Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

equitystasher

Members
  • Posts

    343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by equitystasher

  1. On 29/06/2017 at 9:27 AM, Locke said:

     

    The government has no right to steal from anyone.

    Taxation is theft.

    If the State wants to survive, it needs to default on all debt, and never deficit spend ever, ever again.

    Any other path is death.

    It's not stealing. It called paying for stuff we all need, to keep the country and society going for the good of us all. My god, what a thought. A unselfish one that benefits everyone in the long term.

     

    Unfortunately the coalition and cons now have a system where rich people and corporations can get away without paying anything like what they were and wonder why the nations  debt has doubled whilst the services and infrastructure is failing. Leagues of very intelligent people finding ways in which their clients, can  avoid paying their already, lowered obligations and using the law. It's not difficult to see where the ruling classes  want everything to be and for the majority, it will be misery and servitude whilst the top sit back and bung more money to the appropriate places to keep the facade going.

     

    Everyone benefits from good services and infrastructure and if a bit more wealth was spread towards the middle and bottom, then they might find the economy picking up instead of seeing wealth off shored.

     

    Socialism for the rich does not work.

     

     

  2. The  money tree was found to bail out the banks and landed the country in eye watering debt which has created moral hazard. We are heading for another crises as it's business as usual in the financial sector. They are the biggest contributors along with property specualtors to the Conservative party who do their bidding.

     

    Since policies of cutting everything including basic services whilst allowing massive tax avoidance to take place by individuals and corporations has seen the debt almost double. This is the biggest revenue hole rather than "scroungers"

    The equality gap has widened and it will continue.

    This is not sound economics but ideology.

    You can't keep cutting services,deregulating  and promote speculation of basic human needs like housing and expect the majority not to suffer.

    The debt burden should not of been shoved totally onto the public sector but balanced throughout society. 

    People are starting to wake up to the con.

  3. My Fiancé came home today to tell me about a close work colleague who has gone to the banks for a mortgage in principle so he can buy a house in Surrey.

    He is 25 years old and has a total gross income including overtime of £32,000 a year and has a 5% deposit

    He is determined to buy a house against the advice of my Fiancé.

    We both reckoned at best he would be offered £120,000 mortgage due to MMR.

    How wrong we were!!

    He has been offered £250,000 over 65 years with the Halifax and he wants to take it despite the sound advice from my fiancé

    I thought sub prime lending had finished in 2008 but how wrong was I! This all makes sense why house prices are still at ridiculous levels. He is not the only one who has been forwarded such a large amount over a ridiculous term. Two others we know have done the same.

    It makes me angry that we have to bid against such stupid people who are given the rope to hang us all from the zombie banks.

    Next intergenerational mortgages like Japan?

  4. This is a further cynical move by the Tories to further weaken workers rights and is total hypocrisy given how our electoral system works which affects us far more than public sector unions.

    Public sector unions are the last union's to have any sort of power to fight and defend the services and rights in this country. This is about ideology more than votes.

    If this becomes law then it's only a matter of time until the 40% goalposts are moved. They have even admitted it themselves. This is in the first instance is all about preventing strike. Withdrawing ones Labour is the only way certain workers can bring about negotiation.Once this is eliminated there is little point of being in a union.

    No unions is a Tory aim along with relocating wealth to a minority not the majority.

    I hope that the average man will see beyond the smoke screen of eliminating a annoyance to the "hard working families" and see there is more at stake.

  5. It never ceases to surprise me the ignorant, anti public sector rhetoric espoused by the vocal minority on this Forum.

    A Firefighters job is a dangerous. Using your methodology of stastics, driving to work is more dangerous than being a Firefighter which is not true. Firefighter deaths are at their highest for many years.

    Firefighters dealwith a very broad range of incidents- flooding, chemical, transport crashes etc etc which requires broad knowledge and skills to be effective and operate safely.

    Cutting roofs off cars is due to protection of c-spine injuries and is done on request of a Paramedic or Hems doctor.

    1 in over 2000 who apply for full time Firefighters are successful.

    In your hour of need at a fire, chemical spill, or after a terrorist attack, when everyone else is running away you may look at their worth differently?

    P.S Each Fire Authority is fully accountable and publishes incident and budget information.

  6. considering the Public Sector Party (aka Labour) caused this f*cking mess then why must they be immune to the cost of sorting it out?

    morons

    This mess was not caused by Firefighters,Nurses,Teachers and other essential service providers but the greed of the Bankers leveraging up the system through their greed and the politicians (Labour) bailing them out.

    It seems you have fallen for the scape goats and seem happy to bash the wrong people.

  7. Hi All,

    Sorry for the late reply but I've been very busy with personal and work challenges.

    No this is not a conspiracy. My account hasn't been hacked and these are my own words. I wish it were so that housing came back into line with fundamentals but the simple truth is that the game is far too slanted towards home ownership and there are two many blinded by their emotions on this forum. Pension changes,help to buy,Q.E and low interest rates all point to further increases. To deny this I think you are burying your head in the sand and hoping. Just because it is wrong which it is, does not mean it won't happen.

    From my perspective I am lucky to have benefited from the previous boom,selling before the crash and investing in index linked bonds so I have so far timed it well through luck and judgement, If I had my way I would of bought two years ago but personal circumstances did not dictate. Now I am eager to buy a decent family house,in a decent area which I should be able to do with a 30% mortgage. We have found somewhere and are currently putting in offers.

  8. Hello HPC,

    After 7 years of waiting and watching I am jumping back into the madness.

    I sold my one bedroom flat in April 2007 and decided to rent after coming across this site and spending hours reading the various posts and educating myself from the writings and debates of some very astute posters. Weighing up the considerable advice I decided to sell and stay out of the market against the advice of my family and friends whoi thought I was mad, as the market was only going one way at the time. Or so they thought.

    All said and done it is personal circumstances that have led me to buy aswell as economics.I wanted to buy a couple of years ago but it did not make any sense at the time.

    I am now getting married and wanting a home and to be honest, I know the housing market is a bubble, but I know it could take many more years for it to pop and I am not prepared to wait in rented accomodation any longer and watch my capital be eroded by the policies of the central banks aall my index linked bonds have come or coming to a end.

    Thanks and I wish you all the best for your futures

  9. Pre maybe 1980 young blokes used to mess around with cars because it was one of the few things you could do in your spare time. Most men from that era have an understanding of mechanics and have done some sort of repair on their first car or a banger.

    Nowadays people have playstations, drinking, holidays, football, DIY on houses and a whole load of other stuff to do. Most of the blokes of my age know very little about cars and have only attempted the most basic stuff such as pumping up the tyres, changing the oil and battery etc. This coupled with the fact that newer cars are much harder to mess around with has led to the demise of the amateur mechanic, although if harder times come by my guess is he'll be back.

    The real truth is that modern cars are far easier to maintain and cheaper to look after if you do it yourself . They are designed to be easy to service.

    I have been driving since the ninties and always had the mentality of DIY. I have had Truimphs,Fords, Honda's and recently a Skoda Octavia. Just done front pads for £22 and 30 minutes of my time with no specialist tools needed. The modern cars are far easier to service than the old!

    Major service- Diesel Filter £22,Oil Fiiter £4,Air Filter £16, Cabin Filter £10. Engine oil which is Halfords VW 507 grade which is the best grade you can buy £36. I use a £30 Pela pump to suck the old oil out of the dipstick hole like most of the dealers do now. Takes a hour whilst drinking a cup of tea to do the lot. How much from a dealer?

    Truth is that modern cars have little to service now. Fluids and filter changes. Most complicated item is a cam belt change. It's just that most people choose not to have a go.

    Oh for interest I average 60mpg Winter and 70mpg in the summer from my 05 Octavia. Great car.

  10. Every excuse for not raising rates is used despite inflation being double its target. They are praying that other central banks are going to do their job for them and commodities will fall in price.

    People should get used to the stagflation we are in as we are going to be in this situation for along time.

    I am afraid the BofE are bailing out the banks and the inprudent as they know that if rates are set to meet their inflation target the housing market which drives our consumer economy is toast.

    I expect a token .25 rise at the end of the year.

  11. Consistent 1% mom falls are a lot to ask though. Hopefully we will start to see something like that soon.

    I am afraid we will not see any significant falls soon.

    Aslong as interest rates are held at current levels or close to, all we will see Is a slow, nominal grind down in house prices. The BofE know what higher rates will mean to our highly indebted, consumer economy.

    The amount of job losses people are expecting will not come through at the level many are predicting on here and I am afraid the over indebted have been given a life line by the low interest rates and banks reluctance to reposses.

    Our only hope is that the BofE is forced to raise rates by the markets and then the proces of rebalance and rebuilding can begin.Until then we will have a standoff between buyers and sellers.

  12. It's interesting that you give the correct diagnosis, but then suggest poison as the medicine.

    How is bankrupting debtors going to help to rebalance anything? It will just wipe out both the borrower (pain, stress, black mark their credit rating etc) and harm the savers (if they don't get their bank savings back). It's one way to shrink the gap between rich and poor, but it's not the most humane way.

    The threat (and action) of diluting the value of currency is to encourage those will all the money to spend it. Thus, those with debts can then earn it and pay down what they owe. When you have a situation when a few hold all the wealth and the majority hold all the debt, you don't start paying yet more money to the wealthy in interest payments - that will just widen the gap further.

    Additionally, as the corporates tend to be the ones with the large surplus, encouraging them to spend would result in capital investment and increased employment. Increasing the income on surplus funds held by big businesses is hardly going to help any recovery effort.

    The current policy is cursing both the saver and the indebted. How long do you persue said policy? Wealth is being destroyed everywhere due to the worker not able to demand wage increases.Taxes and growth will continue to fall. If this carries on you will have the indebted going bankrupt anyway and the reponsible will have no inclination or means to spend.

    The truth has to be faced. The economy needs to be rebalanced. The only way to do this is for the over indebted and foolish to go bankrupt and the people who made the right decisions to take their assets over so they can be put to productive use.

    Currently you have badly run companies/indviduals being subsidised and competing with by well run companies and the responsible individual. You are just making a Zombie economy which will never recover due to this imbalance.

    Yes putting rates up hurts. there is no easy way out if you want to get the country back on track.

  13. And it just keeps on climbing.

    How long will Merv and co leave it till they start to inch rates up? I think they are going to leave it till their hand is forced and only then, they will just inch as slowly as possible. They know how close to the edge a large amount of the population is and the pound is too strong at current levels for Mervs liking.

    Keeping rates this low might of bailed out the indebted for now, but it has encouraged many more people to take on debt they cannot afford . Barclays offered a friend of mine a mortgage at 5 times income who is in his late 40's!

    I am still holding out from the madness and not buying a house and I feel for those who are having their saving eaten away.

    90% of my house fund is looking good in [email protected] at the moment but I am not so sure about the remaining 10% in equites!

  14. What you describe is what the politicians and the BofE are trying to engineer and is part of the reason why interest rates have remained where they are. So far they have been sucessful in maintaining the market at unsustainable levels

    The problem with no nominal fall in prices when house prices are at 5-6 times median wages and the cost of living is increasing with static wages and rates at 0.5% with limited funds to lend there is no further margin to maintain house price levels where they are.

    I see nominal falls ahead unless the BofE start printing money again.

  15. Exactly, the OP wants everyone to forget about wages but the debt is real £103k, the purchasing power of that £103k has dropped to £99038 of old pounds and without wage inflation he is really getting worse of because of the borrowed money.

    Debt can be eroded by wage inflation and wage inflation only. Meanstwhile without it but still commodity inflation everything else gets more of a drain on the money he has to repay the debt.

    Could not of put it better myself and it is the reason why Mervs plan will not work.

    The current high house prices were also boosted by the falling cost of living in the west. This has now reversed with chinese wages rising and house prices will fall to reflect the higher cost of living.

    The only way to gain as a debtor out of inflation is to have wage inflation.

    Both savers and debtors are worse off in the current situation as we become poorer and the chinese become richer.

  16. I think that when it has all finished being played out those that STR will be left feeling bitterly dissapointed , especially those without the balls to invest their fund in something that involves risk. I can quite imagine some of them still have it in a high st bank account earning nothing. They hoped to sell at peak , get 6% interest for a a few years then buy at the bottom of the cycle. Ineterst rates are near zero and the bottom is still not visible even if you were looking through Hubble.

    The STR's were more than happy to offload their homes to some other mug , but for the past two years it's these mugs who are laughing and i reckon they could still be laughing in 10 years time. The STR fund is in effect being used to keep 'the mug' in your former house , while you bail out some economic illeterate BTLer by paying his mortgage for the next however many years.

    Sibley and Hamish got quite a lot wrong but they were both right (up to now) on ths one.

    Bought a flat in Surrey in 1999,sold June 2007 with the view to buy a house. Decided a crash was coming and moved back in with parents for a year and then into rented with girlfriend.

    90% of the house fund is invested in [email protected] index linked certificates and 10% in equites in a ISA wrapper. We currently live in a a excellent area,in a very nice flat with low running costs for a fair rent with a good landlord. He has spent several thousands to maintain where we live.

    We are managing to save towards out future home aswell as see our savings appreciate against a backdrop of falling prices.

    I am glad I did not buy in 2007.

  17. They're only worse off because of the figures you use. Over the last six years I bet the average mortgagee has paid less than 5% IR on average. I haven't paid higher than 5% in the last six years, and that's solely on fixed rates, variable rates have been consistently about 2% less.

    It's futile to try and say one method is better than the other because the wide range of figures / scenarios you can plug into them ensures the overlap between the two approaches is almost 100% in terms of outcome. What if six years ago you'd sank your savings into bank shares? This is why I say go and look at the thread I link to in my other post, because it's the same argument over about 12 pages :), there's no point repeating it again in full here

    PS just to prove a point (and contradict not repating it in full) . At 5% interest a 160K mortgage goes:

    Year Interest Repayment Balance

    2005 £7,925.07 £3,299.01 £156,700.99

    2006 £7,756.29 £3,467.79 £153,233.20

    2007 £7,578.87 £3,645.21 £149,587.99

    2008 £7,392.38 £3,831.70 £145,756.29

    2009 £7,196.35 £4,027.73 £141,728.56

    2010 £6,990.29 £4,233.79 £137,494.77

    44.5K interest, only paid 22.5K off (you stopped after 5 years ;) )

    But stick in 3% interest rates and you get...

    2005 £4,740.30 £4,364.58 £155,635.42

    2006 £4,607.56 £4,497.32 £151,138.10

    2007 £4,470.78 £4,634.10 £146,504.00

    2008 £4,329.83 £4,775.05 £141,728.95

    2009 £4,184.57 £4,920.31 £136,808.64

    2010 £4,034.93 £5,069.95 £131,738.69

    26K in interest and 28K paid off.....

    I have stopped after 5 years because that is your time span you are comparing renting to buying. In that period house prices have not moved. I see what you are trying to say but you are again looking at only repayments in isolation and assuming overpayment and not costing in saving,investing and the loss on capital,depreciation insurance etc.

    Mortgagee has been paying interest on a asset which costs money to maintain in its purchased condition and also costs to insure. it has also been depreciating in real terms over the 6 years when taking into account inflation .

    I am arguing that you need to take all of this into consideration and a FTB would be in a better postion now by renting, waiting and saving to buy than buying 6 years ago.

  18. I think the misunderstanding is that I should have said 6 years of renting (i.e. the state of renting) rather than 6 years of rent (i.e. the actual money). And who would get an interest-only mortgage without a savings vehicle as well? That's just daftness.

    I think the thread i linked to in my other post refs the rest of your post, it's really a rollicking read. Yes, you'll have saved for 6 years (plus interest), but you'll have paid rent that compounds with inflation every year (please none of this "i still pay the same rent as 1927 in my flat, hoho my silly landlord" shibble please) - and the average mortgagee will have knocked a fair chunk out their mortgage even given the average house is still worth the same as 6 years ago. As I keep saing, it's just a different way of doing things, and unless you know well in advance how things are going to pan out, it's not a superior way. It would have been if house prices had fell 25% in one month and then that was it, but the slow decline and the fairly rapacious inflation rates next to interest rates has taken the wind out of the approach's sails. I know I'm not going to get everyone here suddenly going "shit! that's it, I'm buying a house!", cos you're committed to this approach, all I'm saying is is that it's not the quick route to mucho £££ it might have appeared.

    Sorry but you are over simplifying the situation to your way of thinking.

    Yes your right that the mortgagee would of reduced their mortgage but maybe by not as much as you think and they will be subject to insurance and repair costs that a renter won't be exposed to. Also rents don't always go up.

    If the mortgagee took a 25 year,£160,000 repayment mortgage starting 6 years ago at 5% they would still have £142,000 to pay and would of paid £38,000 in interest for the pleasure.

    In my personal situation (STR'D 2007) it would be bonkers to buy now. 95% of my fund is in [email protected] index linked bonds and I am still saving adding to my fund with more money left over at the end of the month to live on than I would have if I had bought.

    I have been renting a nice place,in a great area for the same rent for 4 years in which time the landlord has had to replace the washing machine, dishwasher,boiler,redecorate certain parts inside and out and sort some leaks, bit of plumbing work which has all cost him thousands. Anything goes wrong and I have not had to lift a finger or open my wallet.

    I have calculated that buying now on a 5% mortgage if house prices stayed level and inflation the same for the next 3 years I would be £55,000 worse off buying than renting .

    I will buy when its right to do so but I think like most posters on here I am hopefully astute enough know when to jump and its not in the next year unless they start printing money and buying mortgage backed securities.

    typo

  19. Firefighters are not heroes. They are paid to do a job. They know what they are getting into when they accept the job. If they don't want to do it, they shouldn't do the job.

    Is firefighting dangerous ? Not really. Being a salesperson is probably more dangerous, as probably more salespeople die per year on the roads than firefighters die in callouts.

    I don't offer any respect to firefighters because of the job they do.

    What I do think is that they should be remunerated appropriately. In particular, if they re injured and forced to retire in the line of duty they should be appropriately compensated. If they put their lives on the line for society, it is only right that society looks after them when they are injured.

    They shouldn't be allowed to have second jobs, as this may make them more tired and unable to do their first job effectively. They should be remunerated at market rates and have the same working conditions imposed as any other group.

    Regarding pensions, they should be allowed to draw a pension at an earlier age. However, if they decide to continue to work then they should lose the pension for the duration they are in work. Drawing a pension from the state and doing a job simultaneously is taking a job off someone else in a society where jobs are scarce.

    I think the World Trade Center shows you the ethos of the job Firefighters do.

    They go in when everyone else in running away and are peoples last hope in many situations

    How you can compare that to a salesman driving around the M25 in his BMW?

    Why should they not be allowed to have second jobs if it does not affect theior main employment? Now one asks that of anyone else? Also they are taking responsibility for themselves and trying to support their families.

  20. So where do they find the time to moonlight as removal men, painters & decorators or run their own small businesses? I know a fair few people involved with the fire service and they all have one thing in common.... they use the generous shift patterns to establish a second profitable job on the side.

    If management want to introduce shift arrangements similar to the Ambulance & Police service firefighters would come off night shift completely knackered and would have to spend the day sleeping..... at the moment they can come of night shift as fresh as a daisy read to plow straight into a days worth of moonlighting.

    The fire service must be the only place where you really do get paid to sleep.

    Yes this is the hours a Wholetime Firefighter works Do you think a 42 hour week is over generous? I would think that it is higher than the average office worker who does 35 hours. It seems you are just ignorant and assume that if alot of them have second jobs then they do not work long hours.

    If a Firefighter finds his/her shift pattern falls so they have most of their time off during the week when family and friends are at school/work then I can see why they choose to work and improve their income.

  21. I think most of you are missing the point of this strike.

    Moving the shifts to 12 hours will enable the Fire Authority to reduce fire cover in certain parts of London at night. This is the primary motivation.

    Wholetime Firefighters work a 42 hour week which is made up of weekends and nights and this change will not change that.

    The dispute is about Fire Cover and about sacking the work force enmass and forcing new contracts on the work force.

    In these troubled times we have to ask ourselves what we value. Protecting the capital and those who live and work there from a major incident,terrorist attack,chemical,biological, road traffic accident etc etc should be a one of them.

    Firefighters would rather not lose pay and not be on strike I am sure.

  22. I think most of you are missing the point of this strike.

    Moving the shifts to 12 hours will enable the Fire Authority to reduce fire cover in certain parts of London at night. This is the primary motivation.

    Wholetime Firefighters work a 42 hour week which is made up of weekends and nights and this change will not change that.

    The dispute is about Fire Cover and about sacking the work force enmass and forcing new contracts on the work force.

    In these troubled we have to ask ourselves what we value. Protecting the capital and those who live and work there from a major incident,terrorist attack,chemical,biological, road traffic accident etc etc should be a one of them.

    Firefighters would rather not lose pay and not be on strike I am sure.

  23. Thanks Freetrader.

    Great Thread. It does help us keep it all in perspective.

    This isn't like the crash in the 90's as there has been a massive credit bubble,banking crises and public sector cuts are looming which are massive headwinds to the housing market.

    It all depends now on what the BofE/Government. If they start printing money and decide to continue propping the banks which they are likely to do as the Banks have become addicted to suckling from the teat and have a gun to their head, we will see smaller,slower falls.

    If they let the market adjust then there are bigger falls to come not comparable to the last crash.

    I think we could see a policy statement from the BofE soon

×
×
  • 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.