Preparing hard workers for a future of tax paying...
Discussion
NAS said:
I'm affraid you're incorrect. The Netherlands you'll find are much worse. Here the buyers are subsidised by way of a big tax deduction on one's income tax.
niek... interesting, thats not a free market though! same in the us but still no shame renting.the eifel's still cheap mate... proost
fbrs said:
NAS said:
I'm affraid you're incorrect. The Netherlands you'll find are much worse. Here the buyers are subsidised by way of a big tax deduction on one's income tax.
niek... interesting, thats not a free market though! same in the us but still no shame renting.the eifel's still cheap mate... proost
So Eifel it is, it would seem.
Was there 2 weeks ago. Good roads, cheap beer, friendly and a nice track to play on. If only I could get a decent job there.....Why go to work when:
"Thousands earning more in benefits than average wage
One hundred thousand households in the UK earn more from benefits than the average wage every year, new figures show."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
"Thousands earning more in benefits than average wage
One hundred thousand households in the UK earn more from benefits than the average wage every year, new figures show."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
[quote=cymtriks
Looking at house prices inflation has roughly doubled wages and prices since 1990. House prices have quadrupled but interest rates (the rates you actually pay) have halved.
So house prices have outstriped prices and wages by a factor of two but the interest you pay has halved which means you pay exactly the same portion of your income as you did back then.
What you are seeing is the difference between paying 10 percent on a 40K house and 5 percent on a 120K house with a fifty percent inflation rise factored in. i.e. you pay exactly the same.
You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that interest rates have halved since the eighties when rates of 8 to 12 percent were normal.
Why do you think this is unsustainable? paying 10 perecent on 100k is exactly the same as paying 5 percent on 200K or even 1 percent on a million.
[/quote]
You seem to be ignoring repayment of capital, the fact that interest rates may not stay low forever, and even if they do, wages will go nowhere so completely different from the eighties.
Looking at house prices inflation has roughly doubled wages and prices since 1990. House prices have quadrupled but interest rates (the rates you actually pay) have halved.
So house prices have outstriped prices and wages by a factor of two but the interest you pay has halved which means you pay exactly the same portion of your income as you did back then.
What you are seeing is the difference between paying 10 percent on a 40K house and 5 percent on a 120K house with a fifty percent inflation rise factored in. i.e. you pay exactly the same.
You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that interest rates have halved since the eighties when rates of 8 to 12 percent were normal.
Why do you think this is unsustainable? paying 10 perecent on 100k is exactly the same as paying 5 percent on 200K or even 1 percent on a million.
[/quote]
You seem to be ignoring repayment of capital, the fact that interest rates may not stay low forever, and even if they do, wages will go nowhere so completely different from the eighties.
fbrs said:
Twincam16 said:
It's also delusional to think that people - hard-working people too, not layabouts - will put up with living much longer in a country where the average wage doesn't buy the average house because a wealthy minority have a vested interest in keeping property prices high and the number of affordable new homes low.
The poll tax riots will be an afternoon in the park compared to the almighty s
tstorm on it's way over housing in this country with the population set to increase the way it is.
i think you are being overly dramatic.The poll tax riots will be an afternoon in the park compared to the almighty s
tstorm on it's way over housing in this country with the population set to increase the way it is. 54% of households are completely unmortgaged
44% are mortgaged on average 108k or about 4x average salary
monthefish said:
Willie Dee said:
I too cannot see that either one has to work hard for success or it is simply given on a plate, nor can I understand that there is no middle ground, multiple reasons for or alternative ways to success.
Them poors eh, if only they worked hard. Bootstraps lads, then you will be as successful as me.
What a load of twaddle. You've dug yourself in there - you can't have it both ways.Them poors eh, if only they worked hard. Bootstraps lads, then you will be as successful as me.
You state you're successful/you have "wealth" (yet to be quantified). You say that it wasn't handed to you on plate but you also state that we are "delusional" if we think wealth comes from merit or hard work.
Willie Dee said:
I too cannot see that either one has to work hard for success or it is simply given on a plate, nor can I understand that there is no middle ground, multiple reasons for or alternative ways to success.
I worked hard and was successful, but for ever me there is there are 10 people out there who worked just as hard as me, some even harder, who were not. There are far more factors to life than simply working hard.fbrs said:
agreed. total cr*p. 'professional forum poster' ?!?!
lol, made you look pubby scrubby! 
NoelWatson said:
Twincam16 said:
We don't have enough houses for everyone to live in.
It is amazing how many homeless there are that just can't find a house despite having the money. It may even run into double figures.Twincam16 said:
fbrs said:
Twincam16 said:
And as a result, in order to prevent repossession and negative equity, these people had a vested interest in the value of their house continuing to rise exponentially, as did the market.
they have a vested interest true, but that doesnt change the price. i have a vested interest in my house being worth 1bn quid, but it isnt. the price of anything is determined by buyers just as much as sellers; buyers have a vested interest in it being free. 'the market' most evidently had a vested interest in us house prices to and look what happened there. your understanding of free markets makes no senseEdited by fbrs on Friday 6th August 14:50
We're now reaping the consequences of that failed economic model. I feel the new one will have to include more affordable houses.
Are you aware there is no greater incentive for housebuilders than rising prices. So the last decade had new builds being put up all over. Not enough? There will never really be 'enough'.
The simple fact is that we are a small country and there is a limit to how much property we can build. There is limited land and a population increasing in size. This will always put increasing pressure on housing stock.
You keep twisting your argument and i am convinced you dont actually think about what you are saying at all.
rich1231 said:
Twincam16 said:
fbrs said:
Twincam16 said:
And as a result, in order to prevent repossession and negative equity, these people had a vested interest in the value of their house continuing to rise exponentially, as did the market.
they have a vested interest true, but that doesnt change the price. i have a vested interest in my house being worth 1bn quid, but it isnt. the price of anything is determined by buyers just as much as sellers; buyers have a vested interest in it being free. 'the market' most evidently had a vested interest in us house prices to and look what happened there. your understanding of free markets makes no senseEdited by fbrs on Friday 6th August 14:50
We're now reaping the consequences of that failed economic model. I feel the new one will have to include more affordable houses.
Are you aware there is no greater incentive for housebuilders than rising prices. So the last decade had new builds being put up all over. Not enough? There will never really be 'enough'.
The simple fact is that we are a small country and there is a limit to how much property we can build. There is limited land and a population increasing in size. This will always put increasing pressure on housing stock.
You keep twisting your argument and i am convinced you dont actually think about what you are saying at all.
From over 400,000 a year in the '70s to under 200,000 a year in the last decade
And yet, compare it to the UK's population growth:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met...
Does it make any sense that those two curves are inversely proportional?
Twincam16 said:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.as...
From over 400,000 a year in the '70s to under 200,000 a year in the last decade
And yet, compare it to the UK's population growth:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met...
Does it make any sense that those two curves are inversely proportional?
It does when you think about how many areas where people actually want to live are protected from development now. It is only the fact that surburban gardens have been considered 'brownfield' land that has kept house building as high as it has. From over 400,000 a year in the '70s to under 200,000 a year in the last decade
And yet, compare it to the UK's population growth:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met...
Does it make any sense that those two curves are inversely proportional?
Twincam16 said:
rich1231 said:
Twincam16 said:
fbrs said:
Twincam16 said:
And as a result, in order to prevent repossession and negative equity, these people had a vested interest in the value of their house continuing to rise exponentially, as did the market.
they have a vested interest true, but that doesnt change the price. i have a vested interest in my house being worth 1bn quid, but it isnt. the price of anything is determined by buyers just as much as sellers; buyers have a vested interest in it being free. 'the market' most evidently had a vested interest in us house prices to and look what happened there. your understanding of free markets makes no senseEdited by fbrs on Friday 6th August 14:50
We're now reaping the consequences of that failed economic model. I feel the new one will have to include more affordable houses.
Are you aware there is no greater incentive for housebuilders than rising prices. So the last decade had new builds being put up all over. Not enough? There will never really be 'enough'.
The simple fact is that we are a small country and there is a limit to how much property we can build. There is limited land and a population increasing in size. This will always put increasing pressure on housing stock.
You keep twisting your argument and i am convinced you dont actually think about what you are saying at all.
From over 400,000 a year in the '70s to under 200,000 a year in the last decade
And yet, compare it to the UK's population growth:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met...
Does it make any sense that those two curves are inversely proportional?
There is less land available to builders now. They build at higher densities but build as much as they can.. or have done as the profits available to volume builders was significant.
The 70's were over 30 years ago. Things dont remain static, the quicker you readjust your expectations of society the quicker you will be happy.
Things have changed, get used to it.
Twincam16 said:
NoelWatson said:
Twincam16 said:
We don't have enough houses for everyone to live in.
It is amazing how many homeless there are that just can't find a house despite having the money. It may even run into double figures.NoelWatson said:
cymtriks said:
Looking at house prices inflation has roughly doubled wages and prices since 1990. House prices have quadrupled but interest rates (the rates you actually pay) have halved.
So house prices have outstriped prices and wages by a factor of two but the interest you pay has halved which means you pay exactly the same portion of your income as you did back then.
What you are seeing is the difference between paying 10 percent on a 40K house and 5 percent on a 120K house with a fifty percent inflation rise factored in. i.e. you pay exactly the same.
You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that interest rates have halved since the eighties when rates of 8 to 12 percent were normal.
Why do you think this is unsustainable? paying 10 perecent on 100k is exactly the same as paying 5 percent on 200K or even 1 percent on a million.
You seem to be ignoring repayment of capital, the fact that interest rates may not stay low forever, and even if they do, wages will go nowhere so completely different from the eighties. So house prices have outstriped prices and wages by a factor of two but the interest you pay has halved which means you pay exactly the same portion of your income as you did back then.
What you are seeing is the difference between paying 10 percent on a 40K house and 5 percent on a 120K house with a fifty percent inflation rise factored in. i.e. you pay exactly the same.
You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that interest rates have halved since the eighties when rates of 8 to 12 percent were normal.
Why do you think this is unsustainable? paying 10 perecent on 100k is exactly the same as paying 5 percent on 200K or even 1 percent on a million.
Interest rates will stay low for a while. The government have no other (electoral) choice, and they ultimately decide who decides the interest rate regardless of current independence.
Wages are irrelevant, if rates halve, prices double and wages stay the same then every home is just as affordable in terms of a mortgage repayment.
The critical thing that the house-price-crash brigade don't seem to realise is simple supply and demand.
Housing supply is restricted. Green belts, nature reserves, concerns over flooding and planning restrictions all put on the squeeze. Housing demand rises. Immigration, living longer, marrying later, more divorce all put on the pressure.
So in absolute terms, after factoring in the interest rates and lending criteria etc, we can still expect to see a long term future of homes becoming less and less affordable. Unless there is a dramatic change in this country it is unavoidable.
cymtriks said:
NoelWatson said:
cymtriks said:
Looking at house prices inflation has roughly doubled wages and prices since 1990. House prices have quadrupled but interest rates (the rates you actually pay) have halved.
So house prices have outstriped prices and wages by a factor of two but the interest you pay has halved which means you pay exactly the same portion of your income as you did back then.
What you are seeing is the difference between paying 10 percent on a 40K house and 5 percent on a 120K house with a fifty percent inflation rise factored in. i.e. you pay exactly the same.
You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that interest rates have halved since the eighties when rates of 8 to 12 percent were normal.
Why do you think this is unsustainable? paying 10 perecent on 100k is exactly the same as paying 5 percent on 200K or even 1 percent on a million.
You seem to be ignoring repayment of capital, the fact that interest rates may not stay low forever, and even if they do, wages will go nowhere so completely different from the eighties. So house prices have outstriped prices and wages by a factor of two but the interest you pay has halved which means you pay exactly the same portion of your income as you did back then.
What you are seeing is the difference between paying 10 percent on a 40K house and 5 percent on a 120K house with a fifty percent inflation rise factored in. i.e. you pay exactly the same.
You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that interest rates have halved since the eighties when rates of 8 to 12 percent were normal.
Why do you think this is unsustainable? paying 10 perecent on 100k is exactly the same as paying 5 percent on 200K or even 1 percent on a million.
Interest rates will stay low for a while. The government have no other (electoral) choice, and they ultimately decide who decides the interest rate regardless of current independence.
Wages are irrelevant, if rates halve, prices double and wages stay the same then every home is just as affordable in terms of a mortgage repayment.
The critical thing that the house-price-crash brigade don't seem to realise is simple supply and demand.
Housing supply is restricted. Green belts, nature reserves, concerns over flooding and planning restrictions all put on the squeeze. Housing demand rises. Immigration, living longer, marrying later, more divorce all put on the pressure.
So in absolute terms, after factoring in the interest rates and lending criteria etc, we can still expect to see a long term future of homes becoming less and less affordable. Unless there is a dramatic change in this country it is unavoidable.
cymtriks said:
No, I'm not.
Er, yes you are, because you say thiscymtriks said:
Wages are irrelevant, if rates halve, prices double and wages stay the same then every home is just as affordable in terms of a mortgage repayment.
cymtriks said:
The government have no other (electoral) choice
Do they also tell the world markets what to do?cymtriks said:
The critical thing that the house-price-crash brigade don't seem to realise is simple supply and demand.
Indeed, and the average person has simply borrowed as much as they can do demand is limitedcymtriks said:
Housing supply is restricted. Green belts, nature reserves, concerns over flooding and planning restrictions all put on the squeeze. Housing demand rises. Immigration, living longer, marrying later, more divorce all put on the pressure.
They say the same thing during every bubble. It is different this time. Of course, it never iscymtriks said:
So in absolute terms, after factoring in the interest rates and lending criteria etc, we can still expect to see a long term future of homes becoming less and less affordable. Unless there is a dramatic change in this country it is unavoidable.
Did you not mean to say "as soon as rates hit 5%, the market will continue the readustment at a greater rate than currently"?NoelWatson said:
They say the same thing during every bubble. It is different this time. Of course, it never is.
Without getting into which bubble is different to which other bubble, the idea that long-term comparisons are always totally meaningful is flawed. Equivalence is easily assumed but may be absent.Over the period of time for which longer-term average income and average house prices are compared, taxation has changed significantly, altering the ability of individuals to afford a mortgage and buy a house. An Inland Revenue officer stated in 1953 there were only 36 people in the UK with an after-tax income of £6,000 or more. Their pre-tax income would have been over £56,000. Equivalent adjusted earnings for today would be very large and the amount left after taxation much greater both as a proportion and as an absolute amount.
More recently, bonuses were used pre-crunch in affordability calculations, but apparently according to discussions on here that position has changed. There are subtle and not so subtle but important changes over time that are simply glossed over when no attention is paid to the detail.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 8th August 22:37
turbobloke said:
NoelWatson said:
They say the same thing during every bubble. It is different this time. Of course, it never is.
Without getting into which bubble is different to which other bubble, the idea that long-term comparisons are always totally meaningful is flawed. Equivalence is easily assumed but may be absent.Over the period of time for which longer-term average income and average house prices are compared, taxation has changed significantly, altering the ability of individuals to afford a mortgage and buy a house. An Inland Revenue officer stated in 1953 there were only 36 people in the UK with an after-tax income of £6,000 or more. Their pre-tax income would have been over £56,000. Equivalent adjusted earnings for today would be very large and the amount left after taxation much greater both as a proportion and as an absolute amount.
More recently, bonuses were used pre-crunch in affordability calculations, but apparently according to discussions on here that position has changed. There are subtle and not so subtle but important changes over time that are simply glossed over when no attention is paid to the detail.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 8th August 22:37
Looks like the government recognise the problem too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10910048
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8468605.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10910048
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8468605.stm
Edited by Twincam16 on Monday 9th August 09:35
NoelWatson said:
turbobloke said:
NoelWatson said:
They say the same thing during every bubble. It is different this time. Of course, it never is.
Without getting into which bubble is different to which other bubble, the idea that long-term comparisons are always totally meaningful is flawed. Equivalence is easily assumed but may be absent.Over the period of time for which longer-term average income and average house prices are compared, taxation has changed significantly, altering the ability of individuals to afford a mortgage and buy a house. An Inland Revenue officer stated in 1953 there were only 36 people in the UK with an after-tax income of £6,000 or more. Their pre-tax income would have been over £56,000. Equivalent adjusted earnings for today would be very large and the amount left after taxation much greater both as a proportion and as an absolute amount.
More recently, bonuses were used pre-crunch in affordability calculations, but apparently according to discussions on here that position has changed. There are subtle and not so subtle but important changes over time that are simply glossed over when no attention is paid to the detail.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 8th August 22:37
The point remains that 'things are not always the same' over time, demonstrably so and multifactorially not the same, so isolating single elements is OK for illustrating this but not for confirming or challenging a many factor comparison.
turbobloke said:
NoelWatson said:
turbobloke said:
NoelWatson said:
They say the same thing during every bubble. It is different this time. Of course, it never is.
Without getting into which bubble is different to which other bubble, the idea that long-term comparisons are always totally meaningful is flawed. Equivalence is easily assumed but may be absent.Over the period of time for which longer-term average income and average house prices are compared, taxation has changed significantly, altering the ability of individuals to afford a mortgage and buy a house. An Inland Revenue officer stated in 1953 there were only 36 people in the UK with an after-tax income of £6,000 or more. Their pre-tax income would have been over £56,000. Equivalent adjusted earnings for today would be very large and the amount left after taxation much greater both as a proportion and as an absolute amount.
More recently, bonuses were used pre-crunch in affordability calculations, but apparently according to discussions on here that position has changed. There are subtle and not so subtle but important changes over time that are simply glossed over when no attention is paid to the detail.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 8th August 22:37
The point remains that 'things are not always the same' over time, demonstrably so and multifactorially not the same, so isolating single elements is OK for illustrating this but not for confirming or challenging a many factor comparison.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff