The election 2015

simmo said:
It is happening now, long after the 2008-09 crisis, as a result of the same crisis - as you well know. Our mutual acquaintance refers to it as "responsible banking" - I know, because I had to listen to their pish while I was taking my mortgage out. The context you used it in was as a rebuttal of the suggestion that there should be government intervention on banking activities. Which is hilarious.
Click to expand...

I used it in the context of whether market-correction or legislation was preferable, and made absolutely no suggestions beyond that. I gave the current scenario as an example of correction, and another reference to the localised property-bubble in South-East in the early-90s.....something you appear to be conveniently forgetting.

As for clive's continued refusal to accept that a mortgage payment reduces the amount of disposable income that a person has, regardless of whether or not you call it a cost or an outgoing, I'm beginning to suspect that he hasn't shed his thick northerner roots as much as he'd like to think. No one was talking about accountancy, or macro-economics - the discussion was about the micro-economics of managing a household budget. I have one eye on the future with regard to my mortgage (still deciding the best way to release equity from it before death mind you!), but that doesn't reduce the payments that I have to make from my disposable income right now.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you are having to shell for a mortgage, or you are having to shell for rent - you are having to shell regardless. Both net-off against each other, leaving ZERO impact on disposable income. Indeed, the renter may have LESS disposable income than the buyer, given renting is usually higher-cost than a mortgage for a similar-sized property (completely ignoring the fact that you have no asset accruing value either).

The only people realising an increase in their disposable-income through avoiding paying for property, are those living in puddles.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
zoopla is a website
Click to expand...

Clued up am I.

It's a start then, albeit with a name like that, it sounds commercial rather than a research body with a nice off the shelf survey

What we want to build the foundation for London and the South East (that's two separate areas, not London within the South East) is ....

Average (probably the median) full time wages for a young person (probably aged 22-29)
We can then apply the tax code, and NI contribution
Average rent for a band B property
Average council tax for a band B property minus 25% single persons discount

Then we have a foundation from which to apply other deductions which will be much harder to quantify (food, heating, utilities, travel etc) at the moment though, I can't even build the foundations without having to draw down data from conflicting sources because the ONS either aren't showing it, or I can't find it, if it is there
 
Grasshopper said:
I used it in the context of whether market-correction or legislation was preferable, and made absolutely no suggestions beyond that. I gave the current scenario as an example of correction, and another reference to the localised property-bubble in South-East in the early-90s.....something you appear to be conveniently forgetting.



It doesn't matter if you are having to shell for a mortgage, or you are having to shell for rent - you are having to shell regardless. Both net-off against each other, leaving ZERO impact on disposable income. Indeed, the renter may have LESS disposable income than the buyer, given renting is usually higher-cost than a mortgage for a similar-sized property (completely ignoring the fact that you have no asset accruing value either).

The only people realising an increase in their disposable-income through avoiding paying for property, are those living in puddles.
Click to expand...

they don't net off though when in 1971 your "payment" for house..was just 16% of your income..compared with 52%+ now..that was the whole point..in yours and Clive's haste to make me out to be a moron..you completely missed the point:)

its fookin obvious if you took out a mortgage in 1971..you will be wealtheir now..you own an asset..thats stating the bleedin obvious..but i was talking about someone of the same age in both eras and if today you would have more money left after paying dues and demands. Its clear that you wouldn't be better off now..just due to cost of buying a house. Cheaper food these days does not offset the 16% jump to 52% increase in costs
 
Last edited:
You really dont get it at all do you. Despite every attempt on this thread you simply cannot understand why people can pay a higher% of income and still buy four times as many new cars amd ten times number of foreign trips

no concept at all of what drives the market
 
The two most generally accepted biggeat indicators of discretionary spending along with eating out

and you wont want to see that stat
 
Grasshopper said:
Read this please, then tell me disposables income are lower now than in 1971. I hold this research to be more authoritative than your analysis, I'm afraid.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...incomes-have-risen-and-fallen-since-1948.html

The only person making you look like a moron is you, with your incessant "everyone is out to get me" paranoia.
Click to expand...

there is no paranoia..there is just you and Clive sticking to other world nonsense and anytime i post..you post to ridicule in return.....you just don't live in a real world..either of you

you don't need research..just try common sense
 
clivex said:
The two most generally accepted biggeat indicators of discretionary spending along with eating out

and you wont want to see that stat
Click to expand...

you constantly criticise the use of stats re racing..but spew em out like nobody's business on here..try imitating what real people actually take home each month..then match it with what they pay out

its both of you tories that are out of touch with reality..nothing new there obviously
 
clivex said:
You really dont get it at all do you. Despite every attempt on this thread you simply cannot understand why people can pay a higher% of income and still buy four times as many new cars amd ten times number of foreign trips

no concept at all of what drives the market
Click to expand...

no..you don't get it Clive,,you never will..because you don't want to.
 
Grasshopper said:
Read this please, then tell me disposables income are lower now than in 1971. I hold this research to be more authoritative than your analysis, I'm afraid.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...incomes-have-risen-and-fallen-since-1948.html

The only person making you look like a moron is you, with your incessant "everyone is out to get me" paranoia.
Click to expand...

this is household incomes...not an individual's incomes..you aren't comparing like with like..household income could be at least twice..maybe more what it was in 1971..they will probably have a 33 year old making it 3..coz he can't afford a house

lets keep it equal in comparison..those figures are a total irrelevance to what we are talking about

its bloody obvious if 3 or more folk are now working in one house..then the household income is higher
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Read this please, then tell me disposables income are lower now than in 1971. I hold this research to be more authoritative than your analysis, I'm afraid.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...incomes-have-risen-and-fallen-since-1948.html
Click to expand...

I think it's mildly amusing to read the comments section that follow the graph as various readers start to pick apart the methodology and others start invoking personal stories by way of substantive evidence.

The whole argument looks very familiar (albeit they managed it in about 25 posts)
 
EC1 said:
there is no paranoia..there is just you and Clive sticking to other world nonsense and anytime i post..you post to ridicule in return.....you just don't live in a real world..either of you

you don't need research..just try common sense
Click to expand...

This is drivel.

You're problem, as it's always been, is that you see any opposing view as trying to take the slash, when - in fact - all it is is an opposing view. It happens all the time, and it gets very tiring having to listen to it.
 
Warbler said:
I think it's mildly amusing to read the comments section that follow the graph as various readers start to pick apart the methodology and others start invoking personal stories by way of substantive evidence.

The whole argument looks very familiar (albeit they managed it in about 25 posts)
Click to expand...

Personal stories are just that; sleighted to reflect that single individual's experience. You cannot derive the balance of an entire economy, by asking a dozen people if they had enough money for a good night-out the previous Saturday.

Try qualitative and quantitative evidence next time - it will tell you more.
 
Grasshopper said:
This is drivel.

You're problem, as it's always been, is that you see any opposing view as trying to take the slash, when - in fact - all it is is an opposing view. It happens all the time, and it gets very tiring having to listen to it.
Click to expand...

no..you not getting away with that..i've taken comments from you and Clive that are ridicule..unfair ridicule..what was it you said?..oooh i'd stick to 5f handicaps at Beverley...thats not an opposing view..its patronising bollox

that link you posted is a nonsense re this discussion

why not start posting something relevant to the discussion..and cut the personal run downs
 
Grasshopper said:
Personal stories are just that; sleighted to reflect that single individual's experience. You cannot derive the balance of an entire economy, by asking a dozen people if they had enough money for a good night-out the previous Saturday.

Try qualitative and quantitative evidence next time - it will tell you more.
Click to expand...

thats quality..you post an irrelevant link as a reply and then tell Warbler to put meat on it..you having a laugh?
 
EC1 said:
this is household incomes...not an individual's incomes..you aren't comparing like with like..household income could be at least twice..maybe more what it was in 1971..they will probably have a 33 year old making it 3..coz he can't afford a house

lets keep it equal in comparison..those figures are a total irrelevance to what we are talking about

its bloody obvious if 3 or more folk are now working in one house..then the household income is higher
Click to expand...

Bo*llocks.

"Household" merely reflects that there may be more than one "individual" income coming in. All it does is reflect the combined income. It's not as if the husband is going to swan-off for a week in St Tropez too spend his millions, whilst the wife continues to use the outside cludgie in her flea-pit, and struggles to get the bingo-money together.

There is no material difference between the two terms. The figure for a one income "household" will be that "individual's" income figure.

FFS.
 
EC1 said:
thats quality..you post an irrelevant link as a reply and then tell Warbler to put meat on it..you having a laugh?
Click to expand...

The only "irrelevant" thing about it is that you haven't yet read my last post, and eventually sussed that it is.
 
Grasshopper said:
Bo*llocks.

"Household" merely reflects that there may be more than one "individual" income coming in. All it does is reflect the combined income. It's not as if the husband is going to swan-off for a week in St Tropez too spend his millions, whilst the wife continues to use the outside cludgie in her flea-pit, and struggles to get the bingo-money together.

There is no material difference between the two terms. The figure for a one income "household" will be that "individual's" income figure.

FFS.
Click to expand...

not buying it..household is not a constant..if more people live in a house now and they all work then the disposable income is higher than when one person worked in one house years ago. Many houses now have 5 cars outside..to reflect the number of adults that live there..lots of income..going into one home..but only one mortage payment for 5 people..thats not a level comparison with the past is it?

the only way to do it fairly..is to look at an individual and his circumstances

come on Grass...there is a lot of variables at play with these stats..whereas calculating average man gives a clearer picture..of reality



i
 
Moving on.

Re Art's suggestion of a cap on house-prices, who exactly would this benefit?

Anyone wanting to buy a house........but not anyone needing to sell one to fund a deposit. So, let's say first-time buyers would be the beneficiaries.

So who would be penalised?

Anyone with an existing mortgage
Anyone wanting to sell a house (e.g. to fund a retirement)
The building trade (construction, trades and peripheral industries such as real-estate and law)
Tax revenues (which will self-evidently reduce if these industries have a down-turn)
Welfare State (greater burden if there are redundancies in the above industries)

Isn't the idea lunacy regardless?
 
Grasshopper said:
I used it in the context of whether market-correction or legislation was preferable, and made absolutely no suggestions beyond that. I gave the current scenario as an example of correction, and another reference to the localised property-bubble in South-East in the early-90s.....something you appear to be conveniently forgetting.



It doesn't matter if you are having to shell for a mortgage, or you are having to shell for rent - you are having to shell regardless. Both net-off against each other, leaving ZERO impact on disposable income. Indeed, the renter may have LESS disposable income than the buyer, given renting is usually higher-cost than a mortgage for a similar-sized property (completely ignoring the fact that you have no asset accruing value either).

The only people realising an increase in their disposable-income through avoiding paying for property, are those living in puddles.
Click to expand...

So which is it then - is legislation or market correction (which can take the form of a global recession lasting years) a preferrable option ?

As for the rent/mortgage debtate - you're quite right, everyone has to pay something. But the original point was that the average cost of a house has increased by a factor of 42 since 1970 in comparison to a rise in wages of a factor of 12 (which the right were trying to tell us was irrelevant because people who own their own properties generally make more money). Whilst house prices themselves are not the correct indicator (rent/mortgage prices is), it's probably a reasonable refelection.

Therefore we can conclude, quite accurately, that the amount of money that people have to pay out to provide a roof over their heads (regardless of mortgage or rent status) has increased at a level far beyond that of wages.

Which was the original point that the right wingers are trying to deny existed. Which is the type of idiocy which led the right wingers to crash the world's economy in 2008-09, from which Britain is still recovering.

And you want to give them free rein to do what they want because the market will correct itself????? Unbelievable Jeff! :D
 
Last edited:
Of course its stupidity because you would have the lunatic situation of people willing to pay more than fixed price ans not being able to do so. So naturally every one would demand incentives I would

its the daftest suggestion ive heard
 
EC1 said:
not buying it..household is not a constant..if more people live in a house now and they all work then the disposable income is higher than when one person worked in one house years ago. Many houses now have 5 cars outside..to reflect the number of adults that live there..lots of income..going into one home..but only one mortage payment for 5 people..thats not a level comparison with the past is it?

the only way to do it fairly..is to look at an individual and his circumstances

come on Grass...there is a lot of variables at play with these stats..whereas calculating average man gives a clearer picture..of reality



i
Click to expand...

So basically your saying that "2015 Man" has more disposable income, because of the 1 x Mortgage/5 x Income equation, and in 1971, when there was generally, the 1 x Mortgage/1 x Income argument applied, leaving 1971 Man with less disposable income?

Wasn't it your argument that "1971 Man" was better off than "2015 Man"?
 
simmo said:
So which is it then - is legislation or market correction (which can take the form of a global recession lasting years) a preferrable option ?

As for the rent/mortgage debtate - you're quite right, everyone has to pay something. But the original point was that the average cost of a house has increased by a factor of 42 since 1970 in comparison to a rise in wages of a factor of 12 (which the right were trying to tell us was irrelevant because people who own their own properties generally make more money). Whilst house prices themselves are not the correct indicator (rent/mortgage prices is), it's probably a reasonable refelection.

Therefore we can conclude, quite accurately, that the amount of money that people have to pay out to provide a roof over their heads (regardless of mortgage or rent status) has increased at a level far beyond that of wages.

Which was the original point that the right wingers are trying to deny existed. Which is the type of idiocy which led the right wingers to crash the world's economy in 2008-09, from which Britain is still recovering.

And you want to give them free rein to do what they want because the market will correct itself????? Unbelievable Jeff! :D
Click to expand...

I have at least tried to take a view of the practical effect of legislating. I find it's more useful to do that, than pretend I'm the coolest kid in the 6th-form debating society, where substance doesn't count - it's all about the style.

You're a breath of hot-air, simmo ;) :D
 
Grasshopper said:
Try qualitative and quantitative evidence next time - it will tell you more.
Click to expand...

Yeah like I'm about to go and conduct a series of questionnaire interviews off my own back and convene a series of regional focus groups :lol:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top