greed and stupidity personified.................

macaque_2

nearlynew wrote: »

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article6914011.ece


Interesting sentiment in the replies to the article.

Ahhh! I've worked out where she went wrong.

......after her unexpected divorce.

If she had used an IMAF registered broker, they would have told her how long her marriage would last.

Emy1501

chucknorris wrote: »

Is it greedy to want a 'dream family home' or have I missed something from the article (I mean that seriously as I did read it very quickly and possibly missed something).

Not really if you can afford it. I suspect though that as she needs to get 65K more than she spent on it she couldn't afford it so has mew'd an extra 65K to afford. If thats not the case then she is smply greedy for keeping the property on the market at such an inflated prices when its clearly not worth it and them looking for sympathy

chucknorris

Emy1501 wrote: »

Not really if you can afford it. I suspect though that as she needs to get 65K more than she spent on it she couldn't afford it so has mew'd an extra 65K to afford. If thats not the case then she is smply greedy for keeping the property on the market at such an inflated prices when its clearly not worth it and them looking for sympathy

She (they) could afford it before she got divorced. Not being able to afford it due to divorce (ie losing her husband's income) does not equate to greed.

This is a story about someone who (probably) overpaid for a property and almost certainly over deveoped it, then had tp sell it because of a divorce, not about a property speculator, the house was bought and lived in as a family home until the divorce.

abaxas

chucknorris wrote: »

She (they) could afford it before she got divorced. Not being able to afford it due to divorce (ie losing her husband's income) does not equate to greed.

Expecting to sell for more than she paid is, especially with £200k of 'upgrades'.

What did she put in? Hamster fur carpet.

carolt

Sorry, if I run up debts of 65K and then try and sell our car for its value plus 65K, because that was what I needed to pay off my debts, and then moaned to The Times that I couldn't get what I needed - in fact that I'd reduced my asking price on the car by 180K to 'only' 65K plus actual value, you'd think I was greedy to the point of insanity.

I don't see the difference.

chucknorris

abaxas wrote: »

Expecting to sell for more than she paid is, .

.

Why? Have you ever bought and sold a property? If so did you not bother to get an estate agent to value it, did you just simply put it on the market for what you paid for it

If so please contact me if you sell your property in 10-20 years time I will almost certainly buy it from you for what you paid for it (unless you seriously overpaid for it of course)

chucky

leveller2911 wrote: »

Yep and thats why were all in the sh1te.......as the vast majority of it is done with borrowed money.To most of the population its all just numbers on paper.The banks will lend ,therefore I can afford it.......

It would be very interesting to see what house prices would be if all credit was withdrawn.....Then that would be a true perspective rather than the perverse one we have now.People would pay what they have......

and fortunately we're living in 2009 and not in the stone age.
i don't think that you understand that we don't live in the stone age and how a capitalist society works... :rolleyes:


and these 3 peope who thanked your post do not have a clue
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to leveller2911 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
carolt (Today), nearlynew (Today), rewired (Today)

abaxas

chucknorris wrote: »

Why? Have you ever bought and sold a property? If so did you not bother to get an estate agent to value it, did you just simply put it on the market for what you paid for it

If so please contact me if you sell your property in 10-20 years time I will almost certainly buy it from you for what you paid for it (unless you seriously overpaid for it of course)

What a load a !!!!!!,

No-one has the right to dictate the selling price of an item, other than the buyer. A seller however only has valuation or the ability not to sell.

It worries me how stupid people actually are, no-one has the right to any sale price. The buyer does.

chucknorris

chucky wrote: »

and fortunately we're living in 2009 and not in the stone age. times have changed since the times of no credit... :rolleyes:

Chucky help me out here please where are the bears getting this figure of 65K from? She bought the property for 365k and spent 200k refurbishing/extending it, so a total of 565k, she is trying to sell it for 625k. So that's 60k, where is the other 5k coming from?

Am I missing something from the article or can the bears not do simple arithmatic?

ess0two

carolt wrote: »

Sorry, if I run up debts of 65K and then try and sell our car for its value plus 65K, because that was what I needed to pay off my debts, and then moaned to The Times that I couldn't get what I needed - in fact that I'd reduced my asking price on the car by 180K to 'only' 65K plus actual value, you'd think I was greedy to the point of insanity.

I don't see the difference.

65k is an assumption,lets stick to facts and not second guess.