FTB's and buying now..

wymondham

Just a thought... if someone gets 30% (just an example) off the price of the house they are buying, and other people buying do the same (not connected at all), then surely they are not getting any reduction in real terms, but paying the new going rate?

This would then reduce the effectiveness of the theory of 'if I get 30% off now I'll be better protected from the fall' ....

Does this make any sense?

dopester

mewbie wrote: »

Didn't they have a very well behaved demo in London a while back? I really really wanted them to met by a load of tough ex-miner's, riding pit ponies through their lines.

Yes, but to get the right-to-strike then must also accept the right to be made redundant - although that is the last thing I'd want.

I've said it before a few months back on these very forums - the (GB) London Olympics 2012 will not be coming to the UK and another country will step in to host it.

Or at least the Olympics shouldn't come here. The return is not worth the investment and come 2012 I expect we'll really be dealing with economic, political and social strife. Slim down on police costs where possible, including the back-office staff where possible, but channel the money to the police.

We will need a strong police force to maintain law and order, with visible presences to perhaps stop panic and acts of mass delusion / irrationality. Although I doubt you'll agree with me Mewbie.

dopester

wymondham wrote: »

Just a thought... if someone gets 30% (just an example) off the price of the house they are buying, and other people buying do the same (not connected at all), then surely they are not getting any reduction in real terms, but paying the new going rate?

The "other people", assuming they are moving to a house which costs more, will get some reduction won't they.

1st buyer @ £150,000 - 30% (-£45,000) = £105,000

Seller to new house @ £250,000 - 30% (-£75,000) = £175,000

Perhaps you mean something different though (I'm exhausted from some hard grafting today). And both buyers are still stupid. Wait a few years and you could buy a dream place for the same money.

dopester

Dan: wrote: »

Leave it out dop. You wont be happy until the last person in the country loses their job. Are you unemployed yourself, and praying unemployment goes sky high to make yoursel feel better?

Come on Dan.

!!!!!! and I have both made it clear many times in the past. None of us are praying for recession, mass unemployment, economic carnage and widespread misery.

We just see it as a unavoidable consequence of a 11 year (circa 300%) property bubble of magnitude only second to the Japanese real estate bubble - whereas they were an enormous creditor nation at the time with real industrial/economic strength - and our economy is mighty in what exactly? The city is badly wounded, and many another country would love to gear up their own financial centres... countries with money and economic strength.

Dan:_4

dopester wrote: »

Come on Dan.

!!!!!! and I have both made it clear many times in the past. None of us are praying for recession, mass unemployment, economic carnage and widespread misery.

We just see it as a unavoidable consequence of a 11 year (circa 300%) property bubble of magnitude only second to the Japanese real estate bubble - whereas they were an enormous creditor nation at the time with real industrial/economic strength - and our economy is mighty in what exactly? The city is badly wounded, and many another country would love to gear up their own financial centres... countries with money and economic strength.

Yes but, assuming it dosent affect you, wouldn't mass unemployment and recession considerably help towards your goal (and !!!!!!'s) of buying a house outright?

dopester

In theory it should, yes.

However does that make me somehow to blame for the outcome, simply because I refused to buy in the previous few years? I think not.

Are the people who've bought at the bottom of the market in previous times somehow to blame for the excesses of those who over-extended themselves in a boom?

Jonbvn

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Exactly! When I bought my house just under 8 years ago, I didn't know whether I was buying at the top or bottom of the market - but I had been renting (lodging) for 2 years and just wanted my own place, and had been made permanent in my job. I did the right things (£20000 deposit on £80000 house and I think I was earning about £16000 a month).

With that sort of salary you could easily have paid your mortgage off in less than a year????

justpurchased

wymondham wrote: »

Just a thought... if someone gets 30% (just an example) off the price of the house they are buying, and other people buying do the same (not connected at all), then surely they are not getting any reduction in real terms, but paying the new going rate?

This would then reduce the effectiveness of the theory of 'if I get 30% off now I'll be better protected from the fall' ....

Does this make any sense?

But the big %ages are only avilable on built stock houses (so once they have gone they have gone). So if people in Jan purchased 30% higher, buy of plan costs more (most builders are now billding to order on some sites), or if comparable established propertys are still 30% more, I still make it 30%;). But you have to be in a very good position to get this size of discount.

LillyJ

dopester wrote: »

Are you sure? Someone on the forums, married to a police officer, told me that policemen* couldn't be made redundant. I tried to research that but didn't find any info.

Nothing surprises me though. The public purse is going to be under severe pressures with less revenue to kiss out to everyone. And under since 1997, the public sector grew from 38% of the workforce from the previous Conservative government to 48% under Labour.

*Edit: Policemen / Policewomen ect.

It was me! THey can't be made redundant. It is protected by law. They hold Office of Constable and that cannot be taken away. They can be moved from one beat to the next, or they could be put on desk duties (which might cause some to resign), but they cannot be "laid off".

They may not recruit more officers when one retires/leaves etc, but that isn't the same as making them redundant.

I think maybe people get the wrong idea if, say, a police station is closed down (which happens alot in rural areas now days), and think the police officer has been made redundant. What has probably happened is he has either been offered a job in the next town, or he has been so annoyed at his "patch" being broken up that he has left the force (sorry, service)

I will see if OH knows where the info on this is.

LillyJ

mewbie wrote: »

Didn't they have a very well behaved demo in London a while back? I really really wanted them to met by a load of tough ex-miner's, riding pit ponies through their lines.

I was very proud of them all, I thought they were very restrained and well mannered.

OH went down on the coach. I think he secretly wanted a bit of racous running through the streets but that wasn't going to happen! Still got the white caps they had to wear at home.

There were some young student "anarchists" who had signs saying "down with police" and "anarchy rules" etc, which made them look rather silly.

One was shouting his mouth off and an officer apparently shouted back "your sign's upside down mate!". The youth in question went bright red, quickly grabbed his sign and turned it round.

Of course it had been the right way round the whole time, and this was met with much amusment and laughter from the police, causing the student to run away with tears in his eyes. Must have been the wimpiest anarchist in the whole of London.