their finances to see what they can do on their own - that might lead to talk of IVA/bankrupcy or if they are fortunate to some kind of saving plan/cost cutting. Still it is better to be bankrupt early rather that to go down with all your cash too if that is the inevitable outcome. If they do not see the logic of this then I am afraid you need to chose your family more carefully Its the right balance between helping and being a muppet. HAL
  15. I strongly suspect that even having a deposit to get 80% LTV will be good enough to act as a vulture fund as the property market will be carrion by then - a stinking mess that smells so bad that no one will want to touch it. HAL
  16. Also - dont forget that 2005 was a flat year so we should theoritically be mm's away from 3 years negative just after that! HAL
  17. Well lets do a back of fag packet calculation. Lets assume september 07 was the peak. Also lets take 6 months before that point and also after the peak as the period that buyers will be affected: - 6 months of 100k transactions/month = 600k - 9 months of ~60k tranasctions/month = 600k Total transaction 1.2m If we assume that there are 4 houses in a chain and that only the bottom of the chain is affected because they typically have no or little equity and that there are no second home buyers and that second time buyers have greater equity (unlikely but conservative guess). Then we get about 300k have fallen into negative equity. If we where to add second home buyers as those requiring large LTV and assume that those also on the second rung have mortgaged to the hilt then the numbers grow considerably. Also if we add thoe that have MEW'd to the hilt then we get greater numbers. So they could argue the case that about 250k have moved into neg equity - just - but it does very look low ball. I would expect to see 1/2 million on neg equity right now. HAL
  18. My adive is leave £5k in the fridge for the buyer as a thank you - the first time buyer will need it when your property reaches is true value in about 1 years time (read about half of what it is being bought for). Also if you have managed to get a discount on the one you are buying then what is your gripe? Or are you an idiot? You will have less to pay in mortage payments - you should thank the furst time buyer. What an a55! HAL
  19. Injin - you are right - government creates the problem - tries to solve it - problem appears elsewhere - tries to correct that by doing more of the same - the problem gets bigger and bigger until it can no longer lay the blame on anyone else - then it says that the problem is real and we all have to work hard to solve it. Me thee and jo, bob and bee all have to bend over and take the up the jacky. The government is getting awfully trigger happy about who it blames - soon someone will expose them for all to see. Wha they are really saying is that we want to bail out the banks increasing the the money supply without any consequences (or most probably without the electorate noticing - if they don't then we also don't have a problem) I like your bloody nose analogy - except that the guy who has just been hit - i.e. the speculator does not really have a bloody nose - he is just pretending and the person who hit him did not hit him at all - he was just pretended to. It is a game that they play when the public get angry - they pretend to care and do a bit of protesting but noting else - its just a game to appease the public. HAL
  20. Yep - as has been debated on HPC over the the last 5 years. I remember when we all thought that the BoE was a puppet to the government - and so it transpired. Now we ask a different question but the answer is staring us in the face. The answer is that this government want to keep rolling the dice and let the party roll - because that keeps the illusion going (but faded now). I have been aware of that since 2005. You get jaded by the sheer incompetence of those that are supposed to protect your interests and then you wake up and the reality is worse. HAL
  21. Boys and girls - this is some high flutin talk. The point that Eric was getting at is that these liar loans are totally being ignored by the FSA - why?? It has been reported by SKY news recently - the BBC reported it years ago - and what are the FSA doing? FSUK all!!! You would have thought that SKY or someone whould have got the FSA to comment on what they had found.... but no. Do people not realise that this is akin to printing counerfeit money and distributing it. If money is released into the system under with the premis that it is an obligation that cannot be met then this is fraud under any monetary system (either fiat or gold based) - why have the FSA not acted? May be we should remane the FSA and call ten "FSUKall use to Anybody" How can it be? What are they doing? (I know the answer to that) HAL
  22. I did notice that the front page of HPC states that the trend line is 2.4% pa whilst the graph posted by Nationwide now states 2.8%???????????????????????? Me thinks that Nationwide have tried to make the exponential rise over the years seem less like a bubble by increasing the trend line. Naughty Naughty Nationwide. HAL
  23. 2005 was a flat year from what I recall - so if we have 5% rise on May 2006 to May 2008 then by October 2008 we should have nominal negative 3YOY figures and when you take into account inflation (or what your money could have earned over the 3 year period in an account) then you are looking at -10% 3YOY falls by October this year. HAL
  24. I hate to say this but the man is an ultra dove - a Blanchflower MkII - he is a dork of the highest order and types like him have directly led to the situation we now face. He is leaving because he knows that the mega shit is about to hit the fast spinning fan. He has made is booty and is now ready to retire from the proceeds of his stolen wealth. I really cannot believe that central banks are governed by self interest groups like this turd. The central banks have once again presided over human misery - with their mantra of 'we cannot tell if X, Y or Z is in a bubble' - 'we are there to pick up the pieces when this has blown over'. I'd love these guys to be brought to account one day - when the full fallout of suffering is brought before them and they are asked to pay for their sins - because they know full well what they do. 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.