Supply and Demand in action......

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

Particularly when it's been the lone bull against 1000 bears for the last 18 months more often than not. And said bears have shown great delight and relish over the prospect of me, or any other homeowner, losing money.

Not any other homeowner.

You, yes. And that's because of what you write and how you write it. Only earlier you had a poster have to shut the laptop down!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So basically he clebrates it because he personally is better off in terms of asset wealth, and he want to retire on this asset wealth later in life. I guess at least he's open enough about it, so fair play.

Pretty much.

Well, that and a bit of schadenfreude.

The one problem however is he still has to buy somewhere to retire too, and thats also going up in price, so it all falls down then.

Not quite.

The UK retirement property I'm looking at is around 100K today. Rural Scotland, and very small. My houses are worth around 600K today. There is no prospect of the retirement property appreciating at 600% the rate of the other houses, so the eventual downsize will release a lot of cash. Which will be heading overseas with us to somewhere warm and very cheap, for as long as we're healthy enough to enjoy it.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Pretty much.



The UK retirement property I'm looking at is around 100K today. Rural Scotland, and very small. My houses are worth around 600K today. There is no prospect of the retirement property appreciating at 600% the rate of the other houses, so the eventual downsize will release a lot of cash. Which will be heading overseas with us to somewhere warm and very cheap, for as long as we're healthy enough to enjoy it.

Is it out of Aberdeen then?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Cleaver wrote: »

So the answer to my question 'why is this a good thing?' is simply that you want to be right over a group of people on the internet?

No, thats just a fringe benefit.

HPI is, overall, a good thing.

It benefits more people than it hurts.

There is no such thing as a housing ladder really, it's more like a housing ferris wheel.

People get on (FTB), move upwards (2TB) cross over the top (family home) and release equity on the way down (downsizers) and then get off the wheel (death) leaving money to their younger family members to get on.

HPI is a large virtuous circle of wealth building, and also eventually wealth redistribution. Generations gain, then they die and leave those gains to the next generation. At worst, it's an enforced means of saving, that also historically has generated better returns than a bank account, and for most people is tax free.

I've said already that there are limits to HPI, but we're nowhere near them yet, and probably won't be in my lifetime.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is it out of Aberdeen then?

I've seen the place I want, but the recalcitrant highlander that lives there won't sell. Up in the absolute middle of nowhere in the highlands. 100 miles from the nearest city. 4 miles from the nearest neighbour. It gets snowed in for a month at a time in winter, and for most people it would be hell on earth. To me it's heaven.

And I'll be buying it, or something just like it, whenever it comes on the market, whether that is tomorrow or in 20 years.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, I did it too. I was just pointing out to Hamish that there is then an extra cost to living, which means you can spend less on a house.

The silly thing was and probably still is, is that you can borrow a certain multiply of your salary and it doesn’t make any difference what your commute is. That’s the way it was when I last bought anyway.

globalds

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You would obviously have to have a transitional period. It would be unfair to change the rules on someone half way through.

We are, ultimately, not going to let people starve or freeze to death on the streets.

But there is no reason why that requires a 4 bedroom house to be provided to every single mum with 3 kids by 3 fathers, who chose to "breed for benefits."

I'd suggest building dormitories, with attached cafeterias, learning rooms and job centres.

And informing all 14 year olds that we will no longer provide a house or any cash benefits to single parents or the unemployed once they use their lifetime allowance of benefits. A bed in a dorm, cafeteria food, and a bus pass to get to interviews is as good as it will get.

Bit of a delay in responding...Duty( shopping) called.

So is this Dormitory for 14year olds .... or a single mum with a couple of 14 year olds ?

It doesn't seem very well thought out ....A bit like sticking them in a B & B
They are not going to save enough for a deposit ...A lack of stability could well end up costing society in the long run....
And who would you propose runs these places.

I gather the poor houses of old used to turn a profit , so much so that often people were unable to escape there protective clutches.

I think you need to do a bit more thinking on this subject.

LydiaJ

Hamish,

While I agree with you in principle that the current system does far too much to reward those who could work but choose not to, I would be interested to hear how you intend to distinguish between those who choose to breed for benefits and those who have been merely unfortunate. Or would you put somebody like SingleSue in a dormitory too?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

LydiaJ wrote: »

Hamish,

While I agree with you in principle that the current system does far too much to reward those who could work but choose not to,

And you could really have stopped there.

It does. It must change. End of discussion really.

I would be interested to hear how you intend to distinguish between those who choose to breed for benefits and those who have been merely unfortunate.

At either end of the spectrum it's pretty obvious.

The challenge is for those in the middle, in the grey area. It will be a challenge, but just because something is difficult does not mean we should not try to do it.

Or would you put somebody like SingleSue in a dormitory too?

I've already stated I wouldn't change benefits to existing claimants, so Sue's safe.;)

Look, we can all agree that the kid who breaks his neck after being hit by a drunk driver, or the downs syndrome baby, will need help for life and should get it.

We can also (hopefully) all agree that breeding for benefits should not be rewarded, so after being given due warning, and access to education and contraception, there should be no reason to reward those who choose to screw things up for themselves.

The ones in the middle will take more work, but it's work worth doing.

Pobby

Interesting debate regarding benefits. How the last 40 or 50 years have changed. Of course there were situations like Singlesue, who no fault of her own, found herself in or indeed younger women with children being widowed early.

However, the life style choice of being single and having kids, all with state funding was a big no no. Oh the shame when the lass next door became pregnant. There was no choice. She married the guy and Mother was too ashamed to go to the wedding. Morals were far different then. I certainly don`t recall the state providing housing and an income.

As I remember, you had few options. To have the child and be supported by the guy or other family. To give the child up for adoption ( often very painful ) or the very worst and consider an abortion.