Latest regional house price projections

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

If income is not wealth how is it you can buy an income with wealth? Or even do the reverse in some instances eg like I recently converted my pension into a lump sum.

Instead of being so wedded to your ideology why not admit this is something you hadn't really considered and its worthwhile thinking about before you continue with your idea.

Even a single mother with £20k debt on her credit cards is extremely wealthy.
Her £25k annual income from the state benefits has a value of at least £600,000 minus her credit card debts and she still has wealth of £580,000 what makes it even more amazing is that the credit card company cant go after her other debt and if she declares bankrupt her £600,000 is safe and the credit card company cant touch her

If you want to talk about wealth distribution first convert income and benefits into a net present value then come back and lets compare. Real wealth is far more evenly distributed than people realize and consumption even more evenly distributed that that. Bill gates probably wont eat more food or own more cloths than the single mother and wont even consume magnitudes more housing or healthcare or education than the single mother.

You really do talk absolute nonsense and you seem to want to distinguish between wealth and income when it suites you and claim it's the same at other times.

Out of interest what ideology do you think I'm wedded to.

GreatApe

If you do a NPV of all the benefits/services/spending the UK state provides you get a figure of around £20+ trillion and this is allocated more so to the poor than the rich.

The bottom 20% should be allocated £5 trillion as their wealth even if collectively they have £0 in their bank accounts. Reports which show them as having zero are just misleading nonsense. The bottom 20% in the UK who 'have nothing' live completely different lives to the bottom 20% in India or Africa who by the same metric have exactly the same nothing amount of wealth.

The best way of all, the most fair way of all would be to look at lifetime consumption.
While bill gates has $100 billion and the poorest 1 billion humans supposedly have even less what does it look like when you look at consumption. Does bill gates eat 1 billion calories as much as a poor person? Does bill gates consume a billion times as much energy? Does bill gates consume a billion times as many shoes or jeans? Does bill gates consume 1 billion homes? No of course not

If you look at the lifetime consumption of the poor in the UK you will probably get a figure close to £12 trillion + so why allocate their wealth as zero and make out like they are poor?

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

If you do a NPV of all the benefits/services/spending the UK state provides you get a figure of around £20+ trillion and this is allocated more so to the poor than the rich.

The bottom 20% should be allocated £5 trillion as their wealth even if collectively they have £0 in their bank accounts. Reports which show them as having zero are just misleading nonsense. The bottom 20% in the UK who 'have nothing' live completely different lives to the bottom 20% in India or Africa who by the same metric have exactly the same nothing amount of wealth.

The best way of all, the most fair way of all would be to look at lifetime consumption.
While bill gates has $100 billion and the poorest 1 billion humans supposedly have even less what does it look like when you look at consumption. Does bill gates eat 1 billion calories as much as a poor person? Does bill gates consume a billion times as much energy? Does bill gates consume a billion times as many shoes or jeans? Does bill gates consume 1 billion homes? No of course not

If you look at the lifetime consumption of the poor in the UK you will probably get a figure close to £12 trillion + so why allocate their wealth as zero and make out like they are poor?

This is what I mean it has no relevance in the real world to what people actually have.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

Out of interest what ideology do you think I'm wedded to.

That things are anything other than fantastic and going in a very good direction.

I would say right or left probably 98%+ dont understand how great things really are and how quickly the world is developing and most the benefits are going to the bottom.

The world is building a million homes per week and the poor are being lifted out of poverty at a rate almost no one could have imagined or hoped for.

Things are so great that the left who have lost the political and ideological battle have to point at 'the gap' as some sort of big evil that needs eradicating and that they will do this by turning the system upside down. As I keep saying even if I was a communist I would keep my mouth shut from the sheer evidence of how rapidly the world is heading in a good direction.

Not only is 'the gap' an almost irrelevant topic but it is clearly mostly propaganda and nonsense. Pretending the bottom 20% in the UK have nothing is just ridiculous the bottom 20% will have £10+ trillion spent on them in their lifetimes trillions of pounds is not nothing. Of course the aim is to break the current system (which is working amazingly well) and the only way you can do that is to get at least half the people to hate the other half so the current system can be burnt to the ground and a new ideology replace it. They cant point to the current system and say people are poor, they cant point to the current system and say things are not getting better, so they retreat to hate and nonsense. Look you have nothing this other guy has a lot so he clearly must have stolen it from you you are morally required to burn his house down and reset the system away from free market capitalism

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

This is what I mean it has no relevance in the real world to what people actually have.

How do you differentiate from the bottom 20% in the UK who have no savings vs the bottom 20% in India who also have no savings. Are they in the same boat? If not how do you differentiate the two?

Is lifetime spending not a better measure?
A poor person in the UK is not poor, they will have £1 million plus spent on them in their lifetime. A poor person in Africa or India might only have £10,000 spend on them in their lifetime. There is a factor of 100x difference.

So how does it make sense to write a report and bung all of those people together as having nothing?

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

How do you differentiate from the bottom 20% in the UK who have no savings vs the bottom 20% in India who also have no savings. Are they in the same boat? If not how do you differentiate the two?

Is lifetime spending not a better measure?
A poor person in the UK is not poor, they will have £1 million plus spent on them in their lifetime. A poor person in Africa or India might only have £10,000 spend on them in their lifetime. There is a factor of 100x difference.

So how does it make sense to write a report and bung all of those people together as having nothing?

The poor are obviously better off here than India but that has nothing to do with wealth and property affordability, you are just waffling and presenting unrelated facts.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

The poor are obviously better off here than India but that has nothing to do with wealth and property affordability, you are just waffling and presenting unrelated facts.

What is the propose of a report that say the bottom 20% in the UK have nothing, what is the purpose of you citing such a report? What exactly do you think it shows or proves?

To me it clearly just shows the report writer and the persons citing the report have no idea how to do a NPV of income streams and or they do but they are arrogant enough to think and believe they have a system which is going to do more than the amazing things the current system is achieving

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

What is the propose of a report that say the bottom 20% in the UK have nothing, what is the purpose of you citing such a report? What exactly do you think it shows or proves?

To me it clearly just shows the report writer and the persons citing the report have no idea how to do a NPV of income streams and or they do but they are arrogant enough to think and believe they have a system which is going to do more than the amazing things the current system is achieving

I cited the report to show wealth was very unevenly distributed and many people will not benefit from a large inheritance especially at the time they need it.

Your seem to base your entire argument on inheritance but then again I think you are so obsessed by HPC that you completely miss the point that property is unaffordable to very large numbers of people, that doesn't mean I think there is going to be a crash just that a large number of people are not served well by the present housing market.

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I cited the report to show wealth was very unevenly distributed and many people will not benefit from a large inheritance especially at the time they need it.

Your seem to base your entire argument on inheritance but then again I think you are so obsessed by HPC that you completely miss the point that property is unaffordable to very large numbers of people, that doesn't mean I think there is going to be a crash just that a large number of people are not served well by the present housing market.

I agree with you but its not price that limits lifetime ownership levels towards the recent levels of 75-80% of the population

It is the social stock which is limiting ownership levels. If we sold the social stock down to 5 percent. Then lifetime ownership levels would go towards 95%

The easiest quickest and least painful way to increase ownership is just to give the social stock to the sitting tenants. I would vote for that with perhaps a 80% LTV charge on death. Housing stock would jump straight to 83-84% ownership & Lifetime ownership levels would jump straight up towards 95-96%. Wouldn't that be fantastic.

Sapphire

Cloud cuckoo-land.

Too many vested interests profiteering from property for that to happen.