On 21 Oct 2010 at 8:36am Hatchet Osborne wrote:
Anyone here vote Tory, If so WHY and I hope your proud of what you've done?????!!!!!!! Would the last one to be made unemployed please turn off the lights on the way out!
On 21 Oct 2010 at 8:56am Dopey Darling wrote:
Hear Hear, what a mess they're making of the sound financial position I left them in.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 9:33am Peter Byron wrote:
Opinion matters not a jot, it will be history that will speak the truth. On that pompous note I shall be off now to grill my kippers. Best Peter
On 21 Oct 2010 at 10:27am Clifford wrote:
We shouldn't be surprised that the poorest have to pay for the mistakes of the richest - the system exists for the benefit of the rich. And before any Tory has a go at me - I know Labour would have done the same (if a little less abruptly).
On 21 Oct 2010 at 10:50am Red Ken wrote:
As in any Tory government the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Always has been. Always will be.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 12:53pm gordon gekko wrote:
I am very happy. Soon I can buy lots of repossessed houses for low prices at auction and flog to my mates in the city and Chinese investors. Or rent them out to people who can't get a mortgage. Also I can buy a repossessed Range Rover and yacht from people who thought they were well off because they could get a loan.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 1:01pm brixtonbelle wrote:
I blame the lib dems. they should do the right thing and get out of the coalition now or they'll never get into power again.
the tories meanwhile are acting in an entirely predictable way. when are they going to ask for the money back that we, the taxpayers, loaned the banks to bail them out ? I think we could pay of the national debt pretty swiftly if we got that back. oh hang on - they're all gideon's mates, nice chaps, if we clobber them they'll al leave the country, couldn't possibly...sorry poor people, you'll just have to get poorer...
On 21 Oct 2010 at 1:12pm Taff wrote:
I can feel a song coming on!
What a shame we seemingl need to rely on the banks and their theiving employees to supply a finacial backbone for the UK. An even bigger shame is that we, the people, allowed our manufacturing industries to be decimated by the 'governments' in the first place.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 1:28pm It takes one to know one wrote:
BB, you wrote this on an older thread:
'The one positive thing that might come out of this whole misery of a credit crunch is house prices may crash (I've read up to 30 pc) meaning a home could be more affordable.Which given that there won't be any public housing being built and rents are also astronomical, can only be good news.'
Now , this is 'good news' for who? You probably, as you've sold up at market peak and you're hoping to pick up a bargin. But what about the thousands who would be plundged into negative equity? Typical hypocrit socialist.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 1:59pm gordon gekko wrote:
"An even bigger shame is that we, the people, allowed our manufacturing industries to be decimated by the 'governments' in the first place."
They were never" the peoples "industries. They were created by capitalists to create wealth,not jobs .Read a bit of Adam Smith.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 2:07pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
I think you'll find it was industry's inability to be competitive on the world market that destroyed them. Unions played their part as well as governments.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 2:07pm Homeowner wrote:
I may be a little naive, but surely if you bought your house to use as a place to live, then negative equity won't make any difference to you. If you bought your house as an investment, then yes your investment won't be worth what you paid for it, but that is the risk that you take, same as any other investment, and in time the value will go up again anyway. OK, I know there will be exceptions, but in general the average person living in their own home should be OK.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 2:59pm Ed Can Do wrote:
Quite. Negative equity only matters when you sell you house. If your house is worth less now than you paid or indeed borrowed on it then just don't sell it until the prices go up again. Add to that the fact that house prices round here have barely fluttered compared to the national average and the fall is not a drop in prices so much as a correction to market values then I don't see what everyone's bleating about.
I must be one of the few people in the country who's not bothered by the cuts. I've got no kids so no money for education and a cut in child benefit doesn't bother me. I work in the private sector and so apart from a payfreeze this year by our company, I know my job's not about to vanish. I don't claim any sort of benefits at all so cutting them doesn't make the blindest bit of difference to me and by the time I reach retirement age there probably won't be such a thing as retirement anyway which is why I contribute to a private pension plan.
The sooner the country can drag itself out of this ridiculous defecit, the sooner people can go back to spending money and the sooner I will, as an indirect result be better off (By getting a payrise when the company makes lots of profit again) and as such, I welcome all the cuts frankly. Sure things will be a bit dearer when the VAT goes up but then I'll just buy less stuff, I'm fortunate enough not to live hand to mouth and I suspect that there are very few people in Lewes who do.
People need to get used to the idea of living within their means. If you can't afford a massive house, you shouldn't have bought one. If you can't afford kids, why did you have them? If the spending review forces people on benefits to actually get a job to support their lifestyles then it's a good thing and saying that their aren't any jobs is nonsense because as the number of unemployed grows, people are willing to accept less and less money to work meaning employment is cheaper for companies and they employ more people. Why not drop the salary of a policeman by a quarter and employ an extra 25% of them?
The labour government did all it could to fight against market forces across the economy and it simply doesn't work. Adam Smith's invisible hand will always come out on top so why fight it?
On 21 Oct 2010 at 3:58pm jrsussex wrote:
Some of the comments about the "rich" leave me bewildered. What are the various posters interpretation of rich? Is it the likes of me who from a very poor childhood determined to better myself worked hard all my life, approxaimately 50 years, up to 80 hours a week finishing reasonably comfortable financially with a nice house and being able to afford nice holidays etc. "The system is there for the benefit of the rich", what nonsense. Of course having money gives you the ability and opportunity to grow even richer, but to begin the process you have to be prepared to work hard and, this is important, take chances on your way, that is what creates wealth for the average working class person. That said do not judge success in life by money, I have met many people who have great satisfaction and an enjoyable life but in their chosen career they will never be "rich" in financial terms.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 4:04pm queequeg wrote:
Firstly negative equity bares down on all owners because the average life of a mortgage is less than 5 years. If your in negative equity you can't move house unless your hugely downsizing. You can't re mortgage to cut your outgoings. You can't take out equity to see you through a bad patch or to invest in your business if you are self employed. In other words it's bad all round and effects everybody.
Secondly there is a lot of nonsense about the actual cause of this recession. I would like some of those who say it was an asset price bubble in the UK to explain why house prices are so resilient in a recession, could it be that it wasn't a bubble at all?
The cause of this recession was an asset price bubble IN THE USA financed by international lending at low interest rates and packaged up and resold fraudulently to banks round the world. The cause of our own recession was the hit our banks took from this and the reams of bad news and forecasts in all the media causing everybody to stop spending. It is simply unfortunate that at the time the storm hit most people in the UK were over extended and chose to stop spending to correct this.
It is also incorrect to see the fact that many people were over extended as a sign of fiscal malfeasance. Many people withdrew equity to purchase buy-to-let or second homes abroad or extend their home or invest in their business which were aimed at improving their circumstances and income. I would hazard a guess that only a small minority simply withdrew equity and frivolously blew the lot.
Therefore I see no reason for the hair shirt mentality in this country. We did not do wrong. The real Gordon Gecko's did the wrong and have largely got away with it. Yes we have to address our deficit pretty urgently but we do not have to punish anyone in this country for their past behaviour. Even our bankers did very little wrong except believe the fraudulent lizards from across the pond. If we turn on them we risk destroying a sector of our economy that is by far the most important, and would be even if we were the number one manufacturing country in the world.
The reason for the deficit, not the recession, is the undoubted fact that government spending rose too strongly under the last government and to too high a level. At the height of the good years we should have been paying down debt not increasing it. That one simple fact explains all our wows now.
I am not anti labour in saying this, it happened under Thatcher in the late eighties as well. Fiscally astute government is hard to achieve in democratic governments, someone will always want to sail close to the wind to please the masses and get re elected.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 4:38pm Peter Byron wrote:
Good god, feel like I need to lie down after reading this lot! Bottom line is:- what goes up must come down. End off. Best, Peter
On 21 Oct 2010 at 4:40pm smithy wrote:
Negative equity does not matter even if you DO sell your home. Here's why.-
You buy a flat for 100k because you can't afford the house ( at 200k) that you really want (the most you could afford to pay was 150k)
Prices 'crash' by 50% and now you sell your flat for 50k. This goes to your mortgage lender to whom you owe the other 50k you borrowed.
Looks bad? Except now the house that you really wanted can be bought for 100k. Add to that the 50k you owe from the fall in price of the flat and now you CAN afford to buy the house that you wanted for the 150k that you could afford!
As long as the banks & building societies are flexible around transfering mortgages (and as the taxpayer now owns a lot of them they can be made to be) the 'problem' of negative equity ceases to exist.
Except, of course, for the two groups of people who actually benefit from house price inflation (let's call it what it is) . These are people who are downsizing and will take a smaller windfall with them. The others are 'buy-to-let' landlords and rely on the letting rent to buy the property for them which they sell for a profit due to the house price inflation that they are a part of producing - and who gives a flying fig about them!
On 21 Oct 2010 at 5:07pm queequeg wrote:
Smithy, it's called capitalism, I really despair at those who do not realise that their are two kinds of money, the kind you spend and the kind you invest. You ain't never gonna get rich decrying all those who have made sacrifices, put money away, taken risks with their investments and now reap the rewards.
So you go to the mortgage company and say "Hey I've just lost 50K on the last loan you gave me, can I now borrow more from you please?" good luck with that one mate.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 5:11pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Well, Ed Can Do, when you're stepping over homeless beggars on your way to Waitrose or mugged by some poor destitute soul who's been forced into work he's not fit for and then sacked because he's not up to the job, I'll applaud your ability not to be upset.
Of course, when the ambulance doesn't turn up in time to save your life, because there aren't enough in Lewes for more than a stubbed toe and a drinking injury, you won't mind tghat, either, will you?
On 21 Oct 2010 at 5:47pm Peter Byron wrote:
Annette, what's new? Under labour what you describe has been going on for some time, always give the big issue guy a dime as I enter Waitrose, once offered to buy him a dinner, but he had other needs Best, Peter
On 21 Oct 2010 at 6:18pm smithy wrote:
I think you are missing the real point I am making so, still using my scenario above can I answer thus.-
You 'lost' 50k on the flat so you still owe 'bank A' 50k. You continue to make the monthly repayments on that debt so 'bank A' is happy (you are repaying the bank a 50k loan plus interest on money THEY NEVER HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE - but that is another scandal all of its own). You then borrow 100k (either from 'bank A' or any other bank that, being a good capitalist bank, also wants to make a profit by lending it to you) to buy the house that you originally wanted for 150k (and which you still can afford to buy for that total (2 loans equal 150k) price).
My point is that negative equity has meant that you have got the house that you wanted for the total amount you can afford without having to earn the 15k approx extra salary that you would have needed to buy the house at its pre 'crash' price.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 7:24pm Clifford wrote:
jrsussex wrote: '"The system is there for the benefit of the rich", what nonsense.'
If you listen to the news you'll hear the newscaster say profits are up and that's good news; but when the newcaster says wages are up we are told that's bad news, that it's 'wage inflation'. Why is the purpose of capitalism (as I'm sure you know) is to ensure that enough is creamed off the labour of workers to ensure the rich become richer.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 7:27pm bla bla wrote:
assuming you still have your job!
On 21 Oct 2010 at 7:41pm Mrs Twine wrote:
(Only a propos of Peter - because I'm useless at discussing politics) Peter, put your kipper in a jug, pour on boiling water and leave for a few minutes. It will be much more juicy and won't make the house smell of kipper for hours. Sorry to intrude with domestic issues, fellow posters!
On 21 Oct 2010 at 7:52pm Peter Byron wrote:
Mrs Twine, That is the kind of information that changes lives (well it will mine) forget politics, well, never heard that before (and I know many chefs and foodies, trust me) will do just what you suggest. Many thanks, have a jolly weekend. Peter x P.S Are you single? I know you are MRS Twine, but maybe divorced? If so, he was a fool, you are better off rid he doesn't deserve you!
On 21 Oct 2010 at 9:53pm TeeHee wrote:
Peter. I can tell you what to do with your kipper. You won't even need to heat it up.
On 21 Oct 2010 at 11:17pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
Can I defend myself ? Yes I would like to buy a property, but no, I don't have a small fortune to spend, being on a an average salary, so if house prices came to anywhere nor a reasonable level I would be very pleased. I've never taken out huge loans or had huge debts and always lived pretty much within my means. So I wouldn't feel guilty about buy to let landlords going into negative equity because as someone else mentioned, they can decide to sit tight - no one HAS to sell their property if they continue to pay the mortgages and with interest rates so low and looking to stay low, mortgage payments will be stable. Yes I do feel for people who may lose their homes, but it would be as a result of losing their jobs and government policy, not as a result of me wanting to be able to buya family home at a reasonable price.
Good tip on kippers Mrs Twine. Are you talking the boil in the bag type ?
On 22 Oct 2010 at 12:53am queequeg wrote:
Smithy, do you know how mortgages work, you have a property as security and if you sell it at 50K loss you no longer have security so no further loan. End of.
On 22 Oct 2010 at 8:25am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I think a general fall in house prices would be good. They are ridiculously over-valued. It would be tough for the small minority who took out big loans at the height of the market, but I think that would be outweighed by the general good of more people being able to buy.
It might even help push down rents if there was less demand for rented property because more people but I can't really see that. Not unless they start building homes again.
On 22 Oct 2010 at 8:42am Peter Byron wrote:
TeeHee. Never been kippered, but willing to give it a try if you are ha ha. Hope I didn't step on your toes whilst charming Mrs Twine eh? Best, Peter
On 22 Oct 2010 at 9:41am Loan Ranger wrote:
Queequeeq, you are of course right in what you say. If you just sold your property for a 50K loss then obviously you would have no house and therefore no security. However, that isn't what Smithy is saying. If you did what he suggested, you would have a property worth 150K as security.
On 22 Oct 2010 at 11:15am Mrs Twine wrote:
@ Brixtonbelle: No, not boil in the bag, the ordinary kind you buy at a fish counter. Good luck and good eating to you!
On 22 Oct 2010 at 12:47pm Ed Can Do wrote:
ACT, stop being so melodramatic. The streets won't be paved with beggars as most people will accept a job they would previously have thought "beneath" them, rather than live on the street. They won't be homeless either as once everyone starts selling off their houses because they're so poor, the prices will plummet.
The prices would already be a lot more sensible if the government, rather than propping up the banks with taxpayers' cash had allowed them to foreclose on all the outstanding mortgages people had taken out on second homes. They didn't want to do that though as there was an election coming up and the middle class, two-home-owning types were the votes everyone was fighting over.
I think the ridiculous level of government spending had to stop and hopefully now it will and it's a shame that some people are going to lose their jobs as a result but hopefully they can find worthwhile jobs instead, do something that benefits the community, train to become ambulance drivers maybe? A lot of the problem is the ridiculous way people in government treat the budgets they are given. My sister used to work for a company producing tv ads for the government and she said the reason there are so many ads on tv in March and April is that government departments realise the end of the financial year is coming and they haven't spent all their budget yet. If they don't spend it all in a given year their budget gets reduced the following year so they desperately try to spend as much as possible in the last couple of months. It's completely ridiculous, civil servants should be encouraged to spend as little as possible, not as much as they can to protect "Their" money.
On 22 Oct 2010 at 3:33pm queequeg wrote:
Loan Ranger your as bad as Smithy, if he sells his first house at 50K loss he is minus 50K going into the next purchase of 150K which somehow he thinks he can get for 100K, whereas in fact he would be 200K down on a 150K house.
On 22 Oct 2010 at 6:46pm smithy wrote:
Fred wants a house but it costs 200k.
He has a secure job but can only afford a 150k mortgage.
He would be happy to buy the house for 150k and could afford to make the monthly repayments on this.
(Worth re-reading the above sentence as it is core to understanding my argument)
Unable to get the house he wants at the price he wants to pay for it he instead buys a flat for 100k.
Then comes the property 'crash' and all prices go down by 50%.
Therefore his flat is now worth 50k and his dream house is priced at 100k.
At this point he gets a promotion but only if he moves to another town.
He is pleased with this but obviously sad to be leaving his dream house behind. Amazingly he sees an identical house in the new town with the identical asking price of 100k.
He sells his flat for 50k. The money received goes to the mortgage lender. He therefore owes the mortgage lender 50k. He does not have this amount in readies so he negotiates to repay this by monthly instalments as an unsecured loan.
The lender agree to this because,-
(i) They know about Fred's promotion and know he is good for this size of loan and confidently expect him to continue making repayments as he did before.
(ii) The alternative is to take Fred to court to demand repayment of the outstanding 50k immediately. As Fred does not have this the court would order him to repay it by monthly instalments (possibly) at a lower interest rate than Fred may have agreed to at (i).
Now Fred gets a new mortgage (from a lender 2) of 100k and buys his dream home.
His total debt to both lenders is 150k (50k to lender 1, and 100k to lender 2).
Refering back to what was said earlier we see that Fred now has his dream house - identical to the one which he was happy to buy for 150k and which he could afford to make the monthly repayments on. The only difference being the market value of it now (after the 50% across-the-board property price reduction) is 100k.
...and in his dream house Fred lived happily ever after and, most strangely, all thanks to 'negative equity'.
On 22 Oct 2010 at 7:14pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I beg to differ, ECD. How is an unemployed person on £65.45 a week going to find 10% of the £600 a month rent that housing benefit won't pay any more? They won't, is the answer, and they will lose their homes because of it.
They won't be able to get another place because they won't have references, the council won't house them because they are single and childless so they will sleep on friends' floors or in shop doorways.
On 23 Oct 2010 at 3:11am Tory Voter wrote:
So much of this thread shows just what's wrong with many in Lewes - laughably out of touch with reality.
On 23 Oct 2010 at 9:18am Ed Can Do wrote:
Perhaps, perhaps, but then once all the rental properties in town are empty because nobody can afford them, the landlords will have to put the prices down or else have an empty house that's no longer worth the money they owe on it. On top of that, the unemployed person will (Hopefully) realise that being a dustman or a cleaner or a care home worker or street sweeper or a waiter is a better bet than being unemployed and those kind of jobs will start to be filled with English people once all the migrant workers realise the economy is broken and head off to a country with better prospects. The reason we had such an influx of Central European workers was because there were a ton of jobs in this country available that people here didn't want to do because being on benefits was a cushier option. I'd support a return to the old system whereby if there was a job vacancy posted at the job centre you had to take it otherwise your benefits were stopped, it's the most obvious way to get people back to work and to fill the jobs that are out there.
Things might well be grim in the very short term but long term, the market will sort itself out.
On 23 Oct 2010 at 12:23pm Peter Byron wrote:
Mrs Twine, your suggestion was a triumph this morning. I will never be able to eat another kipper without thinking of you. Have a gloroius weekend. Best Peter
On 23 Oct 2010 at 1:58pm Mrs Twine wrote:
Peter - I am delighted it was a success. However, I feel your next sentence is a little double-edged - I am not sure I would like that close an association with kippers in anyone's mind. Try champagne, oysters, or even cassoullet. Cheers!
On 23 Oct 2010 at 5:04pm Peter Byron wrote:
All jokes aside Mrs Twine, very good tip that I shall always thank you for. Now one more question, do you need a stock when you make cassoullet? Until I find a woman to cook for me I am looking after myself and I am not a pot noodle man! Many thanks, Peter
On 23 Oct 2010 at 8:09pm Mrs Twine wrote:
I would imagine it would be best, but if you don't have a recipe and would like me to look it up I will let you know. It's a delicious warming dish for the winter.
And don't be a wimp, Peter. Men make excellent cooks. Get cracking and you will be able to invite people to share them with you.
On 23 Oct 2010 at 8:32pm Mrs Twine wrote:
Whoops! Just had a look at Elizabeth David's recipe - far too complicated. Suggest you buy Delia Smith's "Complete Cookery Course". You'll find the recipe on page 314, and her instructions are very clear. I challenge you!