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

chucknorris

abaxas wrote: »

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.

She is simply setting the asking price, no one is dictating anything.

carolt

No-one's saying she is - that doesn't make her any less greedy, though.

Please see my post no 20.

leveller2911

chucky wrote: »

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)

Oooh listen to you:D Let me educate you, the Capitalist system has faults Chucky, its not perfect ,by a long way.........rose tinted glasses, have you:rotfl:

We may have evolved as a species but we arent perfect Chucks.....

carolt

No, leveller - how can you not understand.

Debt is Good.

According to chucky.

The more debt we have, the more advanced and better our society is.

Have I got that right, now, chucky? :rolleyes:

ess0two

carolt wrote: »

No, leveller - how can you not understand.

Debt is Good.

According to chucky.

The more debt we have, the more advanced and better our society is.

Have I got that right, now, chucky? :rolleyes:

Where in the article does it say she ran up debts of 65k,as you posted?

chucknorris

ess0two wrote: »

Where in the article does it say she ran up debts of 65k,as you posted?

I think she got the maths wrong, ie 625 -(365+200) = 60 (not 65)

Teachers don't seem to be very good at maths (even the Wilsons who were maths teachers messed up badly)

chucky

carolt wrote: »

No, leveller - how can you not understand.

Debt is Good.

According to chucky.

The more debt we have, the more advanced and better our society is.

Have I got that right, now, chucky? :rolleyes:

i've never said that debt or good or bad - you've made that stuff up yourself.
it's life get over it - if you can't afford to buy property or think it's too expensive... get over it.

ess0two wrote: »

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

welcome to carol and her imaginary facts and figures that she portrays as truth... very sad... she made that bit up (again)

chucknorris wrote: »

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?

you're missing everything - Carol made it up (again)

chucky

leveller2911 wrote: »

Oooh listen to you:D Let me educate you, the Capitalist system has faults Chucky, its not perfect ,by a long way.........rose tinted glasses, have you:rotfl:

We may have evolved as a species but we arent perfect Chucks.....

get over the fact that people want cheap property, some people just like to moan about anything and everything.
property has never been cheap and when it has been cheap money wasn't available to borrow.

so your romantic idea may work in your mind but it doesn't really work in the real world.

ess0two

chucknorris wrote: »

I think she got the maths wrong, ie 625 -(365+200) = 60 (not 65)

Teachers don't seem to be very good at maths (even the Wilsons who were maths teachers

Its more the assumption that the lady in question has run up debt,still in MSE style lets not let the facts get in the way of a good witch hunt.

Emy1501

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.

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.

She bought the property in 2004 and therefore how ever much she spent on it, it should be still worth more now than what she spent on it.

I suspect like many people who saw their property as money making machine she mew'd on the basis that prices would always go up.

I never mewed on any of the properties I bought. You should never mew on property unless its do improvements. I have sympathy for those who bought after say 2006 and are struggling to sell due to financial problems but anybody who bought in 2004 should have enough equity to sell in todays market.

I also suspect that if more research was done it would be found that a fair bit of the 200K did not go on development of the house either.