UK house prices

[chump]

Keeping you up to date...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/041015/344/f4mdm.html

Play with this a bit , so how many units ? , what price mix intended ? , built over what period of time ? If we know the planned concept do we just accept this , or do we add in the buggeration factor ? What context do we put this info into ? What will be it's effect on longrun supply and demand not only in the planned area, but nationally ? How do we prepare to trade it ?

 

[JTrader]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3703834.stm -

UK population expected to hit 60 million by end of 2005. Is then estimated to peak at 67 million in 2050 before starting to fall.

New Zealand - very similar size country to the UK - population = 4 million. Many peoples idea of paradise.

Labour want to build 500,000 new homes between London and Norfolk in order to help ease the housing crisis. Public sector workers cannot afford to leave in London and are being forced further outwards.

The new houses will also enable the economy to continue to grow and will provide places to live for people filling the new jobs that are bing created........

As long as the economy continues to grow - thats the main thing. Never mind the environment and the continued loss of countryside, woodland etc - who cares about that - lets just make Britain into one big City and suburban landscape..............Afterall, what could be more important than the economy?........is it just me, or do others think that this government has its priorities wrong at times?


jtrader.

 

[chump]

"lets just make Britain into one big City "..... there's an expression..somthing like "the horse has bolted".... have you ever flown over the UK at night ?.... this issue was settled long ago..settled (pun intended)

 

[JTrader]

"lets just make Britain into one big City "..... there's an expression..somthing like "the horse has bolted".... have you ever flown over the UK at night ?.... this issue was settled long ago..settled (pun intended)

Hi chump

no I have not flown over the UK at night. Have you? If so, I'm interested to hear your account of this experience?

Also, how was this issue (which issue?) sorted?

Many thanks

jtrader.

 

[chump]

JT,
The adavtantage that the experience of flying over the UK at night offers is the 'brids-eye' , top down look at what is going on at ground level .The focus of this is in the difference between the 'lit' areas and the unlit areas....to be frank you just have to see it to understand just how much of this country is already "settled" , that is populated....the density of population will amaze you if you have not seen it before.

Cheers

 

[eddiecomestotown]

sorry im a bit late picking up on some earlier points - but a few people have mentioned inflation and interest rates and noone I have noticed linked the two.

nominal interest rates (what ur bank charge you) count for nothing. What is really important is the real interest rate - which is the interest rate adjusted for inflation.

Think about this. u borrow 100k, at 7%. If inflation is 5% at the end of 1 year you would need to spend 105k to get the equivilent basket of goods and services. so the real cost to you is only the 2k u payed in interest.

What we have now is inflation at 2% ?? and interest rates at 5% - so roughly the real rate of inflation is about 3%. Historically that is not that low in my opinion. I dont have the figures but back in the days of 15% interest rates inflation was around 10%.

Always think in terms of real interest rates and their impact on the economy/housing market.

A final point. If someone is smart enough to know what is going to happen to the housing market over the next few years they wouldn't be posting on this board with us plebs - they would be incredibly rich and enjoying themselves elsewhere. Either that or they are guessing - and for guesses I can talk to my taxi driver.

 

[TheBramble]

JT,
The adavtantage that the experience of flying over the UK at night offers is the 'brids-eye' , top down look at what is going on at ground level .The focus of this is in the difference between the 'lit' areas and the unlit areas....to be frank you just have to see it to understand just how much of this country is already "settled" , that is populated....the density of population will amaze you if you have not seen it before.

Or this might just be a good example of perceptual bias.

All you're looking at is the lights - not people. If a plague decimated this country's population - there would still be as many lights down there...

 

[chump]

that's a very fair point... !

 

[chump]

Eddie,
For the type of calculation you are trying to make the inflation rate that is now generated by the govt stats office is meaningless and IMO has been for quite some time... it might still have value in making risk hypotheses though..

Cheers

 

[dax]

Chump,

Good to hear someone talk sense about inflation rates. Gov Stats are a total falsification. Inflation is storming ahead. Over the last 12 months -- council tax up 25%, oil up 60%, utilities up 7%, tube fares up 40%, parking fines up 100% in some cases, congestion charging etc., etc.. These are real costs -- not some BS CPI basket that the Gov cooks up and changes as it suits them.

And BTW, the Gov does not include housing costs in their CPI basket -- unbelievable, as this is the biggest cost for anyone. House price inflation -- astronomical over the last 5 yrs. Social security tax raised -- effectively adding 1% to income tax rates, Gordon B slipped that one through (ah, we technically didn't raise income tax -- but the effect is the same -- how's that for Gov Spin).

If you want some REAL personal inflation -- vote for the looney LIb Dems, 50% income tax for earnings over £100k.

Rant over

 

[JTrader]

Oroiginally posted by dax -
Gov Stats are a total falsification

Totally agree. They could tell us anything, and who are we/how can we question it?

 

[JTrader]

Originally Posted by chump
JT,
The adavtantage that the experience of flying over the UK at night offers is the 'brids-eye' , top down look at what is going on at ground level .The focus of this is in the difference between the 'lit' areas and the unlit areas....to be frank you just have to see it to understand just how much of this country is already "settled" , that is populated....the density of population will amaze you if you have not seen it before.

Thanks cump - for confirming what I expected to hear!............At night, I bet its a pretty spectacular site though!

jtrader

 

[frugi]

If you want some REAL personal inflation -- vote for the looney LIb Dems, 50% income tax for earnings over £100k.

I assume they mean 50% only on the portion of earnings over £100k, not 50% on the lot.

Ahh the poor wee high earners - how ever would they manage to service their fleet of 4x4s and acquire a satisfactory excess of stone lions and electric wrought iron gates under such a brutal tax regime?

The richest 20% of people pay 34% of their incomes in tax, compared to 42% for the poorest 20% of people. The progressive measure you deride would help remedy this situation without causing those earning over £100k (1% of income tax payers) any real discomfort.

I imagine many would consider such a system to be intrinsically unjust, especially traders, since theirs is one of the few businesses in existence that does not rely on any form of exploitation for its revenue. On a very simplistic level, taxing a trader more as her earnings increase is tantamount to taxing hard graft and ability, while taxing the CEO of McDonalds as his earnings increase is more a case of trying to give a little back to the exploited workers who effectively provided it. Grr nasty capitalist spocketing surplus value again. :cheesy:

Of course we are already blessed with a sort of progressive tax system; the Lib Dems merely seem to be addressing the unbalanced top end, whereby a 40k and a 400k earner both pay a maximum 40% rate. Perhaps they might consider raising the 40% threshold at the same time as introducing the 50% one. Hypothetical, as they won't ever be elected.

I fear a little red may be infiltrating my later youth, as I am in favour of the proposed tax, though not without reservations.

 

[chump]

Frugi,

"The richest 20% of people pay 34% of their incomes in tax, compared to 42% for the poorest 20% of people."..... I'll take your numbers at face value because I can't check them for accuracy....no matter ... consider this 34% of £500,000pa is a damn sight more than 42% of £15,000....... now consider a lot of the people earning the £500,000 can go anywhere in the world to make their living ... so at what % would you if you were one of them (and I just know you are ) say no thanks mate , I really don't wish to pay for the idle bas'''t'''ds who have wall to wall sky dishes festooned over houses they don't own and don't pay for (benefit system) .... building up a head of steam and warming to my subject do you know how many of those overpaid beggars actually contribute even more than the figure you quote ?..... how he says...because most of them pay twice for the centrally funded services they are taxed to provide.... what do you mean he says ? ...... I mean most of them pay for their childrens education and their families health care and as such even though they pay taxes for same they don't take from those services....... would you like to hear even more arguments ???? LOL ...

 

[Dave1971]

I assume they mean 50% only on the portion of earnings over £100k, not 50% on the lot.

Ahh the poor wee high earners - how ever would they manage to service their fleet of 4x4s and acquire a satisfactory excess of stone lions and electric wrought iron gates under such a brutal tax regime?

The richest 20% of people pay 34% of their incomes in tax, compared to 42% for the poorest 20% of people. The progressive measure you deride would help remedy this situation without causing those earning over £100k (1% of income tax payers) any real discomfort.

I imagine many would consider such a system to be intrinsically unjust, especially traders, since theirs is one of the few businesses in existence that does not rely on any form of exploitation for its revenue. On a very simplistic level, taxing a trader more as her earnings increase is tantamount to taxing hard graft and ability, while taxing the CEO of McDonalds as his earnings increase is more a case of trying to give a little back to the exploited workers who effectively provided it. Grr nasty capitalist spocketing surplus value again. :cheesy:

Of course we are already blessed with a sort of progressive tax system; the Lib Dems merely seem to be addressing the unbalanced top end, whereby a 40k and a 400k earner both pay a maximum 40% rate. Perhaps they might consider raising the 40% threshold at the same time as introducing the 50% one. Hypothetical, as they won't ever be elected.

I fear a little red may be infiltrating my later youth, as I am in favour of the proposed tax, though not without reservations.

Speaking from my personal perspective, I have worked hard in my chosen profession for over 15 years, and am now in a position where I have a reasonable income. As a PAYE employee I see Gordon Browns cut of my income rising year on year, in addition to all the indirect taxes.

To use the above analagy (ignoring tax codes and allowances for now) The £400K earner pays £160,000 p.a. for the provision of state services, and the £40K pays £16,000. Why should someone who already pays 10 times the tax of his neighbour then be required to pay a yet greater proportion of his income.

I appreciate that this probably goes against a well established taxation principle, but it irritates me. Just my opinion.......

Dave

 

[Dave1971]

Chump

Well said, that was my point, put in a far more direct manner :cheesy:

Dave

 

[frugi]

Exxcellent! Thought that might stir a few of you up

 

[dax]

Frugi,

Wrong thread for a political debate but we are a nation of "Mandarins and Malingerers". Great article from the Sunday Times. Keep working harder so you can pay for the MP's GUARANTEED retirement funds while the rest of us have to work until 70, and keep those 2 million (yes you read it correctly) people claiming disability, plus the million plus who are simply too lazy to work in the biggest boom of the last 100 yrs.

The average MP makes £57k/yr (peanuts I agree) but they claim over £150k in expenses (first class travel, 25K in housing allowance, kids as paid helpers, etc). And you want to trust these people with more money. No thanks.

Also, how far do you think you'll get on £100K these days -- a 2-bed shoebox in London costs £400k plus.

 

[chump]

i've just figure'd that one out... I'm being used as a distraction so you can let your profits run longer

 

[JTrader]

Although I can appreciate the argumet that just because a person earns more - doesn't mean they should pay a higher level of tax - I have little sympathy for (fat cat) high earners..........

Consider the Royal Mail (?) CE - Adam Crozier - ex FA top man. Along with fellow directors received a salary of £500k with a £300k annual bonus.....Now consider the hardworking postman, who is up at around 4am - 5 days a week in order to start work at 5am. Including bonuses Post men and women earnt £15K last year.

Other similar examples would include fat cats from more or less any other major company...........

Is such a state of affairs fair, or is it totally scandalous?

The gap between such high and low earners in terms of commitment, hours work, effort etc is minimal if not non-existant. For this reason I am all for taxing these high earners as much as possible.


Cheers

jtrader.