Tommy
-
Posts
180 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Tommy
-
-
Here here! They have no plausible arguments so they have to resort to the plainly ridiculous. Talk about lacking common sense.
"They" who?!
-
I never said all immigrants coming to the uk. I said it makes me sick to my stomach to see so-called asylum seekers fleeing a safe country to come here as it makes a mockery of those who came seeking genuine asylum when there was no welfare state.
Again I ask - if they are genuinely fleeing and in fear of their lives why are they not claiming asylum in the first safe country they reach (I think this is what the UN regs say they should do).
Some of them might already have friends and family here in the UK and they would feel lost and alone in another country, I do not know...
I agree with you that most asylum seekers are not in fear of their lives... ok, I see your point, but I have never said otherwise.
The point is that many immigrants are now from Poland. Polish people are not asylum seekers and they do not have to get special permissions to come here... they simply can! They are legal!
Some people here have a problem with this. I do not.
I am against illegal immigration. I am think legal immigration is good, wherever the person is from, EU or outside EU.
-
And in your opinion that makes it OK?
no... I thought you said: why are they all coming here to the UK? What's wrong with France?
and I replied saying: there is nothing wrong with France, they are also going there.
maybe I misunderstood you then?
what was *your* point?
-
And your point is what?
that some of them are definately going to France. Some others are going to Italy, some others to Spain and some others to the UK.
They are not all going to the UK.
This is my point.
-
Liberal brainwashing unfortunately. I think academically the accepted fact is that genetically the British isles has been stable for at least a thousand years.
Then there's the issue of the welfare state. A number of Eastern Europeans (my grandad being one) came to the UK after the war. They had a simple choice: work or starve. My Grandad was a shoemaker, others were barbers, tailors, butchers (all the best Butchers in post-war Wakefield were foreign, many still exist Hoffman's and Oesterleins being 2 off the top of my head), bakers, you name it. They brought skills and a willing to make a better lives for them and their families, likewise the post-partition Asians that came over - all hard workers arriving under difficult circumstances. Britain gave them the opportunity to conduct their lives relatively free from persecution or interference, an opportunity they made the most of.
It now makes me sick to the stomach to see swathes of so-called asylum seekers running to jump on a train to get to the UK, it denigrates and cheapens the memory and the lives of all the hardworking immigrants who have come before. If they really are in fear of their lives, and not just after a quick buck what's wrong with France?
There are many immigrants in France.
-
British English
Sure, thanks. I just did not bother wasting time pressing the shift key.
-
All these observations on "Britishness" are ridiculous.
How many times do we have to hear the line that Britain in a nation of immigrants? Every nation on earth has had a flow of people coming and going for 1000s of years. That's NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is the millions who have flooded our country from vastly different cultures since the 1950s.
You are right, every nation on earth has had a flow of people coming and going.
The fact that you do not like immigration after 1950 is because this is what you have to face! If you were born in 1920, maybe you would not have liked immigration after 1870.
Now tell me what is your problem if in your country there are people who have arrived after 1950 and have different cultures?
Cut the cr@p.And you should avoid expressions like the above. The british language is vast enough for you to use more adequate expressions.
-
I thought it was an established fact that a fair proportion of Brits are themselves "immigrants" (or descendants thereof)
Yes it is, you are perfectly right.
But some of the people who have only British blood in their veins (at least since they can remember) consider the offsprings of immigrants as immigrants even if they were born in the UK and have a British passport, a British accent and a British education... I consider these people British, it would be unfair and close minded not to!
I think we should distinguish betwen:
- People with indigenous British blood
- British people
People with indigenous british blood:
They have British blood in their veins, at least for a good number of generations back, but they do not have to be British at all. For example the son of two Brits who emigrated to Spain and was born in Spain might have only a Spanish passport it will have British parents and ancestors and so British blood.
Many of these people are of course British.
Note that this category is more an illusion than anything else. People can claim thay have only British blood but they can only remember a certain number of generations back...
British people:
These are people with a UK passport, born in the UK (or not) and do not have to have indigenous Birtish blood in their veins to be called British.
Some British poeple will have Indian blood in their veins and will be very proud of this (as proud to have indian blood as to be a british citizen). Other will have african blood, and others Polish blood. Of couse then British people will have children and so you might have a British person with both African and British blood. These things are happening now and have been happening in the past. There is not such a thing as pure british, you might have to go back 2 centuries or maybe 5 or maybe 10 or more but at a certain time someone who was not British or from this island is very likely to be in your blood.
-
It may have benefitted immigrants and rich people. I think there are a lot of people in this country who would disagree it has benefitted them in any way.I think "benefited" has only one 't' in british english ...
The minimum wage is most certainly not a living wage, it's not even close.The minimum wage is 5.35 pounds an hour: 37.5 hours x 5.35 x 52 weeks = 10432.5 which is 749 pounds per month net.
749 * 2 in a family = 1,498 pounds a month.
This is certainly a living wage, you might not have a very high standard of living, but you can certainly afford "a" living.
From fist october 2007 the minimum wage will be: 5.52
In the US the minimum wage is much worse! In Kansas is about $2.65 and in most other states is around 5 - 6 dollars an hour.
Now you are being silly and insulting. Why should the British get out of their own country to make way for immigrants?I have certainly been silly, but I have not been insulting.
British people should certainly not get out of their own country to make way for immigrants. I did not mean and I did not say this.
I was just making a joke. Sometimes when you read something you do not understand it's a joke because you read it in your head in a way that does not sound like a joke...
-
Every Nation that has allowed mass immigration has suffered later as a result.
Iraq is such a case, and we can see the problems today with the different races all killing each other.
Take the US, the worst places, with the most crime.............yes, its the areas of high immigration.
Take London, the highest crime areas are those that have large communities of immigrants.
Australia.................They are experiencing serious problems with immigrants, gang rapes, shootings, and YES you can seperate the groups who are causing the problems.
Immigration does not benefit the UK in any shape or form, it is irrelevent to me that a company producing lettuces for McDonalds can make a greater profit.
In the real world of business/economics if a job does not pay a living wage, it should not exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Iraq: they are a bit like catholics and protestants in nothern Ireland, they are both Christians but they argue. In Iraq the two main groups are both muslims, but one is Sunnis and the other group is shiites, and they argue!
But anyway I do not understand why you are bringing Iraq out, it had a very different history: it had a dictatorship and the dictator was of the minority group! They are now under civil war and they have had an invasion a few years ago.
What does this have to do with the UK?! (other than the UK also went there..)
US: it's a country were all people are immigrants in my opinion, except a few native americans. Ok, that's a joke, but the point is that the problem in the US is not immigration but "inequality". The US is one of the contries in the world where the people are most unequal.
The middle class earns way more than the "under class" (the difference is much greater than any european country by far) and what is more there is no free healthcare and they can only dream about a benefit system like in the UK.
Australia: I say the above joke again, only this time is even more true. Other than the joke, I am not too aware of the problems in Australia so I will not comment.
London: the higher crime areas are the areas were there is highest number of deprived people. They do not necessarily have to be immigrants. Illegal immigrants will find hard to find a job and will therefore be very likely to fall into crime, but for legal immigrants I think it's completely different.
Immigration, contrary to what you are saying, is benefiting and has benefited the UK.
> In the real world of business/economics if a job does not pay a living wage, it should not exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
that is what the minimum wage is for.
Actually as far as economics is concerned it would benefit the economy if those kind of jobs existed, we would be able to produce cheaper stuff and export more and have more profits. However, they cetainly do not benefit society as a whole including those people being paid very little and so this is why the minimum wage was introduced.
If you do not like foreign people in your own country, you can always leave and migrate to another country.... ooops no! Then you would be part of that country immigration too and you would find someone like you who is very close minded!
-
You've been listening to the liberal lie that there is no such thing as a native Brit. Well sir, that is a falsehood - my family has been in this land since before Britain was born as a nation.
It is the blood of my ancestors that feeds the soil of a dozen battlefields, their sweat that oiled the machinery of the industrial revolution, their toil that shaped the land and built our great monuments. It is their legacy that we live in such a priviledged nation.
You might be a bewildered mongerel sir, but I am a native Brit, this is MY land, the land of MY people and god help you or anyone who would attempt to deny me my homeland and my brithright!
No, your imagination brought you to think I said something I did not say. I have not said that there are no native Brits. I have said that "native" Brits in the past have also migrated to other countries so and some still are. I just have a friend who moved to Thailand forever and my neighbours moved to Spain. When Brits move, especially outside EU they also become immigrant.
So, from a nation of people who have and still are emigrating to other countries, you sentence was out of place.
Regarding the rest of your ... post, I am glad you have such noble and rooted origins, congratulations, what should I say??! I do not really care however, you completely missed my point and I do not understand why you're telling this to us.
-
KICK ALL MIGRANTS OUT
:angry: 
Remember that British have been and still are migrants as well.
My view is that one thing is legal immigration, which I welcome and consider a good thing especially when controlled a bit, and another thing is illegal immigration which is always bad.
Legal immigrants usually will benefit the economy, kicking them out would damage the economy.
-
Alternatively they may wish to maintain good relations with long standing tenants who never miss a payment and minimise voids.
Phoney
True, if I was was a landlord and market price for was 600 but I have a very good tenant that pays 525 I might not raise the rent and piss him off, I might keep the rent at 525 for a couple of more years before adjusting the rent a bit.
However, when the market price is 600 and the tenant is paying only 300 or less, then I would immediately slowly try to put the rent up to close the gap with the market price, but this process might take years and you would only piss your existing tenant off if you put the rent up year after year... It's probably too late, you should have not waited this long!
In this situation best thing is to end the current contract and put it on the market again, for let's say, 550. Your new tenant might not be as good, but it's 250 more a month, well worth the risk.
-
I recommend carrying a marker and white masking tape to change TO LET signs by adding an i.
I also recommend defacing other estate agent signs:
....
[CUT]
....
(2) brings the neighbourhood down
This would be vandalism.
-
Not true. Rents fall in property crash. As witnesses in US, Spain and Ireland right now.
In an economic slowdown the demand for land whether to buy or rent drops.
During UK the crash of the early 90's rents were generally increasing while sale prices were generally decreasing.
On the other hand, during a property boom, everybody wants to get on the housing ladder and nobody wants to rent, so rents usually do not increase. In 2002 for instance it was much cheaper, on average, to buy and do an interest only mortgage than to rent an equivalent propety.
Now this is not true anymore as prices have almost doubled but rents have not.
During a crash most people want to rent thus pushing the demand higher and so increasing prices.
-
But rents are very cheap at the moment as I have been led to believe by many on this site.
I think some people on this site have found rents that are a bargain, most rents are not this cheap. I would say that most rents are similar to what the interest onyl mortgate for that property would be based on 15% deposit.
Some older properties might have lazy landlords who have a small loan (since they bought long time ago) and they are too lazy to adjust the rent as they are already making profit.
-
I have nothing against migrants in the slightest whilever they are coming here to work for a living. What I cannot understand is that if there is enough slack in the labour market to accomodate 1.5 million immigrants then why do we have lazy, good for nothing, dirtbag scroungers being paid to sit on the dole at my expense. Stop the immigration and get the idle buggers out to work. Systematically cutting their benefits for every six months out of work would do it.
I agree. Benefits are a good thing, but some people are taking too much advantage of them and something should be done!
-
Immigrants compete with the poorest in society for accomodation and jobs.
This is probably true on average, but there are also many immigrants with very good accademic backgrounds who cannot find a job (or the job is not paid well) in their own countries and they come here to compete with pharmacists, doctors, software engineers, etc...
-
Having waited ten years you must have saved 150k like most of the other posters here who have held off or STR.
Are you using these savings from renting for 10years and paying cash for the property, or investing the savings and using a mortgage ?
I do not think everyone is saving 1,250 pounds a month. Rent is not cheap. If I rented my house I would pay 600. My interest only mortgage would be 550 (but I do not have an interest only one). When you rent you still have to pay council tax and bills so I if you are saving 1250 pounds a month it's not because you are renting but just because you can afford to.
-
There is no requirement for affordability to reach the Q3 1989 peak to trigger another crash.
true, I agree, but the whole point about your graph was to show that we have reached the peak point (like in 1989). My point was to show you that in terms of affordability we have not. I agree we do not have to reach the peak for a crash to occur.
There are also many more potential triggers than simple rate hikes, today. The last crash was based entirely on forced sales, due to lowered affordability of existing loans. They had no BTL back then. We are about to discover what negative real terms HPI, coupled with negative rental yield does to the speculative property investor.I agree we are most likely going to experience negative "real terms" HPI, I do not agree with you this is necessarily so bad for BTL investors...
If I buy a house for 100k, I put 15k deposit and get a loan for 85k. I then have my tenant pay the interest only mortgage on the 85k (I might just break even). Then I get my 2% HPI (let's say inflation is 2.6%).
Well, I am getting 2% on 85k : 1.7k which considering my initial investment of 15k is 11.3% and not just 2%. Of course things are slightly more complicated (you have agency fees if you are using an agency, you have capital gain tax in most circumstances although you can have the usual relief, etc..).
Also when house prices are falling rents are usually increasing.
Of course 20% HPI is much better for BTL than 2% HPI, but if you do the right investment and do your calculations right even 2% is not that bad after all.
-
I had a mess around with the figures at the Nationwide.
The magenta line is the same data on the hpc front page. The blue line is the nominal prices. The yellow line is the trend of the inflation adjusted prices. The other lines are mine.
Some observations:
We are now at historic resistance at the top of the wave. The curve has previously touched this resistance briefly, before motoring away quite briskly. The last time, the curve went off a cliff until it hit the trend, then began to shallow out.
The mean rate of descent from peak to trough of the inflation adjusted prices has been similar in the last two crashes.
If the next crash behaves the same way, it will fall in excess of 50% in real terms. To prevent this being a bloodbath in nominal terms, inflation will have to be in the cartoon category for quite some time.
If, if, if, it goes this way, the average home in the UK will cost £80K at today's prices.
OK, so these are just lines on paper and we've got all of these other arguments about martians needing houses when they land and how all of the UK is now concrete so that we've started filling in the Solent, but whatever the inflationary pressures may be in the housing market going forward, they're really going to be swimming up Niagara.
Edited to add: tidy up graph
Well, you have used the graph which shows house prices adjusted for inflation. This is not really an indication of how affordable a house is as the affordability does not just depend on "real house prices" but also on the interest rate (and also other things like consumer price inflation is not necessarily too similar to wage inflation, lenght of mortgage, etc...)
Why don't you draw the same thing using the Affordability Indices from nationwide ( Mortgage payments as a percentage of take home pay ) ?
For example the FTB affordability index is 121.3 in Q1 2007 and was 147.6 in Q2 1989. I am sure the last rate hike as put the index up a bit more though, but we are certainly far from 147.6.
So houses are still not at their peak in terms of affordability, the only thing that could make affordability worse than 1989 at current house price levels is a few more rises in interest rates (which might actually happen) (Note that Northern Ireland is already worse than 1989!)
In my opinion even this graph is not too reliable because the trend is that over time houses will be less and less affordable anyway, we have to accept this fact. Also, affordability is not all, demand and offer is king (but demand mainly driven by affordability of course).
In other words there is still room for a few more rate hikes or for some more HPI above RPI-X (but not for both really, at least not for long).
-
This is from the BBC website that allows you to view actual sold price figures from the last year and quarter and the info is supplied by the Land Registry. You will notice that the Coventry detatched data is from 161 sales (quite a significant amount IMO). In Birmingham there is a 4.1 per cent drop from 384 sales (bulls you can't write this off as being from a small sample.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_d...s/html/ct.stm?d
I think many people on here were right when they said the crash started Q1 2007 (approx six months after the yanks). OK, I'll admit that I wasn't very patient but I now think that we will see Land Registry MoM negatives for ALL regions (including the billionaire's city state of Londonscow) by the end of the year.
Great Crash 2 has started - and it has started in the provinces this time! The smoke will be dragged kicking and screaming along with the regions in the end.
P.S - I thought it was only flats that lost value bulls?
This does not mean anything. Small dips are normal, how can you say that a small dip is the beginning of a great house price crash?!
In Q3 2004 the average house price according to nationwide was 153,482, in Q1 2005 was down to 152,790. Was this the beginning of a crash?!
No! In Q1 2007 it's now 175,554.
At some point house prices will have to stop rising at this pace, but the data you have provided does not mean anything yet.
Overall prices are still increasing. We will soon be able to see if the last rate hike had an impact on the property prices or not... We just need to wait and see.
-
Isn't the 18 year recession cycle regarded as fact? 14 years prosperity, 4 years decline and then the recession...
Any thoughts?
No.
One in the beginning of the 90's (and since we are approaching 2008, here comes your 18 year cycle!), one in 1980, and one in 1973.
As you can see the other two are 10 and 7 years apart.
Note that it depends on your definition of recession. Here I have used as the definition of recession 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, this is not a widely accepted definition, but it gives the idea pretty well.
Also notice that monetary policies to fight recessions are getting better and better.
Tommy
-
I would not be so sure. This boom is 10x bigger than the late 1980s boom. Prices could fall 50% and, more importantly, then stay at that level for another 15-20 years. Everybody seems to assume any falls, if they come, will be followed by another boom just round the corner, so one would just have to sit it out.
I wonder what the German "investors" would have to say to this theory who bought at 2000 Euros per square meter in the 1990s boom, and whose properties I now take off them at repossessions for 600-700 Euros, 12 years hence.
I do not think it is very likely for prices to fall by 50% in the event of a crash (anything more than 30% seems almost impossible to me).
Also, remember that prices could not fall at all. The house price crash is not guaranteed, you might think it's extremely likely, but nothing is guaranteed in life.
Also, you talk about 20 years... 20 years is a very long time; the average house price is about 175k now and was about 40k 20 years ago...
As for Germany:
Germany has had a recession in 1993, and another one in 2003.
Germany has experienced low growth in general over the last 15 years.
Germany has recently had huge unemployment.
Germany has had a property price crash.
Note that for the uk things are currently better:
- the economy has experienced very good growth over the last 10 years.
- unemployment rate has been very good.
- wage rises have been very good.
What is more, as mentioned above, you cannot be certain that the uk is going to have a property crash anyway. (but the point is that if the uk is going to have one, it does not have to be as bad as the German one).
I think that the situation here is not as bad as people describe it. The average salary is about 26k, so a family would have on average 52k to play with. At a 3.5 x this could get you a loan of 182k and the average house price is 175k. So the average family can buy the average house. Of course many people are priced out, of course many areas are too expensive, etc... but on average things are not horribly wrong.
The situation could of course change. The uk could enter a long recession, unemployment might rise, inflation as well, wage rises would not because of unemployment, interest rates would hit 15% to keep inflation under control and house prices would have collapsed by then by over 50%.... It's always easy to paint an apocalyptic picture, but the likelyhood of this happening is slim.
1,425,000 Migrants In Two Years?
in House prices and the economy
Posted
yes, it's called democracy, but unfortunately (or fortunately) people only get to choose what party to vote and they do not get to directly vote every single law. In an ideal democracy the government should always do what the majority of people want, this does not always happen.
I am sure the majority of people, me included, want to stop illegal immigration. I am not so sure that the majority of people want to stop legal immigration, at most they want to control it a bit more (which is totally understandable and I agree to a certain extent).
> Shouldn't the majority of the population decide what happens to their country, not the minority?
If you allow me a joke: it's always the minority of the population (the one in politics) that decide what happens to their country...