Budget 2013 live....

John_Pierpoint

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Yeah but.....you voted for these people!!!

Have we already forgotten that all three parties promised Shangri La,
while completely ignoring the huge and growing debt mountain ?

Liars, Liars, Liars.

I felt I must be living in a parallel universe.

Budget for a new century: "Buy 250 pints of pub beer and get one free"

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why do you come up with such silly statements?

Housing is an asset like any other asset such as stocks, shares, bonds, etc.

Asset prices are a function of supply and demand, nothing else.

So far, we've managed to suppress house prices for the last 5 years, despite the shortage, by preventing well over a million people from buying. So rents have soared to new record highs instead.

But only an idiot thinks it's a remotely good idea to keep artificially repressing price growth by preventing millions of people from buying via mortgage rationing.

That is the way it was always done in the past to protect the illiterate and the innumerate from their own folly.

You are confusing the difference between need and demand. Only those of high net worth can demand. Only societies of high net worth can demand - so that is the Chinese.
A society which has gone from borrowing 2 years of GDP from the future for private current consumption, to borrowing 5 years of GDP under a "socialist" government. That makes the wasteful extravagant government deficit spending look almost prudent.

Here are multi generational homes with lots of need, but with almost no capital, or perhaps with negative net worth, and so they have no demand - how many UK citizens are living at a density of more than 1.5 adults per habitable room? Certainly not those subject to the bedroom tax. Unless we can come up with some reazlly high techs high value added per worker industries, we will have to adapt to becoming a nation of worker-holics and living in rabbit hutches.

[Deleted User]

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Housing is an asset like any other asset such as stocks, shares, bonds, etc.

I don't agree that housing is an asset except in circumstances that the majority don't experience. I look at assets and liabilities in quite a simple way. An asset puts money in my pocket; a liability takes money out of my pocket. We are now mortgage free. Is my house an asset? Well, for the pleasure of owning my house, I pay buildings insurance and maintenance. Does my house put money in my pocket? No, it takes it out. What does that make it? A liability. While there was a mortgage on it, it was an asset - it just wasn't my asset, it was the lender's.

A house would be an asset if I rented it out and received more in rent that all the costs, but for the vast percentage of the population a house is not an asset.

WR

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Wild_Rover wrote: »

An asset puts money in my pocket; a liability takes money out of my pocket. We are now mortgage free.

Is my house an asset?

Yes.

Google "imputed rent".

ukcarper

Wild_Rover wrote: »

I don't agree that housing is an asset except in circumstances that the majority don't experience. I look at assets and liabilities in quite a simple way. An asset puts money in my pocket; a liability takes money out of my pocket. We are now mortgage free. Is my house an asset? Well, for the pleasure of owning my house, I pay buildings insurance and maintenance. Does my house put money in my pocket? No, it takes it out. What does that make it? A liability. While there was a mortgage on it, it was an asset - it just wasn't my asset, it was the lender's.

A house would be an asset if I rented it out and received more in rent that all the costs, but for the vast percentage of the population a house is not an asset.

WR

I'm also mortgage free and I certainly look at my house as an asset it's saving be £1200 a month in rent.

[Deleted User]

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes.

Google "imputed rent".

With the greatest respect to you and Google - "B@lls" The house I live in is not some theoretical claptrap. If I could buy a Porsche but don't, I am no better off. My house provides no income, it costs money, therefore it is a liability. Whether it means that I am not paying someone else rent or not is not relevant to whether or not it adds a pound coin to my wealth or spending power.

One problem with this country is that people think they are buying assets when they are actually buying liabilities. Dividend-paying shares, interest paying accounts ('till inflation kicks in) and something you own that others pay to use are assets.

WR

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm also mortgage free and I certainly look at my house as an asset it's saving be £1200 a month in rent.

Indeed.

The house I bought in 2007 has a mortgage, yet I still pay £500 a month less to live here than I would if I rented it.

And I've seen capital appreciation since then.

Happy days.:)

Mr._Pricklepants

dryhat wrote: »

Now the wheels seem to be coming off this proposal, it is nice that the HPI nutters have quietened down a bit today compared to their salivating yesterday and this morning.

The HPI nutters (aka savvy investors) have quitened down because they are probably looking at how to make some extra dosh from this scheme once the t's have been crossed and the i's dotted.
There's no time to waste on internet forums when you need to position yourself for the coming HPI rollercoaster.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Wild_Rover wrote: »

With the greatest respect to you and Google - "B@lls" The house I live in is not some theoretical claptrap. If I could buy a Porsche but don't, I am no better off. My house provides no income, it costs money, therefore it is a liability. Whether it means that I am not paying someone else rent or not is not relevant to whether or not it adds a pound coin to my wealth or spending power.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

You don't need a Porsche. You do need a place to live.

So your choice is rent or own. It's that simple.

And by not paying rent to someone else, it most certainly is adding a pound coin to your wealth and spending power.

Or rather, many hundreds of pound coins a month, for the rest of your life.

As the money you're not spending on rent is diverted to savings, investments or spending.

Generali

Wild_Rover wrote: »

With the greatest respect to you and Google - "B@lls" The house I live in is not some theoretical claptrap. If I could buy a Porsche but don't, I am no better off. My house provides no income, it costs money, therefore it is a liability. Whether it means that I am not paying someone else rent or not is not relevant to whether or not it adds a pound coin to my wealth or spending power.

One problem with this country is that people think they are buying assets when they are actually buying liabilities. Dividend-paying shares, interest paying accounts ('till inflation kicks in) and something you own that others pay to use are assets.

WR

Your house quite clearly is an asset as well as having certain liabilities attached. Without your house you'd have to live somewhere unless a cardboard box is a realistic alternative.

I've gotta be honest WR, I think you don't have a clue about what an asset and a liability is. I'm no accountant but I have an acute BS meter.

dryhat

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

The HPI nutters (aka savvy investors) have quitened down because they are probably looking at how to make some extra dosh from this scheme once the t's have been crossed and the i's dotted.
There's no time to waste on internet forums when you need to position yourself for the coming HPI rollercoaster.

These schemes require repayment.


"savvy investors" only use IO mortgages, remember?