Jeffo Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I saw an interesting article on NMA which raises some good points and asks the existing Government to consider key reforms for the benefit of the UK, what does P&B think bearing in mind this was written for a website that probably has views markedly different to the norm on this forum: http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/dear-dave-one-ifa-tells-cameron-how-to-fix-our-finances/a820743?ref=new-model-adviser-todays-news-list&linkSource=home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Dear Dave, Square go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Dearest Dishface, Get fucked you utter charlatan. x x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffo Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Granted a good paggering would hopefully bring the c**t down a peg or two....any comment on the article though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Granted a good paggering would hopefully bring the c**t down a peg or two....any comment on the article though? There are many ways Dishface, Gideon et al can fix Britain's finances in other ways than which they are doing. There are certainly more sensible ways. But it's becoming increasingly clear that ideological austerity and the furtherance of their city friends' bank balance matters more to them than the proles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffo Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 There are many ways Dishface, Gideon et al can fix Britain's finances in other ways than which they are doing. There are certainly more sensible ways. But it's becoming increasingly clear that ideological austerity and the furtherance of their city friends' bank balance matters more to them than the proles.Agreed, interesting to see an article from the city that contradicts that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Agreed, interesting to see an article from the city that contradicts that though. Absolutely. It's just a pity that this Conservative Government, as evidenced by David Mundell's performace during the Scotland Bill debate the other night, intend to spend the next 5 years telling us all to talk to the hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffo Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Double Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Dear Mr Cameron Stop being a tosser and representing self-interest and start doing things that are better for the wider populous. Nah, don't see him doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Bring back Web-Cameron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 4 and 5 are great ideas and I fully support them. 2 is decent. We have a scarce resource - housing - and we're allowing people to turn that into a tax free business which is having disastrous social consequences. We're simply doing nothing at all about it and that has to change. 1 and 3 are not something agree with. Getting a pension to start at 70 is reasonable and everyone should be treated the same. The idea that manual labour is worse than sitting in a stressful desk job is just stupid. Not sure why people on low pay need cheap financial advice as an urgent thing either. The problem with our politicians is that they have no big ideas on anything. They are all pissing about on the edges. Housing isn't a resource and it isn't scarce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 10% annual house price rises, a generation of young people with no chance of ever realistically owning their own home, uncontrolled abuse in the private renting market, a small fraction of older people holding onto more houses than they need all suggest you are wrong. As I said, housing isn't a resource and there is certainly no scarcity. Here are some numbers for you: At the time of each census since 1951 there has been an increase in the number of homes. This is true in both absolute and relative terms so your scarcity argument is wrong. ETA: In 2012 there were over 600,000 homes that were vacant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 As I said, housing isn't a resource and there is certainly no scarcity. Here are some numbers for you: houses.jpg At the time of each census since 1951 there has been an increase in the number of homes. This is true in both absolute and relative terms so your scarcity argument is wrong. ETA: In 2012 there were over 600,000 homes that were vacant. Do you have a better solution? Are those vacant homes liveable? Are they in the right areas? Are they 2nd/3rd homes how do we get these homes lived in? IMO one of the best things that could possibly happen in this county would be a collapse in house prices, the easiest solution is to build and build lots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Do you have a better solution? Are those vacant homes liveable? Are they in the right areas? Are they 2nd/3rd homes how do we get these homes lived in? IMO one of the best things that could possibly happen in this county would be a collapse in house prices, the easiest solution is to build and build lots. The point that I was making is that homes are not resources nor are they scarce. The questions that you raise are perfectly valid whilst at the same time highlighting some of the issues. If you need really want a house and available housing isn't in the right area then you have a choice to make. In regards to 2nd homes, the figure that I provided are homes that are deemed to be not lived in. If people looked at their home as somewhere to live rather than something to make money from then a collapse in housing prices would have minimal impact. However, there are people that need to sell houses for a variety of reasons and would be affected by the loss of equity and potentially negative equity. Much of the shortage in housing is due to the dramatic change in lifestyles. There are far more single occupancy households and under-occupied houses - perhaps incentives for these people to downsize would encourage them to move and see housebuilders build smaller houses and therefore fit more into each development. Whilst not an easy fix, improved efficiency in the existing housing stock would certainly contribute to easing the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 The point that I was making is that homes are not resources nor are they scarce. The questions that you raise are perfectly valid whilst at the same time highlighting some of the issues. If you need really want a house and available housing isn't in the right area then you have a choice to make. In regards to 2nd homes, the figure that I provided are homes that are deemed to be not lived in. If people looked at their home as somewhere to live rather than something to make money from then a collapse in housing prices would have minimal impact. However, there are people that need to sell houses for a variety of reasons and would be affected by the loss of equity and potentially negative equity. Much of the shortage in housing is due to the dramatic change in lifestyles. There are far more single occupancy households and under-occupied houses - perhaps incentives for these people to downsize would encourage them to move and see housebuilders build smaller houses and therefore fit more into each development. Whilst not an easy fix, improved efficiency in the existing housing stock would certainly contribute to easing the problem. Fair post, In regards to negative equity I don't really understand the big deal, your house may be worth less than what you bought it for? Deal with it, it's what happens to everything else you own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Fair post, In regards to negative equity I don't really understand the big deal, your house may be worth less than what you bought it for? Deal with it, it's what happens to everything else you own. Hopefully not your pension, savings, shares or other investments that you make. For most people that is what they see their house as. Something that is continually perpetuated by the goverment of the day. Whilst I own my home and therefore negative equity isn't really an issue for me, I can understand the worry that it would cause people. Nothing else that you buy has the potential to depreciate like your house. If you bought a house at 3 x your earnings with very little equity and it loses 50% of it's value then there is no hope that you can make up this shortfall should you need to sell and you then become trapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 But if you need to sell then surely you benefit from your next home costing less? As you suggest people see their home as an investment(almost in a free money way) but rather than protecting that I'm far more of the opinion of telling them to gtf. You have no right for your home to gain or even retain value, at some point there has to be end, people to swallow the pill and stop stealing from the next generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 What you've done is use statistics to hide a problem. You've provided no context whatsoever. For example, the condition of those houses, whether they are available on the open market, location, price etc. The fact that house prices are rising at huge rates SHOULD be telling you where the problem is. You mention people having to make a choice if they can't find a house near where they work? I'd argue strongly that society has to make that choice as well unless those living in a city don't want cleaners, road sweepers, nurses, firemen, shop assistants or teachers - all of whom are being priced out of many cities. This is a shortage problem which affects all of society and our "culture" of greed as regards owning multiple housing (usually with loans) is disastrous. No, I have used official numbers to show that there are more houses now per person than in any of the last 60 years. It doesn't matter which context you put this into, homes are now more abundant not scarce. If you think that rising prices are purely because of shortage in supply then you are showing an ignorance of human nature. Was there a shortage of tulips in the late 1500's? Speculative (or economic) bubbles explain both the bulb and house situation. House prices are now trading at substantially more than their intrinsic value and that is a result of people using their home as an investment first and shelter second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 We clearly have a shortage of properties people want to buy This is shaping up to be another of your litany of absolutely holocaustic performances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I'm not interested in slums and shacks. Nobody can live in those. I'm talking about houses that people actually want to live in. This is the only statistic worth discussing if what you are interested in is something other than scoring pedantry points on a football forum. We clearly have a shortage of properties people want to buy as evidenced by the following. There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence from buyers in many parts of the country who are struggling to get a house because they are being outbid before the seller has even had a chance to consider the offer. That's happening in London (obviously) but it's also happening in other cities and towns across the UK. Add into that the fact that finding rental property where you are the sole bidder is very hard. You can also add a chronic shortage of council housing and "affordable housing" to that. Speculative bubbles could explain the problem but so could a shortage of desirable properties that people would want to live in. Neither of us can prove which of those is true so there's no need for arrogance. Scoring points? If providing facts to counter your lunacy is scoring points then I am guilty. As for not being able to prove that a speculative bubble is causing the increase in house prices then I refer you to this graph. Perhaps you can explain how the supply of desirable houses dramatically increased between 2007 and 2011 to lead to the massive reduction in the average price? Or how with the advent of cheap money the prices have now risen past their 2007 peak. Let me re-iterate my initial point (just so we don't get any further off point) - Houses are not resources nor are they scarce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.