ECCOnoob Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 You think people are going to inherit property? Think again. Less than 15% own outright. And under 1% own 67%. The land monopolists never lose. Those on the margins however. They never gained in the first place, t'was just a different form of rent that they paid. They thought they played a grand old game, and in one fell swoop... ... I never said they did own outright but I also said WHEN they snuff it. A lot could happen between now and then. besides most couples have further assets than just the house itself. Many sensible people also receive other monies such as insurances, death benefits, investments, vehicles, contents. I was referring more about the lump sum monies rather than the actual bricks and motar. It does not change the fact that it gives young folk a nice little wad. That wouldn't have happened in the era of renting the house, telly, furniture, white goods...etc... etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Sorry you've confused me here. Are you saying that there is a queue of young people trying to get a job wiping elderly persons backsides... BUT the immigrants have taken their jobs away? It might take me a long time to explain. (Assuming access to natural resources remaining constant and production) A is economy1. B is replacement level of children and inheritance of economy. B=1 If less kids, wages rise for 2nd economy. If more kids, wages fall (less work and goods to share) Consider wage arbitrage immigration. B>C workers from C work in B and send money home. soon B=C. It's not as clear cut as that, and more workers = more production, but with limited resources, can it ever = more production per person? GDP PPP so to speak, assuming fixed prices/inflation adjusted to measure the REAL standard of living. Group A has benefited from group C at the expense of group B. Group B has lost out to both C and A, Group C has benefitted from group A at the expense of group B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 i like it how you are accusing the mp's for expensive houses for the young today, personally i think it should be illegal to own more than one house unless you are a council housing association at all, no buy to let no nothing. m.p's are not to blame for todays greedy society that profiteer when all someone wants is a basic roof over their head ! :thumbsup: winning post so far for me. Tons of people who were lucky enough to benefit from the property boom are now landlords. It's not a career. It's not a job. It's greed. It's accumulating wealth with wealth. Landlords aren't "providing affordable housing to people who can't afford to buy" which is how some I know justify their greed. They are the reason many people can't afford to buy by keeping prices way above where they should be in relation to minimum/average wage. Also agree it's not MPs who are responsible for this situation, just so happens that coincidentally many MPs happen to be landlords too which is why they are unwilling to tackle the issue. We need to tax multiple property ownership into submission. 1 person, 1 house. Working for a living in stead of profiting from others' misfortune. If the situation doesn't improve in the future, we will end up with shanty towns and caravan parks everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 It might take me a long time to explain. (Assuming access to natural resources remaining constant and production) A is economy1. B is replacement level of children and inheritance of economy. B=1 If less kids, wages rise for 2nd economy. If more kids, wages fall (less work and goods to share) Consider wage arbitrage immigration. B>C workers from C work in B and send money home. soon B=C. It's not as clear cut as that, and more workers = more production, but with limited resources, can it ever = more production per person? GDP PPP so to speak, assuming fixed prices/inflation adjusted to measure the REAL standard of living. Group A has benefited from group C at the expense of group B. Group B has lost out to both C and A, Group C has benefitted from group A at the expense of group B. So you dont have an answer to my very simple question then. Thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I never said they did own outright but I also said WHEN they snuff it. A lot could happen between now and then. besides most couples have further assets than just the house itself. Many sensible people also receive other monies such as insurances, death benefits, investments, vehicles, contents. I was referring more about the lump sum monies rather than the actual bricks and motar. It does not change the fact that it gives young folk a nice little wad. That wouldn't have happened in the era of renting the house, telly, furniture, white goods...etc... etc.... Household wealth has more than doubled during the past 10 years on the back of soaring house prices, figures show. Britons collectively had assets worth £6.336 trillion at the end of last year, after outstanding debt was taken into account, up from £2.795 trillion at the end of 1996, according to Halifax Financial Services. The group said the total value of people's assets rose by £4.343 billion during the past decade, massively outstripping the £802 billion rise in debt during the same period. Unsurprisingly, a large part of the gain in household wealth was driven by booming house prices, with rises in the value of property accounting for more than half of the gain. At the end of last year, Britons were sitting on housing equity worth £2.702 trillion once mortgage debt had been stripped out, 244% more than the £787 billion of housing equity they had in 1996. The group added that the 216% growth in the overall value of housing assets comfortably outstripped the 163% rise in mortgage debt during the period. Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/68053-house-prices-driving-british-wealth#ixzz1waSI4QoL The majority of our so called 'wealth' is in our houses. And over half of our houses are mortgaged! And over half of the price of our houses is the amount they yield from people taking on debt to purchase them in the first place! If it weren't for 15-20-25-30 - 40! year mortgages people would pay with their saving only, and houses would be far far cheaper. What ever happened to Jubilee in the 7th year? You used to only work the land for 6 years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 :thumbsup: winning post so far for me. Tons of people who were lucky enough to benefit from the property boom are now landlords. It's not a career. It's not a job. It's greed. It's accumulating wealth with wealth. Landlords aren't "providing affordable housing to people who can't afford to buy" which is how some I know justify their greed. They are the reason many people can't afford to buy by keeping prices way above where they should be in relation to minimum/average wage. Also agree it's not MPs who are responsible for this situation, just so happens that coincidentally many MPs happen to be landlords too which is why they are unwilling to tackle the issue. We need to tax multiple property ownership into submission. 1 person, 1 house. Working for a living in stead of profiting from others' misfortune. If the situation doesn't improve in the future, we will end up with shanty towns and caravan parks everywhere. They are taxed. Just like any other businesses profits. They also pay: Tax on purchasing the property, search fees (+VAT), land registry fees (+VAT), estate agency fees/management agency fees (+VAT), legal fees (+VAT) for each property they buy, stamp duty on each property they buy, VAT on the furnishings and decoration they buy for each property, VAT on the white goods for each property they buy, VAT on the fuel and utilities for each property they own VAT on insurance ....... Do I really need to go on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 So you dont have an answer to my very simple question then. Thought not. The simple answer would be. No there is not a queue. Not anymore. Initially there was, but now their money and word (read 'their bond') is worthless. They soldout for short term gain. I was trying to explain it to you though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/68053-house-prices-driving-british-wealth#ixzz1waSI4QoL The majority of our so called 'wealth' is in our houses. And over half of our houses are mortgaged! And over half of the price of our houses is the amount they yield from people taking on debt to purchase them in the first place! If it weren't for 15-20-25-30 - 40! year mortgages people would pay with their saving only, and houses would be far far cheaper. What ever happened to Jubilee in the 7th year? You used to only work the land for 6 years! Nice bit of selected editing there. You seemed to have missed the bit where it goes onto say that although housing played an important part it ALSO mentions that Investments and value of savings has also significantly increased overall household income. Albeit there is no date on the article so who know how accruate any of it is. Perhaps it was one of your many standardised links stored in your favourites that you whip out for a thread such as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Nice bit of selected editing there. You seemed to have missed the bit where it goes onto say that although housing played an important part it ALSO mentions that Investments and value of savings has also significantly increased overall household income. Albeit there is no date on the article so who know how accruate any of it is. Perhaps it was one of your many standardised links stored in your favourites that you whip out for a thread such as this. Quick one found via google. (2005 FTR) similar today too/ Crack is. Our economy is based on debt, and some of these ratios remain pretty constant. But we now at crazy point. Houses worth too much, production too low. Money effectively worthless. New value system to aid trade required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 The simple answer would be. No there is not a queue. Not anymore. Initially there was, but now their money and word (read 'their bond') is worthless. They soldout for short term gain. I was trying to explain it to you though. OK OK. Im getting bored and tired. Let me try and cut through your mathematical equations from Planet Neptune and general BS. Are you basically saying that because young folk see minimum wage jobs as not enough to earn a deposit or live in a flat on their own two feet they simply arn't interested. Or...... in other words "im not getting out of bed for that" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.