Get ready for rates to rocket

dixie_dean_2

Started off reading this and it all got a bit petty so i skipped to the last page to discover much talking of gambling. That's more like it. Anyway, I have a few points to make but go easy as I know at least 1000 times more about gambling and loopholes than I do about fiscal dynamics. People mention the old rates of 15% but this strikes me as unrealistic for the simple reason that it would force far too many people out of their homes. I was asking my parents about this and how they coped and i think it was tough but manageable. Now, due to the much, much higher LTV ratios and earnings vs borrowings it just couldn't happen imo. Obviously this may bge massively naive of me and I'm not sure how it could necessarily be prevented but i think a situation where 90% of first time buyers from the last 5 years are in trouble plus thousands of others is just not going to happen. And I've forgotten my next point.

kennyboy66_2

dixie_dean wrote: »

Started off reading this and it all got a bit petty so i skipped to the last page to discover much talking of gambling. That's more like it. Anyway, I have a few points to make but go easy as I know at least 1000 times more about gambling and loopholes than I do about fiscal dynamics. People mention the old rates of 15% but this strikes me as unrealistic for the simple reason that it would force far too many people out of their homes. I was asking my parents about this and how they coped and i think it was tough but manageable. Now, due to the much, much higher LTV ratios and earnings vs borrowings it just couldn't happen imo. Obviously this may bge massively naive of me and I'm not sure how it could necessarily be prevented but i think a situation where 90% of first time buyers from the last 5 years are in trouble plus thousands of others is just not going to happen. And I've forgotten my next point.

To Julieq and StevieJ as well as Dixie (who I presume is another good blue).

Do you ever find any betting shops which go 1/4 odds all races ?

I reckon I can more or less guarantee a significant edge if you do.

kennyboy66_2

mewbie wrote: »

That reminds me, must return my mates video.

Not the old cove from Ypres ?

mewbie_2

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Not the old cove from Ypres ?

Well we obviously didn't have videos back then, but he had a pack of well thumbed playing cards he brought back from a tour of Egypt.

kennyboy66_2

julieq wrote: »

Tote betting? Oh dear

People even make money using the Tote, although in this country it is restricted to syndicates waiting until there is sufficient roll overs for Jackpot and Scoop 6.

julieq

You need to look up the Dagenham coup Kenny for matters Tote. It's good for coups, the Tote, but you have to be in the know

kennyboy66_2

julieq wrote: »

You need to look up the Dagenham coup Kenny for matters Tote. It's good for coups, the Tote, but you have to be in the know

Yeh I know, very similar to the method used in the Yellow Sam coup.

StevieJ

julieq wrote: »

8.45 Chester 1st 13 Tyrannosaurus Rex (IRE) 11-1 2nd 12 Titus Andronicus (IRE) 5-6 F 3rd 4 Bertoliver 9-2 SF £21.30
Tricast £53.17
Winning Trainer D Shaw
Winning Jockey G Gibbons
9 ran
Non runners 2, 5, 8, 9

lovely e/w action

Well done Julie :T Very impressed:beer:
Not quite a moneysaver but certainly a moneyearner (oh moneysaver as well, you get your stake back )

BTW I was hacked off with the jockey on Bertoliver chasing on the outside all the way round the bends, he should have slipped in behind and waited.

StevieJ

kennyboy66 wrote: »

To Julieq and StevieJ as well as Dixie (who I presume is another good blue).

Do you ever find any betting shops which go 1/4 odds all races ?

I reckon I can more or less guarantee a significant edge if you do.

I have not put a bet on in a betting shop for a long time, on Betfair you can get some amazing place odds on occasion, much better than 1/4 the odds.

StevieJ

dixie_dean wrote: »

Started off reading this and it all got a bit petty so i skipped to the last page to discover much talking of gambling. That's more like it. Anyway, I have a few points to make but go easy as I know at least 1000 times more about gambling and loopholes than I do about fiscal dynamics. People mention the old rates of 15% but this strikes me as unrealistic for the simple reason that it would force far too many people out of their homes. I was asking my parents about this and how they coped and i think it was tough but manageable. Now, due to the much, much higher LTV ratios and earnings vs borrowings it just couldn't happen imo. Obviously this may bge massively naive of me and I'm not sure how it could necessarily be prevented but i think a situation where 90% of first time buyers from the last 5 years are in trouble plus thousands of others is just not going to happen. And I've forgotten my next point.

Welcome Dixie, remember that the 15% rates in the past were subject to tax relief, if we had them now it would be much worse :eek: IMHO the reason why LTV got so high was the reduction in inflation expectations and thus a reduction in what was considered permanent interest rates down to a natural rate of around 5%. This of course increased affordability and pushed up house prices, in addition there was a surplus of credit resulting from the packaging and selling of loans to investors resulting in the selling of loans by shady salesmen to people who couldn't really afford them.
I hope you are correct about the 90% of buyers over the past 5 years, provided interest rates are not forced up dramatically e.g. 7%+ and govt help remains available they may be OK.