Why Are Some People Here So Bitter

[TW11]

Hold on. Its fine to invest in shares because that money 'invests' in companies/people/the country and everything is pink and fluffy

That company then puts its competitor out of business with thousands of job losses and communities decimated. I'm fine with this kind of free market but lets not try and pretend that its not the same as property, there are winners and losers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So every time I buy shares I put someone out of a job? Er, no.

Every time a landlord buys a house it pumps up the price and puts the FTB out of the market? Er, yes.

You and me just aint gonna agree on this mate.

[theChuz]

Im amazed this thread still has momentum, I come back from work and i see another 2 pages added to it.

Edited August 12, 2005 by theChuz

[zzg113]

I don't think the whole of the market has been pushed up by landlords. I thought BLT was less than 10% of the market

In markets where supply is relatively tightly constrained, like oil or UK housing, small changes in demand lead to large changes in price.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclope..._and_demand.htm

It is sometimes the case that the supply curve is vertical: that is the quantity supplied is fixed, no matter what the market price. For example, the amount of land in the world can be considered fixed. In this case, no matter how much someone would be willing to pay for a piece of land, the extra cannot be created. Also, even if no one wanted all the land, it still would exist. These conditions create a vertical supply curve, giving it zero elasticity (ie. - no matter how large the change in price, the quantity supplied will not change).

The graph below illustrates a vertical supply curve. When the

demand 1 is in effect, the price will be p1. When

demand 2 is occurring, the price will be p2. Notice

that at both values the quantity is Q. Since the supply is fixed, any shifts in demand will only affect price.

Also, IMO the number of landlords is underestimated by the official BTL statistics, as many amateur landlords let out their properties on a residential mortgage without telling their lender.

Edited August 12, 2005 by zzg113

[North London Rent Girl]

I'm just tuning in in the hope of catching another eccentric idea from laurejon - seems to be specialising in them!! renting while you wait for the crash being like having sex for virginity, good thing if the north polar ice cap melts cos we get more oil, something about baked beans - there should be a thread dedicated to the most weird and wonderful posts, I reckon - there's something charming about them.

This was in reply to you theChuz - posts going up so fast!

Edited August 12, 2005 by North London Rent Girl

[Without_a_Paddle]

So every time I buy shares I put someone out of a job? Er, no.

You and me just aint gonna agree on this mate.

Just shows how blinkered you really are TW11.

Every time a landlord buys a house it pumps up the price and puts the FTB out of the market? Er, yes.

You can't keep the FTB out of the market for ever though. It's called boom and bust. (However, the landlord's mortgage debt 'doesn't' bust... feel better now TW11?)

[TW11]

You can't keep the FTB out of the market for ever though. It's called boom and bust. (However, the landlord's mortgage debt 'doesn't' bust...  feel better now TW11?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup

[winkie]

Not easy for 1st time buyers in 2005. But who wants to be a 1st time buyer in 2005?

If you have the right landlord and a property in the right location at the right price, you are laughing all the way to the bank, so to speak.

Don't think that just because you don't own a property you are anyway inferior to a home owner.

You can either rent from the bank, or rent from the landlord.

When price increase growth not there, let the landlord take the strain and pain- while you have the flexiability and saveability.

[DRS]

So every time I buy shares I put someone out of a job? Er, no.

Every time a landlord buys a house it pumps up the price and puts the FTB out of the market? Er, yes.

You and me just aint gonna agree on this mate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I'm not saying EVERY time you buy shares someone loses a job. That would be a sweeping generalisation like saying everytime a landlord buys a property the price goes up. I'm saying that often when someone makes a profit someone else makes a loss/takes a hit. Its not that complicated

[Without_a_Paddle]

Not easy for 1st time buyers in 2005. But who wants to be a 1st time buyer in 2005?

In 2005 FTB should really mean "Foolish Time Buyer"

[dipstick]

I'm angry.

Quite possibly bitter as well.

I'm angry that the whole ethos and structure of the country has been undermined by spin, greed, snobbery, poor economics, control freak politicians, market manipulating estate agents, the whole lot.

Whilst jumping on the band-wagon our fellow subjects have been quite happy (in most cases) to wear an "I'm alright Jack" t-shirt combined with the "I'm better than you" bandana.

Many people on this site have sat back and watched and studied for a lot longer than me and we have all come up with similar conclusions. It isn't going to last and it's going to be a long, hard shock for many when the bubble bursts.

The way to stop somebody from drowing? Take your foot off their head. If you don't you may find yourself next in line for a dunking. And your kids.....grandkids etc etc.

[the end is a bit nigher]

My post was quite clearly a question. I did'nt come on saying I have some ground breaking opinions/advice. I can give you my opinion if you like, but that was not the point of the post. It was  trying to ascertain why some are concerned about the market (like me) while others are wishing death and disease on anyone associated with property.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

probably just the unfairness people feel when they play by the rules and find themselves being screwed for doing so

[LockStockAndBarrel]

Britain has some of the smallest, oldest and most expensive homes in the developed world and its "Soviet-style" planning system has resulted in a shortage of affordable high-quality housing, a report reveals today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

zzg113, can you post the link for the above quote - it echoes what I have been ranting to people about for some years now - i.e. British homes seem to be abnormally small. I always put this down to greed on the part of the developers, and lack of a mandatory guide as to how big a reasonable sized dwelling should be - i.e. minimum sizes for different types of room. I know there is a guide book that architects use - but this is alas, not mandatory.

I feel constant disgust at the souless carbon copy housing estates and squalidly small flats that developers throw up in the UK - blocks of flats built next to railway lines and motorways, monolithic developments that have more in common with soviet "party flats" than modern homes. I can't help thinking that the planning rules have been, and are perpetuated by tweed-wearing old men with pipes and bowler hats whose nimbyism is stealing and has stolen space and freedom from generation after generation. No wonder those victorian terraces suddenly became appealing in the early 1990's when contrasted with the s**te that the likes of Wimpey, Persimmon and Bovis spew forth onto the landscape, like a particularly nasty and rapidly multiplying virus. Unfortunately in the absence of any alternative, people have no choice but to buy them. Unless of course they leave the country - a prospect that I find increasingly attractive in light of recent grotesque displays of greed and materialism in our ever more manipulated consumer hell.

Many thanks

Edited August 12, 2005 by LockStockAndBarrel

[Levy process]

Hold on. Its fine to invest in shares because that money 'invests' in companies/people/the country and everything is pink and fluffy

That company then puts its competitor out of business with thousands of job losses and communities decimated. I'm fine with this kind of free market but lets not try and pretend that its not the same as property, there are winners and losers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the problems with the housing market is that the supply is highly restricted and cannot rise to match rising prices. Another problem is that unlike investments in shares and companies, which make things people want and employ people, investments in houses produce nothing.

[DRS]

One of the problems with the housing market is that the supply is highly restricted and cannot rise to match rising prices. Another problem is that unlike investments in shares and companies, which make things people want and employ people, investments in houses produce nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Er not quite. Many companies do little of any real significance and may cause harm to many ie drinks/tobacco/arms. Some companies may have unfair practices towards the third world. Some might increase pollution by using transport, producing cars or spewing out toxic products. Some might deplete the sea of cod stocks or over farm land. Some might have anti HIV drugs which they withold from dying Africans.The list goes on my friend.

Investment in houses by individuals and companies produces tens of millions of tax revenue which pays for schools/hospitals etc.

There are no absolutes. Its all grey

[LockStockAndBarrel]

One of the problems with the housing market is that the supply is highly restricted and cannot rise to match rising prices. Another problem is that unlike investments in shares and companies, which make things people want and employ people, investments in houses produce nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that's the problem - those that are "in the know" have always secretly regarded their homes as an investment - in the hope that if need be they could sell it if they needed to. Now that this knowledge has filtered down to become mainstream, and add to this the constant media and TV frenzy of DIY makeovers and property investors magazine programmes, we are awash with hysteria and have lost sight of what a house should really be for - living in. And since housing does nothing more than shelter us (it does not produce real wealth) the only effect is mega inflation as demand for housing outstrips supply. Others on here have said that there are many overseas investors that have purchased huge swathes of property. I suspect that this is what happened in the last boom - this is organised, concerted and vulgar speculation. I blame the banks for making it possible and lending ever more fiat money on the back of less and less real wealth. The professional property investors have now moved on to Germany where real estate prices have been dropping slowly for a decade - only now are they on the turn.

http://www.pwmnet.com/news/fullstory.php/a...d_thinking.html

[brainclamp]

Whats appalling is how much the idiotic belief in this crash is stopping people focusing thier energies into what really matters.

How on earth can buyers compete with investors getting 40% tax breaks amoung 1001 other rules to help investors? From the moment this crony corrupt government got in, the fixed pool of UK Housing is designed to goto the hands of a landlord class.

Who pays for all these tax breaks - you do! Government spending is not going to go down, just because the rich aren't paying for it!

So not only do you become a tenant, you see taxes rise to pay for your landlords share!

What people need to do is to ballot thier unions over this, and unionise if you are not in one, and kick up a stink about it.

Ordinary people should not have to pay the tax breaks for a new politico-landed class as they face a tenant/rent-slave underclass future.

They should not have banks and building societies refusing credit to them to buy a home, as they are a worse credit risk than a landlord, like what happened to thier greatgrandfathers coming back from the trenches under the rentier class of the Tories.

I think only the rich investors with equity will get credit as the market will increasingly polarise from this point forwards, unless poltical action is taken.

Edited August 12, 2005 by brainclamp

[King of the castle]

But the point is that the more landlords buy property, the more unaffordable it becomes so more people have to rent. It's like cutting off someone's leg and then selling them a prosthetic one; sure, you are supplying a need, but that need wouldn't exist in the first place if you hadn't committed a prior action. That is what is unethical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But the point is the more whingers on here post, the less time they have to work or better their own businesses so more so the whingers have to rent. I mean 9,000 posts in a year really takes the biscuit, and you wonder why you don't have a house, it's frickin hilarious!

It's like cutting off your own leg, and then complaining about the price of a prosthetic one. It's like whinging about a situation you've created, but that situation wouldn't exist if you were more productuve with your time. That is what is so hilarious.

Still, look on the bright side, look what you've 'acheived', you're a "VIP" member on an anonymous website

KOTC

[DRS]

But the point is the more whingers on here post, the less time they have to work or better their own businesses so more so the whingers have to rent. I mean 9,000 posts in a year really takes the biscuit, and you wonder why you don't have a house, it's frickin hilarious! 

  It's like cutting off your own leg, and then complaining about the price of a prosthetic one. It's like whinging about a situation you've created, but that situation wouldn't exist if you were more productuve with your time. That is what is so hilarious.

Still, look on the bright side, look what you've 'acheived', you're a "VIP" member on an anonymous website 

KOTC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most sensible thing I've read on this forum. King of the castle has hit the nail right on the head.

Personally I think their should be MORE tax breaks for property. Why should landlords pay for chav children with no futures to get hand outs

[HPCheese]

This may be slightly off topic, but I think it demonstrates why a lot of people around the country are pretty pi#sed-off.

A friend of mine lives in Texas and he's in a similar line of work as I am, on a similar salary. When buying a home this is the type of property he has to choose from.

http://www.har.com/search/idx/DispSearch.c...ype=AWS&sTYPE=0

That $300,000 equates to around £165,331. This type of house is fairly typical for that kind of price in many parts of the US.

But look!

For the same price I could buy this beautiful second floor STUDIO flat :

http://www.findaproperty.co.uk/agent.aspx?...prop&pid=238784

The moral of the story is, get a good education and work hard in the US and be rewarded. Do the same in the UK and you may end-up living next door to a crack dealer.

It's really not surprising so many people are angry when their hard-earned skills are very often worth less than the 'skill' of scrounging a council house and sitting on your a#se all day.

[Sledgehead]

But look!

For the same price I could buy this beautiful second floor STUDIO flat :

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[zzg113]

It's like whinging about a situation you've created,

Yeah, that's right, I sent the price of houses spiralling up by 16,000%. I post on this website KOTC, and however much it pisses you off, all your bullying and vituperation isn't going to change that. So cut the cr@p and the vindictive and spiteful malice.

I'm saying that often when someone makes a profit someone else makes a loss/takes a hit. Its not that complicated

Nor is it very bright. The economy is not a zero-sum game:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum

zzg113, can you post the link for the above quote

http://money.guardian.co.uk/property/movin...1530860,00.html

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/uploads/m...0_June_2005.pdf

Many companies do little of any real significance and may cause harm to many ie drinks/tobacco/arms

How do drinks companies cause harm? No-one is forcing people to buy their product. If someone gets sh1t-faced and puts their arm through a window, whose fault is that? Not the drinks companies. Same with tobacco. No-one is forcing people to smoke, and there are bl00dy great warnings plastered on fag packets about the risks, so no-one can say they weren't warned.

[laurejon]

I think we need to all be aware of something.

The very idea of owning your own home was inspired by the Tories, in particular Margaret Thatcher.

The extremist Labour Party have always been opposed to the meanial classes owning their own homes, they see it as a diversion from the more importants things in a society such as going to work each day, and paying taxes for the Government to spend. Because like all extremists the ideology is that they know better than you when it comes to spending your money, and living your life.

It was under the Thatcher years the the vast majority of British Citizens weaned their way into home ownership, previously the preserve of the Upper and Middle classes employed in public services.

Labour hated every minute of this, and that is why we see the problem we have today. Labour see the state as being the provider, yet they cannot afford it. So they push up house prices and then declare the introduction of the share scheme. The Government own the larger part, the worker pays rent and pays his share of the lesser part. It creates a captive, and gratefull audience.

The Labour extremists have got their way, and just like many other nations that fell to the Socialists for a few generations it is the working classes that are going to have to pay.

[Levy process]

Er not quite. Many companies do little of any real significance and may cause harm to many ie drinks/tobacco/arms. Some companies may have unfair practices towards the third world. Some might increase pollution  by using transport, producing cars or spewing out toxic products. Some might deplete the sea of cod stocks or over farm land. Some might have anti HIV drugs which they withold from dying Africans.The list goes on my friend.

Investment in houses by individuals and companies produces tens of millions of tax revenue which pays for schools/hospitals etc.

There are no absolutes. Its all grey

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Providing money for schools and hospitals via the taxation of house purchases is s pretty inefficient and arbitrary way of funding such necessities. I think that argument is a bit weak, don't you?

However, I will grant you that some companies do produce environmentally damaging waste, which is a problem. Your point about holding back medicine from people does highlight another problem, but I'd say that is a totally different argument really and not relevant to your original point.

What exactly is your preferred economic model? The way I see it you are proposing funding public needs through stamp duty and tax on second homes? Seems a rather unrealistic model, don't you think?

Investment in companies can be done on an ethical basis if that is what the investor wants. Investment in companies allows people to develop new products and services which people want (they want them because otherwise nobody would develop them). It provides employment for people. Alternatively investment in government bonds allows the government to invest in public services.

Investment in houses in this country beyond buying a house for oneself simply reduces the available stock and holds people to ransom by raising prices and forcing them to rent and pay other people's mortgages.

[Without_a_Paddle]

How do drinks companies cause harm? No-one is forcing people to buy their product. If someone gets sh1t-faced and puts their arm through a window, whose fault is that? Not the drinks companies. Same with tobacco. No-one is forcing people to smoke, and there are bl00dy great warnings plastered on fag packets about the risks, so no-one can say they weren't warned.

Oh dear... drink and tobacco are DRUGS zg113. They become a compulsive habit and it becomes difficult to stop. Another example of a compulsive habit is posting 9000 times on HPC...

[Sledgehead]

Whats appalling is how much the idiotic belief in this crash is stopping people focusing thier energies into what really matters.

How on earth can buyers compete with investors getting 40% tax breaks amoung 1001 other rules to help investors?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes that's right brainclamp, people should always let the tax tail wag the investment dog.

Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog, Birmingham Business Journal

Constant changes make planning a portfolio more difficult, US News.com : "Don't let teh tax tail wag the investment dog"

Are just a couple of the thousands of threads one could post on this long accepted truism.

But surely a 40% tax break is much more important than asset performance, no?

Well, that depends on your investment horizon. Short termwise, a 40% tax break is extremely important,

BUT IF:

1 . you have a longer term investment horizon, like say, investing for a pension, or

2 . you are obsessed with th elong term, like somebody who, for instance constantly BANGS ON ABOUT THE ROMAN EMPIRE,

...it would be FOOLISH to base your view on GOVERNMENT SPECIFIC LEGISLATION that can change from one administration to the next, and usually does.

The Tories favoured equity investment, this lot property. I would venture this need not demonstrate a predisposition to favour one asset class over another, merely a need to raise taxes from that entity that will bear it with the least protest.

In 1997 the stock market was already picking up speed when Gordon Brown took up residence in No11. Property however was still trying to catch its breath after a crash and 4 long years in slump. Like all chancellors he needed money. Like all leftwing chancellors he knew the party faithful would not mind a tax on big business. Moreover, like all chancellors he understood you don't tax those who'll yelp too loudly. His choice, a £5bn annual tax on company pensions elicited hardly a raised eyebrow at the time: shares were charging up so what did it matter? 8 years on and the fallout, with company pensions still 32bn in th ered is all too obvious.

In otherwords, the object of taxation will shift with changing government. The question is, if you base your view of the financial world on what happened at the time of the ROMAN EMPIRE, is it really that wise to put centre stage taxation, which can change from year to year or from administration to administration?

The received wisdom says NO. Why? Ask anyone who finds their ISA worth LESS than when they bought it: the tax free status is the added insult to the losses injury: you can't claim a capital loss if you lose money in an ISA, and you won't be able to claim a capital loss on any losses on property you hold within a SIPP.

Edited August 13, 2005 by Sledgehead