The bear case

StevieJ

Interesting being picked up on spelling miskakes, can't be bothered doing that meself

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

And Macaque fails to answer....... Again.

pop_gun

macaque wrote: »

Hamish



Details of the 2009 annual gross salaries were:
70% of of the population earned less than £30k
80% of of the population earned less than £36k
90% of of the population earned less than £47k

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2009/2009_all_employees.pdf

I will let you work out the implications of this.

i read a statistic which stated 2/3 of the jobs in the economy were directly or indirectly attributable to the public sector. once the chancellor's spending cuts are finished you wonder what these statistics will look like.

chucky

pop_gun wrote: »

i read a statistic which stated 2/3 of the jobs in the economy were directly or indirectly attributable to the public sector. once the chancellor's spending cuts are finished you wonder what these statistics will look like.

i saw the same stat in a post on here the other day but they said it was four thirds of the jobs in the economy were directly or indirectly attributable to the public sector - the post got Thanked by 17 people.

pop_gun

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes.... I quoted the wrong figures. I should have said income instead of salary.

The average income of housebuyers is 42K...... But some of those applicants are joint.

The figure you need to look at is household income.



60% of households in the UK have an income of more than £25K.

40% have an income of more than £39K

20% have an income of more than £71K

And as we only build 35% of the houses we need, then only the top earning 35% of households need to be able to afford them. All the existing homeowners just float with a rising tide.

The current median of the top earning 60% is right around £40,000. Which ties in nicely with the current average house price.

these figures could mean anything. i lived in private, shared accomodation. imcome for THIS household is 100k+ though the statistic you provided doesn't take into account there's 7 of us here :rotfl:

macaque_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And Macaque fails to answer....... Again.

Hamish, you stated that "The average income of housebuyers is 42K". I provided you with evidence that very few people earn this sort of money. You then changed your story to 'average household income'. Which is it?

I pointed that the UK government had sought to keep house prices up. There is no shortage of evidence to support this. You responded with "More conspiracy theories and crackpot rubbish".

I stated that companies do not want to relocate to areas with skills shortages and poor transport links. Your answer was "Birmingham has poor transport links? Manchester? Liverpool? Glasgow?" Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester are not cheap areas to do business. The reason they are expensive is that the government is competing with the private sector in these areas.

"Immigrants are a net contributor to society. They pay more than they use. We make a profit on them." That is patently untrue. It should be obvious to even a child that the cost of public services is currently running far beyond what the nation can afford. Leaving that aside, you have missed the point of my original comment. The population rise is down to inward migration. That will come to an end for obvious reasons.

You stated "Young people do not pay a significantly bigger percentage of net income on housing now than in the past." For obvious reasons that is just not true. Why do you think people are now being forced to live with their parents until their mid thirties?

You stated "Right! Who cares about some chemical companies." The global market for high value chemicals is in excess of $1000b. The UK used to be a global leader but is rapidly falling down the league.

I said you cannot drive using the rear view mirrors alone. You stated "Oh, it most certainly is true". When I read responses like this I wonder why I bother replying to your posts.

You wrote "And Macaque fails to answer....... Again." Well you have your reply but don't expect me to answer you every time when you respond with such errant nonsense.

RenovationMan

What a lot of time and effort that you guys put into talking about house prices. I've been lurking and occasionally posting in here for a month or so now and the discussion seems to be cyclical, almost completely stuck in a loop.

The only questions I'd ask, and i hope I don't cause offense, is whether you all feel that it's worth it, and what do you achieve by continually discussing the same topic?

StevieJ

pop_gun wrote: »

i read a statistic which stated 2/3 of the jobs in the economy were directly or indirectly attributable to the public sector. once the chancellor's spending cuts are finished you wonder what these statistics will look like.

Just because a job is public sector now doesn't mean it will disappear because of public sector cuts, a simple example would be dentists, if they were removed from the NHS they would still exist (not as many) but they would be all private. I am not advocating that BTW :eek:

Conrad

The other key point missed is that real earnings are higher than those constructed out of Tax reciepts.

Most self employed clients show vastly less income than they actualy enjoy. A recent example I had is an East end market trader (he owns and runs several pitches) with virtualy no taxable income living in a £2m home with a small mortgage. The state would bracket him as poor.

The characteristic lacking from a typicaly bearish persona, is thier lack of intuition for the real world.

PS - more landlords I'm seeing are getting into HMO's. I'm thinking of getting one which will cost me £200,000 inc alterations and decorating, but will yield after agents costs some £1500 per month. The agent works out of my office and does not generally have issues collecting in HMO situations - he targets professionals that don't want the cost of full rent.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

macaque wrote: »

Hamish, you stated that "The average income of housebuyers is 42K". I provided you with evidence that very few people earn this sort of money. You then changed your story to 'average household income'. Which is it?

The average income of house buyers is 42K. But some house buyers are joint applicants.

The point remains, that is what you're up against.

I pointed that the UK government had sought to keep house prices up (for which there is clear evidence). You responded with
"More conspiracy theories and crackpot rubbish".

It is a crackpot conspiracy. There is no clear evidence, and lowering base rates does not count. That was done to stimulate the wider economy.

I stated that companies do not want to relocate to areas with skills shortages and poor transport links. Your answer was "Birmingham has poor transport links? Manchester? Liverpool? Glasgow?" Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester are not cheap areas to do business. The reason they are expensive is that the government is competing with the private sector in these areas.

Nonsense. Those are areas with access to cheap housing, cheap commercial property, cheaper labour costs and good transport links.

Which you claimed didn't exist.

"Immigrants are a net contributor to society. They pay more than they use. We make a profit on them."

That is patently untrue. It should be obvious to even a child that the cost of public services is currently running far beyond what the nation can afford.

It is not untrue..... We make a profit on immigrants.

Between 1999-2000 and 2003-04 it is estimated that revenue from migrants grew by 22 per cent in real terms as opposed to 6 per
cent for the UK-born population. In 1999-2000 the study estimates that migrants accounted for 8.8 per cent of government receipts and 8.4 per cent of government expenditure.

By 2003-04 it was estimated that migrants contributed 10 per cent of government receipts and accounted for 9.1 per cent of government expenditure.

2.2.6 In the long run, it is likely that the net fiscal contribution of an immigrant will be greater than that of a non-immigrant.

For migrants of working age who enter the country this is relatively clear; the UK is receiving the fiscal contribution of their work, without paying for the education and training that enables them to work.

Even for young children, by assuming as we do that each age cohort is treated equally through the fiscal system, then, in the long run, migration to the UK is still likely to mean a net fiscal transfer to the native population. http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm72/7237/7237.pdf

Leaving that aside, you have missed the point of my original comment. The population rise is down to inward migration. That will come to an end for obvious reasons.

No Macaque, as has been explained to you many times, only part of the population and household rise is due to immigration.

“The central assumption from the Department of Communities and Local Government is that long term net migration will be 171,500 per year, resulting in an annual increase in the number of households in England of 252,000 once other factors are taken into account. Even if one were to assume zero net migration, however, the
number of households is still projected to expand by an average of 153,000 units per year through to 2031. http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Jul_2009.pdf

You stated "Young people do not pay a significantly bigger percentage of net income on housing now than in the past." For obvious reasons that is just not true. Why do you think people are now being forced to live with their parents until their mid thirties?

Percentage of Earnings Paid on Mortgages (Halifax, Based on initial mortgage payments from new purchasers only)

1985 - 20.5%

1989 - 35.4%

1996 - 15.4%

2000 - 18.2%

2005 - 18.5%

2007 - 23.3%

2008 - 18.3%

You stated "Right! Who cares about some chemical companies." The global market for high value chemicals is in excess of $1000b. The UK used to be a global leader but is rapidly falling down the league.

I stated some companies leave, others enter. You then gave a list fo companies you claim have left. Without researching any of the ones that have entered.

Which is as fatuous an argument as the clowns who look at estimates for job losses without looking at estimates for job creation.

I said you cannot drive using the rear view mirrors alone. You stated "Oh, it most certainly is true".

No Macaque, you stated That is not true when I noted population had increased by a million or more in the last 3 years alone, whilst housebuilding is at it's lowest levels since 1924.

I have now sourced my evidence for both claims.

You have yet to refute either with a source of any kind.

When I read responses like this I wonder why I bother replying to your posts.

Ditto.

Your posts are full of lies, distractions and attempts to confuse the issue.

You never respond to any of the facts. You just build another straw man argument.

So lets summarise the facts and see if you can dispute them with a credible source to the contrary.

1. The DCLG shows immmigrants have a net fiscal benefit to society.

2. Housebuilding is at it's lowest peace time level since 1924.

3. Population is growing at a rate of around 400,000 people per year, and the ONS claim that over one million people have been added to population in the last 36 months alone.

4. Around 250,000 new additional households are formed every year.

5. Even if net migration was zero, this would still be 150,000 new additional households.

6. We currently build less houses than both those figures.

7. Labour, housing costs, and commercial property are far cheaper in and around cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow and Liverpool than in London & the South East. Yet unemployment is higher.

8. The average age of a FTB is lower today than it was 20 years ago.

9. The average amount spent on mortgage payments by FTB's is lower now than the long term average.

10. The average income of housebuyers (be they single or joint applicants) is 42K.