can anybody please help me out?

[sony mavica]

there is a really really nice deal on a laptop only till 12pm tomorrow its 320nzd original price 700nzd but im short $58nzd

i wanted to know if anybody would do a trade

i will send you $80nzd skrill payment for a $58nzd paypal payment

can anybody help me out?

[Simon]

Err what the ? are you for real? if you were a sub 50 posts user you would be banned already. Looks as dodgy as hell.

[sony mavica]

Err what the ? are you for real? if you were a sub 50 posts user you would be banned already. Looks as dodgy as hell.

i found 2 sites to do it on but are they scams?
https://www.bestchange.com/skrill-to-paypal-usd.html

[sokoloff]

That's about $40 US. You don't know anyone local to you who can spot you $40 or do this exchange for skrill bucks or whatever?

That sounds fishy and I'd be surprised if you're going to get any total stranger (someone you've had no dealings with before and no vouch) to do it. The internet is fantastic; it's probably not your best solution here.

[M4trix]

I must admit that this is the first time I have heard about the 'skrill dollar' term and what is its purpose. 

* M4trix embarrassed

[Mr. Scram]

This may very well be the least descriptive thread title I've seen on here.

[Ian.M]

... and its *DUMB* with a capital 'D'.   If one's finances are so tight that you cant find the equivalent of five  burger meals extra from your wallet or bank account, the last thing you need to do is blow $320 on a laptop when you already have access to a computer.  The *only* way it would make any sense would be if you know you can immediately flip it for over $500 and plan to do so.

[sony mavica]

... and its *DUMB* with a capital 'D'.   If one's finances are so tight that you cant find the equivalent of five  burger meals extra from your wallet or bank account, the last thing you need to do is blow $320 on a laptop when you already have access to a computer.  The *only* way it would make any sense would be if you know you can immediately flip it for over $500 and plan to do so.

its too late now deal for the laptop finished i did have $100 on me but no way to get it on paypal i have found sites online to convert skrill payment to paypal payment but scared they might be a scam 

[IanB]

its too late now deal for the laptop finished i did have $100 on me but no way to get it on paypal i have found sites online to convert skrill payment to paypal payment but scared they might be a scam

Seems like you were lucky then. It is rarely if ever a good idea to spend your last dollar on a rushed purchase. You will just end up poor and unhappy. Be grateful you didn't do a foolish thing.

[Halcyon]

Seems like you were lucky then. It is rarely if ever a good idea to spend your last dollar on a rushed purchase. You will just end up poor and unhappy. Be grateful you didn't do a foolish thing.

Good advice. Even if something was the best deal in the world, if you can't afford it, it's a bad deal! Budget for next time, sales like this come along all the time.

[Ian.M]

+1
There'lll be other deals along shortly, probably in the January sales, so you have time to work out your budget so you have convertible funds available up to your self-imposed spending limit.   A few searches didn't show up any legitimate method of converting directly between PayPal and Skrill or visa-versa - they are competitors and don't cooperate - so you would be relying on the reputation of a 3rd party ecurrency exchange.  IMHO you dodged a bullet there.  Do your research before using any exchange service, or better yet, if you cant use the finds directly for planned purchases, convert in plenty of time ahead via your own bank account.

[retiredcaps]

I rarely, if ever, comment on off topic forum posts, but according to a 2016 survey, nearly half of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque.

http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/retirement/nearly-half-of-canadians-living-paycheque-to-paycheque-and-that-has-big-consequences-for-retirement-security

"Far from being confident about a comfortable retirement, 48 per cent of the 5,600 working Canadians surveyed by the Canadian Payroll Association say it would be hard to make ends meet if their paycheque were delayed even a single week, according to the Canadian Payroll Association (CPA)’s eighth annual Research Survey of Employed Canadians, which is being released Wednesday.

Almost one in four (24%) don’t think they could come up with $2,000 if an emergency arose in the next month."

In addition, Lottery win is retirement plan for 34% of poll respondents (2014).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/lottery-win-is-retirement-plan-for-34-of-poll-respondents-1.2517046

People just buy too much stuff that they don't need or live beyond their means.  Reckoning day will come for 50% of Canadians someday.

PS. This will be my only comment in this post and won't be following anymore of it.

[BradC]

Ignoring completely the original post and relevant moralizing

I rarely, if ever, comment on off topic forum posts, but according to a 2016 survey, nearly half of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque.

That's a pretty scary statistic, but I know a lot of people here that are in a similar boat and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a first world phenomenon. Banks continually offering increased credit limits and hooking up with retailers to offer insane interest free periods.

The scourge here at the moment are "payday lenders". Small and relatively instant loans with massive interest rates. They get the first bite at your paycheque for the repayment leaving you short for the month, so you rack up another little loan to tide you over, and on it goes until bad things happen. Then again, look at how many people struggle with their utility bills (which are admittedly skyrocketing) but still have the latest iPhone and activewear.

[Simon]

People these days can't manage money, in the UK the smaller the house the huger the TV and then they complaint about the cost of living. But there is also a wage crisis here in the UK. I think more than half are living from payday to payday, I don't exactly have much in reserve myself....

[Halcyon]

Same in Australia (especially in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane). SO many people are living week-to-week (or whatever their pay cycle is). If they are among the fortunate minority who are paying off their own house, many are under mortgage stress paying off over-capitalised homes, in "fancy" new designer suburbs which will become slums 20 years down the track (or at the very least, worth no where near as much as what they initially paid).

Our mortgage interest rates are ridiculously low at the moment, if you're paying over 4% per annum, you're paying too much (I just refinanced my mortgage at 3.64% pa.). If I really spent the time and effort to shop around and negotiate, I could probably get it under 3.60%.

Mortgages aside, the best thing I ever did was save until I could afford to live at least "one month in advance". So whatever money I earn this month, go towards next month's bills and expenses. As for the stuff that falls due this month, there is already money sitting in my bank account, so I just pay them when they roll in.

The attached document will give you a good idea on how to manage a budget (if you don't know already) and yes, full disclosure: I'm a user of YNAB (and have been for years). The best $30 I've ever spent was a licence for that bit of software and it's kept my budget on-track and saving money ever since.

[Simon]

Well fortunately I bought my house during the price crash and fixed myself for 5 years @ 1.94%, my payments are £213 per month and going down as I overpay by as much as £150 a month as i see bad times ahead.

[Halcyon]

Well fortunately I bought my house during the price crash and fixed myself for 5 years @ 1.94%, my payments are £213 per month and going down as I overpay by as much as £150 a month as i see bad times ahead.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!

[Brumby]

Well fortunately I bought my house during the price crash and fixed myself for 5 years @ 1.94%, my payments are £213 per month and going down as I overpay by as much as £150 a month as i see bad times ahead.

Champion!

[tggzzz]

I overpay by as much as £150 a month as i see bad times ahead.

Overpayment is very wise in the long term, if you can afford the short-term hit. It is always an interesting decision as to how much cash you should keep on hand.

There can be some "funnies" w.r.t. overpayment of conventional repayment mortgages. The core point is that the money might be going into a hole (i.e. reducing neither the repayments nor the term), and only pops out again once a year. If that is the case then it might be preferable to find out when it "pops out", and only put the overpayment in just before that happens.

[Halcyon]

Overpayment is very wise in the long term, if you can afford the short-term hit. It is always an interesting decision as to how much cash you should keep on hand.

Overpayment is wise on any debt that accrues interest or fees (think credit cards) but you won't be penalised by paying it off early. Every dollar helps, even if it's an extra $50 a month. The key is not to draw down on that loan, just cut up the credit card unless you're disciplined enough to use it "properly".

[forrestc]

Overpayment is wise on any debt that accrues interest or fees (think credit cards) but you won't be penalised by paying it off early. Every dollar helps, even if it's an extra $50 a month. The key is not to draw down on that loan, just cut up the credit card unless you're disciplined enough to use it "properly".

The following is for people who have the discipline to manage money correctly:

Unless you can stick the money in a bank which makes more interest than the loan is costing you.    If my mortgage was 1.95% I wouldn't be paying off it anytime soon, at least while the economy was good.   Especially since in the US mortgage interest is deductable for most people, so the effective cost of money is even less.   I'm sure I could find somewhere to stick some money which would earn more than 1.95%.   But that's in the US which currently has a growing economy again.

Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who just refinanced from a 30 year mortgage into a 15 year one with a lower interest rate, only increasing my payment by 10% or so.    So I am also very mindful of how paying things earlier makes a big difference on long term loans.

[Mr. Scram]

Well fortunately I bought my house during the price crash and fixed myself for 5 years @ 1.94%, my payments are £213 per month and going down as I overpay by as much as £150 a month as i see bad times ahead.

I know a few people wanted to buy badly during the price crash, but couldn't due to banks only loaning money to those who didn't really need it in the first place. I've seen otherwise healthy companies nearly go bankrupt because of this practice.

[Simon]

Overpayment is wise on any debt that accrues interest or fees (think credit cards) but you won't be penalised by paying it off early. Every dollar helps, even if it's an extra $50 a month. The key is not to draw down on that loan, just cut up the credit card unless you're disciplined enough to use it "properly".

The following is for people who have the discipline to manage money correctly:

Unless you can stick the money in a bank which makes more interest than the loan is costing you.    If my mortgage was 1.95% I wouldn't be paying off it anytime soon, at least while the economy was good.   Especially since in the US mortgage interest is deductable for most people, so the effective cost of money is even less.   I'm sure I could find somewhere to stick some money which would earn more than 1.95%.   But that's in the US which currently has a growing economy again.

Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who just refinanced from a 30 year mortgage into a 15 year one with a lower interest rate, only increasing my payment by 10% or so.    So I am also very mindful of how paying things earlier makes a big difference on long term loans.

that is what I have advocated for a while but one has to be disciplined and i never know what may happen in the future, already my house is again worth more than I could afford if I bought it now. I do do an amount of P2P lending but I think there is a psychological factor in reducing the debt too.

[Simon]

Well fortunately I bought my house during the price crash and fixed myself for 5 years @ 1.94%, my payments are £213 per month and going down as I overpay by as much as £150 a month as i see bad times ahead.

I know a few people wanted to buy badly during the price crash, but couldn't due to banks only loaning money to those who didn't really need it in the first place. I've seen otherwise healthy companies nearly go bankrupt because of this practice.

In fact i got this house for less than the asking price, 5K less to be precise and they had a number of people before me come with the intention of buying but then not able to get the mortgage. I used the house as an example with my bank and was able to assure them that I already had approval and that if they wanted a no hassle sale from a first time buyer not stuck in a chain I was ready. Unfortunately I did not realize that this is the area they put the low level criminals in. It's not too bad but not my first choice of area but I've got no hope at all of moving, a house I bought for £87'500 with a 30K help from family maxing out my then allowance of 4x loan to pay ratio is now worth £120'000 - £130'000 judging by similar houses, so even if I wanted to move to a comparable area on 25K a year I'm pretty screwed, once upon a time a house cost 3 times your annual salary (granted interest was higher), now it's just insane and those on "0 hour" contracts have no hope in hell of a mortgage, so with prices that high they are forced into renting at exorbitant prices, I could rent this place for 3 times my mortgage payments, which is something at the back of my mind and why i want it to e mine asap. If i can make it mine i can use it as collateral for another house and to pay the mortgage on that house..... as an ongoing debt it's no good to me.

[basinstreetdesign]

Well fortunately I bought my house during the price crash and fixed myself for 5 years @ 1.94%, my payments are £213 per month and going down as I overpay by as much as £150 a month as i see bad times ahead.

 
Yeah, overpay whenever you can manage it!  Its money in the bank and more so.

When we bought our house (very modest semi) we paid the mortgage bi-weekly instead of monthly.  This means that each year an entire months payment went directly to the principle, not the interest.  It immediately shortened our amortization to 16 years from 25.  Then balloon payments whenever we could shortened it again to 11 1/2 years.  So our house was paid off and we were mortgage-free in less than 1/2 the normal time and meant we could save some real money for a change.  Best decision we ever made.

[Simon]

Well today we find out if the base rate goes up, hope it does, savings worth more, mortgage locked anyway for nearly 5 years and i expect that once interested goes up house prices will have to come down as no one will be able to afford the mortgage and there will be a market crisis again. If interests are up and values come down it means once you secure the property as soon as you start to overpay you see huge benefits from that and the dip in prices will make life easier all round.

[tggzzz]

Brexit is going to bu**er us all, but the one positive might be falling house prices. Or will that just mean that overseas buyers regard it as a cheaper investment?

Time will tell.

[Mr. Scram]

Brexit is going to bu**er us all, but the one positive might be falling house prices. Or will that just mean that overseas buyers regard it as a cheaper investment?

Time will tell.

Falling house prices isn't a good thing. It means the wealth of a country as a whole shrinks, and negative equity isn't really great for people either. A lot of value is locked up in privately owned real estate. It's typically the lion's share of the total wealth in and value of a developed country.

[Simon]

Brexit is going to bu**er us all, but the one positive might be falling house prices. Or will that just mean that overseas buyers regard it as a cheaper investment?

Time will tell.

Falling house prices isn't a good thing. It means the wealth of a country as a whole shrinks, and negative equity isn't really great for people either. A lot of value is locked up in privately owned real estate. It's typically the lion's share of the total wealth in and value of a developed country.

It's unfortunate house prices ever got so high at all. Yes people have to buy a house (or rent one at even higher prices)  but we will hit a point where no one can afford a house because wages don't keep up, if inflation really was inflation it would be OK but costs of everything go up and it's official statistics that we are effectively paid less than in the past before you take into account the cost of buying a house. That is why i am lucky i bought at a low point as it won't affect me. Sadly people need to live somewhere and will find themselves buggered but this is why we should not have these bubbles in the first place. We either raise wages or lower house prices and we know which one employers would prefer.....

The danger in the UK is that owning a home is becoming harder, buying one to rent to others very hard and soon only a certain sector of society will be able to afford to buy and rent out houses, we will basically take ourselves back in history to the victorian era if not before where huge land owners control housing and land. Banks "print" and control the supply of money by making loans. While it is illegal to print notes it is not illegal to type numbers into a computer. Some people have run out of things to invest in at which point things like mortgages get packaged up and sold as investments and when they run out of those they have to find more people to lend to and then one not very fine day the whole system collapses because the poor lenders can't keep up anymore having been peerpresured into borrowing to have a lifestyle they can't afford. If money is so cheap to "borrow" (buy) then it can also fuel things the wrong way.

[sokoloff]

Falling house prices isn't a good thing. It means the wealth of a country as a whole shrinks, and negative equity isn't really great for people either. A lot of value is locked up in privately owned real estate. It's typically the lion's share of the total wealth in and value of a developed country.

It's unfortunate house prices ever got so high at all. Yes people have to buy a house (or rent one at even higher prices)  but we will hit a point where no one can afford a house because wages don't keep up

Isn't that like saying, "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded"?

House prices are not set by a house pricing committee; they're set by willing buyers and willing sellers. If house prices were to (temporarily) get to the point where there were no willing buyers, they'd fall back to the price where a willing buyer emerged.

[Simon]

yes but people have to buy houses, here in the UK demand is high or so I am told, house builders are in no hurry to build and many small builders have been wiped out. So the only the big ones are left. These buy land up and then may build houses years later as they don't want to sell when prices are low. Like i said there is a possibility of large entities being able to manipulate the market. No a committee does not set prices but it's not all individual buyers and sellers. For example I got my house chap because at the time selling a house was hard and i was one o the few around that had the deposit and credit score and permanent job to buy. People are also priced out of desirable areas.

[tggzzz]

Brexit is going to bu**er us all, but the one positive might be falling house prices. Or will that just mean that overseas buyers regard it as a cheaper investment?

Time will tell.

Falling house prices isn't a good thing. It means the wealth of a country as a whole shrinks, and negative equity isn't really great for people either. A lot of value is locked up in privately owned real estate. It's typically the lion's share of the total wealth in and value of a developed country.

Negative equity is indeed a serious problem for the individuals. In an earlier property crash the nearby new-build estate of Bradley Stoke became known as Sadly Broke.

But that isn't the same as the "wealth" of a country.

Property prices are "paper money" that is unavailable until you downsize towards the end of your life. Too high property prices mean that the cash cannot be invested in something that will pay dividends down the line. Remember one of the consequences of "tulip mania": the Dutch were less able to compete with the UK in expanding trade with the far east - and that allowed the British to gain many parts of their empire.

[Simon]

Indeed, with booms busts and general market manipulation. That is why i am more interested in renting my house out when I'm ready to move on than sell it.

[Mr. Scram]

Negative equity is indeed a serious problem for the individuals. In an earlier property crash the nearby new-build estate of Bradley Stoke became known as Sadly Broke.

But that isn't the same as the "wealth" of a country.

Property prices are "paper money" that is unavailable until you downsize towards the end of your life. Too high property prices mean that the cash cannot be invested in something that will pay dividends down the line. Remember one of the consequences of "tulip mania": the Dutch were less able to compete with the UK in expanding trade with the far east - and that allowed the British to gain many parts of their empire.

It's not quite the same, but has the same effect. Countries simply cannot afford to reduce house prices in relevant ways. If debt isn't covered by some form of collateral, things start going awry. Unless you reduce the value over longer periods than a typical mortgage will run, of course, but that's unlikely to consistently happen. It's easy money for a government. If the collateral deficiency becomes too large, a country's credit rating will go down, with interest going up and causing a negative spiral. Even if the money isn't even actually spent, a nation will go bankrupt if house prices are affected too much. Conversely, having more housing and higher house prices is a great way of increasing value without actually needing to do a lot of actual work.

That it's money you cannot spend until you cash out isn't entirely true either. Looking at the trend over the past 100 years or more, house prices in most developed nations have only gone up, with one exception spanning only a few years. As soon as your house has surplus value, it's possible to convert the difference into cash without actually selling your home. You just have to make sure the value of your house doesn't drop, as your leeway will be gone.

Finally, rather than ever growing housing prices stifling growth, they actually seem to foster it. Most house owners in developed nations earn more by rising property values than they could ever earn with any kind of job, financial wizards in the City excluded. The longer you wait buying in, the further you will fall behind. Obviously, that's not something that can continue forever, but for now it's pretty much impossible to ignore.

[Simon]

not really, if prices increase and you cant afford them how does that benefit you? my house has increased in value by 50%, how does it help me. I can sell it and buy a comparable house in just as bad an area of town for the same money...... no change, what was a 57500 mortgage will now be a 100'000 pound mortgage on my same wages, how have i gained? sure i could sell and get enough to pay off my family debt and have a 30000 deposit again, but if I have to take once again a mortgage of 4x my currant wages now at 100'000 how am i better off, to move to a like for like house I'm in nearly twice the debt and certainly no less debt to buy another bottom grade house. if i had year on year pay rises i could just move t a nicer area...,

[Mr. Scram]

not really, if prices increase and you cant afford them how does that benefit you? my house has increased in value by 50%, how does it help me. I can sell it and buy a comparable house in just as bad an area of town for the same money...... no change, what was a 57500 mortgage will now be a 100'000 pound mortgage on my same wages, how have i gained? sure i could sell and get enough to pay off my family debt and have a 30000 deposit again, but if I have to take once again a mortgage of 4x my currant wages now at 100'000 how am i better off, to move to a like for like house I'm in nearly twice the debt and certainly no less debt to buy another bottom grade house. if i had year on year pay rises i could just move t a nicer area...,

I'm not sure what you mean, but I think I answered this question in my previous post. If you do sell, you end up with 50% more money than you started out with. Not exactly, as the bank will take its cut, but you've gained money. You started with X and ended up with X + Y. Compared to someone who rents or is just entering the market, for instance, you've gained wealth. If you start renting now, you'd still be ahead.

However, that's not quite the most common scenario, as it's a somewhat simplistic all or nothing. You can use surplus value in many other ways. Banks love doing business with people who already have money or value and as we know, value generates value.

[Hypernova]

not really, if prices increase and you cant afford them how does that benefit you? my house has increased in value by 50%, how does it help me. I can sell it and buy a comparable house in just as bad an area of town for the same money...... no change, what was a 57500 mortgage will now be a 100'000 pound mortgage on my same wages, how have i gained? sure i could sell and get enough to pay off my family debt and have a 30000 deposit again, but if I have to take once again a mortgage of 4x my currant wages now at 100'000 how am i better off, to move to a like for like house I'm in nearly twice the debt and certainly no less debt to buy another bottom grade house. if i had year on year pay rises i could just move t a nicer area...,

I'm not sure what you mean, but I think I answered this question in my previous post. If you do sell, you end up with 50% more money than you started out with. Not exactly, as the bank will take its cut, but you've gained money. You started with X and ended up with X + Y. Compared to someone who rents or is just entering the market, for instance, you've gained wealth. If you start renting now, you'd still be ahead.

However, that's not quite the most common scenario, as it's a somewhat simplistic all or nothing. You can use surplus value in many other ways. Banks love doing business with people who already have money or value and as we know, value generates value.

And now as a renter you lose the security of still having a house if some financial disaster happens like losing your job or the landlord decides to kick you out to use the house for something else. You need to consider the constraint that people would want to stay as house owners once they become one.

[Mr. Scram]

And now as a renter you lose the security of still having a house if some financial disaster happens like losing your job or the landlord decides to kick you out to use the house for something else. You need to consider the constraint that people would want to stay as house owners once they become one.

If you don't fully own your house, you will lose your home if you lose your job whether you've bought it or are renting it. Non-payment will not please the banking overlords. It depends on the local laws a lot whether a landlord can easily kick someone out. In some places it's stupidly simple, in others neigh on impossible. What's more secure heavily depends on the specific local circumstances.

[Simon]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I think I answered this question in my previous post. If you do sell, you end up with 50% more money than you started out with. Not exactly, as the bank will take its cut, but you've gained money. You started with X and ended up with X + Y. Compared to someone who rents or is just entering the market, for instance, you've gained wealth. If you start renting now, you'd still be ahead.

Not really, I gave you the figures for my own situation as an example. I was lucky and able to buy when prices hit rock bottom, now that prices are up again yes i will get more for my house. But my house is not an investment pot, it is my home, if i sell it i need to buy another one and that will now cost me proportionally more so I'd end up in the same amount of debt relative to my annual income as when I bout the current house considering my wages have actually risen by 70%! So my mortgage will be 70% higher, some gain? not really. I currently owe £44'200 for the house alone and a further £10'000 on further advances to tie me over at times and buy a car, so I am currently 54'200 in debt, if I were to move to a home of similar standard which no one in their right mind would i would have to put myself at least £70'000 in debt. Lets remember when the the price crash came I could only afford a 57'500 mortgage, still not enough, family stumped up £30'000 to make up the shortfall. I could have gone to another lender and got £71'875 but that would have just been harder to pay off. Today having paid off only £13'000 and having had to take on £10'000 of debt I've actually only paid off £3000 in 7 years!!!!!

If prices had stayed as low as when I first bought I could sell up and move on to another house that is nicer because that nicer house would now again be just within my budget and I'd struggle but it would be worth it to move to a nicer area. People can only buy what their wages can afford, if prices go up it hurts. The only people it helps is those selling up and not buying or wanting to buy a much less value home.

[Mr. Scram]

Not really, I gave you the figures for my own situation as an example. I was lucky and able to buy when prices hit rock bottom, now that prices are up again yes i will get more for my house. But my house is not an investment pot, it is my home, if i sell it i need to buy another one and that will now cost me proportionally more so I'd end up in the same amount of debt relative to my annual income as when I bout the current house considering my wages have actually risen by 70%! So my mortgage will be 70% higher, some gain? not really. I currently owe £44'200 for the house alone and a further £10'000 on further advances to tie me over at times and buy a car, so I am currently 54'200 in debt, if I were to move to a home of similar standard which no one in their right mind would i would have to put myself at least £70'000 in debt. Lets remember when the the price crash came I could only afford a 57'500 mortgage, still not enough, family stumped up £30'000 to make up the shortfall. I could have gone to another lender and got £71'875 but that would have just been harder to pay off. Today having paid off only £13'000 and having had to take on £10'000 of debt I've actually only paid off £3000 in 7 years!!!!!

If prices had stayed as low as when I first bought I could sell up and move on to another house that is nicer because that nicer house would now again be just within my budget and I'd struggle but it would be worth it to move to a nicer area. People can only buy what their wages can afford, if prices go up it hurts. The only people it helps is those selling up and not buying or wanting to buy a much less value home.

Again, there are various ways of utilizing the surplus value of a home, so it's not just a bonus if you sell and don't buy again Not everyone will want to do that, but it's certainly a nice option to have. Of course, people who didn't buy in the first place will be left behind too, as the price of entry gets higher and higher.

[tggzzz]

Again, there are various ways of utilizing the surplus value of a home, so it's not just a bonus if you sell and don't buy again Not everyone will want to do that, but it's certainly a nice option to have. Of course, people who didn't buy in the first place will be left behind too, as the price of entry gets higher and higher.

There are indeed several different forms of "equity release".

If you read the financial press aimed at consumers, many come with big warning labels because they are regarded as very poor value. Classic examples are those aimed at the retired who want to increase their retirement income without moving house. "Equity release doesn’t come cheap. A lifetime mortgage can cost more than three times what you borrow after 20 years, while some home reversion schemes demand more than 70% of your home’s value for just a 20% advance."
https://www.which.co.uk/money/pensions-and-retirement/youre-retired-working-on-benefits-equity-release/guides/equity-release/what-is-equity-release

[Simon]

I can't see how you can use the surplus value of a home unless you either sell it for the profit difference or use it as collateral to borrow money to invest but this is a risky business as you don't know what will happen to rates on both sides of that arrangement. Indeed some of that extra 10K I have borrowed is invested but the actual amount it will make me is minimal (currently 7% before tax while i pay 2% in mortgage interest that will go up later) and perhaps i just prefer to be mortgage free. As I said before being mortgage free means I can indeed maximize the value of my home, Currently I own a mere £33'000 worth of it most of which is my families money, the rest 54'200 is owned by the bank. now if i owned it outright I could be making £600 a month from it which would go a long way to paying off a mortgage on a second home....

[tggzzz]

Ha! See my edit; you replied faster than I could insert it

[Simon]

Basically nothing comes free and anyone telling you otherwise is lying. Yes you can hit lucky like my dad didn't when he sold his house a week before the value of houses went up 4x! overnight without warning but this is luck only and not something you can "bank" on.

[Simon]

https://www.which.co.uk/money/pensions-and-retirement/youre-retired-working-on-benefits-equity-release/guides/equity-release/what-is-equity-release

you link basically says buyer beware and bad idea, basically you are selling part of your house in advance safe in the knowledge you will die anyway, what a happy prospect.....

[Mr. Scram]

There are indeed several different forms of "equity release".

If you read the financial press aimed at consumers, many come with big warning labels because they are regarded as very poor value. Classic examples are those aimed at the retired who want to increase their retirement income without moving house. "Equity release doesn’t come cheap. A lifetime mortgage can cost more than three times what you borrow after 20 years, while some home reversion schemes demand more than 70% of your home’s value for just a 20% advance."
https://www.which.co.uk/money/pensions-and-retirement/youre-retired-working-on-benefits-equity-release/guides/equity-release/what-is-equity-release

I guess it depends on how you do it exactly. However, generally it's low risk for any banking institution to deal with people who actually already own a house or part of it. Since it's a lower risk than lending money to someone who still needs to pay for the house, you can generally negotiate much better terms.

[Mr. Scram]

you link basically says buyer beware and bad idea, basically you are selling part of your house in advance safe in the knowledge you will die anyway, what a happy prospect.....

What some people do is investing the money back into the house by extending it. That way you can use some of the value, which also increasing it. This also minimizes the risk, as the investment won't suddenly lose its value. If it does, chances are the rest of the house will too, so you would have had a problem anyway.

[Simon]

Well this all works when you own the thing, yes of course a house that you actually own going up in value is good as you have options, but most people are mortgage holders so all an increase in value translates into is more debt to move.

[Mr. Scram]

Well this all works when you own the thing, yes of course a house that you actually own going up in value is good as you have options, but most people are mortgage holders so all an increase in value translates into is more debt to move.

How so? The value increase is all yours, while the debt doesn't scale accordingly.

I can understand the sentiment that it's not necessarily money you can use this moment right now, but it's certainly better to be in your position than to not have a house and to see the price of entry get ever higher. Plus, you save up by paying off your mortgage. If you rent, it's all down the drain. It's obviously a bit more complicated than that, but still.

[Simon]

Well as I said i have used the increase in value to borrow money cheaply. in fact I used part of one advance at a lower rate to pay off some of the main mortgage. Indeed I'd rather maximize the value by making it all mine then I'm no strings attached.

[Mr. Scram]

Well as I said i have used the increase in value to borrow money cheaply. in fact I used part of one advance at a lower rate to pay off some of the main mortgage. Indeed I'd rather maximize the value by making it all mine then I'm no strings attached.

Yes, fully owning a house seems a lovely prospect.

[sokoloff]

I can't see how you can use the surplus value of a home unless you either sell it for the profit difference or use it as collateral to borrow money to invest but this is a risky business as you don't know what will happen to rates on both sides of that arrangement.

You yourself saw a way to use the surplus value of a home when you borrowed the additional £10K to buy a car and handle other life expenses:

I currently owe £44'200 for the house alone and a further £10'000 on further advances to tie me over at times and buy a car, so I am currently 54'200 in debt.

You have benefited from the rise in your home's value in a way that you wouldn't have if you'd continued renting or in a way that you wouldn't have if you house price went sideways or down. (Where would that £10K have come from in those situations?)

Indeed some of that extra 10K I have borrowed is invested but the actual amount it will make me is minimal (currently 7% before tax while i pay 2% in mortgage interest that will go up later) and perhaps i just prefer to be mortgage free.

Today having paid off only £13'000 and having had to take on £10'000 of debt I've actually only paid off £3000 in 7 years!!!!!

I don't want this to sound insensitive, but a stark look at the facts suggests that maybe you're not acting in a manner entirely consistent with preferring to be mortgage free. If you prefer to be mortgage free, don't take out additional loans against your home. Of course, life happens and sometimes your today self absolutely needs to borrow money. But when you do that, you're definitely hurting future self, so make sure that it's an absolute need or is at least worth the penalty that future self will be paying.

On the good side, future self is entitled to all of the gains (minus any taxes) that the house price has made. So while you've maybe only paid off a net of £3K against your mortgage balances, your personal net worth has also risen by the (estimated by me) £60K that your house has appreciated while you owned it. If you'd rented or your house didn't go up, you be that much poorer versus today.

[Simon]

Like you say life throws things at you and without a car I can't get to work to make money to pay for the house, , on lower wages than can buy a decent house and barely afford the slums yes sometimes some credit has been needed and i have preferred borrowing at 2% on a mortgage than 12% on an overdraft, a house and vehicle are the only two things I'm, happy getting into debt over. If cash is required a loan against the house is best. what I am fighting for is to stay afloat and pay the thing off. Having recently looked at my situation i realized just how little I have paid off and now that I have been able to fix my main mortgage for the next 5 years at 1.94%, I have opted to maintain my previous payment rate when the interest was 3% plus add another 50 quid a month, I also tend to try and add another £100 now that I am resolved to ditch it that was helped by a 10% pay rise I got at the beginning of the year. My wages have slowly risen so that I am in more of a position to overpay, in the past I have had to borrow back what I have paid and the only advantage has been that with a price increase the bank has asked no questions, but this has been the only practical advantage, access to more cheap debt...... if my house value suddenly falls again when it comes to renew these mortgages what will I be asked for in interest ? this is why i don't like to gamble with vaporware money.

Basically what I am saying is that the biggest crisis in this country is wages along with rising house prices and precarious contract conditions for many, I'm one of the lucky ones and if I had not been so calculating could have easily ended up loosing my house.

Yes I'm £60'000 better off on paper but I'd need to spend that on another house if I sold so the net result is "0", you could say that I have benefited from a lower interest rate on loans and that would work out to be a small part of the £60K I have in vapormoney. So basically we are back to the same old asset rich and cash poor and that is whilst living on one of the cheapest houses you can buy in the area, our economy is indeed in the shit unless your a banker or other highly paid person in a mansion where cash poor means you just have to go without your 10th luxury and maybe sell something.

[Mr. Scram]

How is your net result 0 if your net worth is increasing significantly? Anyone renting won't have profited from the price hike at all and will have a proper 0 net result. Compared to your result, there is a massive difference of many tens of thousands of pounds.

I understand your sentiments, but they also seem fairly pessimistic, especially considering many people would love to do what you do. They see the chance of ever owning a house disappear over the horizon, as prices increase faster than their income does.

[Simon]

like I said I am lucky, and again as I said in my current position the 60K added value is of no practical value, I sell my house for 60K more, I buy a house of the same type and location for 60K more, or i buy a house worth 50% more because it's in a nicer location and now that 60K becomes 90K, so I'm down 30K and can't move, where do I gain? Renting is of course always going to be a mugs game and that is why I say we have a pay and working conditions crisis.

To give an example this house is worth lets say 130K, it is a 3 bedroom end of terrace with no drive. A house in a newer area that is 2 bedroom with a drive and detached (built on the last scrap of land going) is 170K so I'd swap size for a drive and maybe a nicer area (not really it's almost as bad as here if you move a hundred metres down the road....) and I'm paying 40K more for about the same all things considered. Where did I gain, assuming the area is slightly better I am now 40K more in debt to buy the same thing.

[Mr. Scram]

like I said I am lucky, and again as I said in my current position the 60K added value is of no practical value, I sell my house for 60K more, I buy a house of the same type and location for 60K more, or i buy a house worth 50% more because it's in a nicer location and now that 60K becomes 90K, so I'm down 30K and can't move, where do I gain? Renting is of course always going to be a mugs game and that is why I say we have a pay and working conditions crisis.

To give an example this house is worth lets say 130K, it is a 3 bedroom end of terrace with no drive. A house in a newer area that is 2 bedroom with a drive and detached (built on the last scrap of land going) is 170K so I'd swap size for a drive and maybe a nicer area (not really it's almost as bad as here if you move a hundred metres down the road....) and I'm paying 40K more for about the same all things considered. Where did I gain, assuming the area is slightly better I am now 40K more in debt to buy the same thing.

I feel we're just repeating ourselves here. What you gained is many tens of thousands of pounds compared to someone who just rented and never bought. An example:

- Dave buys a house worth 100000 monetary units. In 10 years, the house increases its value to 200000 units. You sell the house, pay back the bank and end up with 60000 monetary units you didn't put in by paying mortgage payments.
- Neighbour Dan couldn't get a loan and didn't buy. He rents a house. In 10 years, his house has increased value, but he gains nothing from it. If anything, his rent will be higher. Also, any money he puts in is lost.
 
Whatever comes next, buying another house or renting a place, the difference is there. If your house increases in value, you could always decide to cash out, buy a boat and sail the world. That wouldn't be possible for Dan. Even if within the housing market the gains aren't fattening your wallet, because prices are proportional to other prices, the gains do count in other markets.

[Simon]

OK yes your argument works for second homes and if you may choose to no longer live in a house, I think 99.99999999% of people buy a house to live in and when they sell 99.9999999% of people buy another house with the money. So for most people in the UK anyway you sell you house and you buy another. If you are simply moving region but getting a same value house then nothing gained nothing lost. if your moving to a cheaper region you will gain but this is an artificial gain based on the weirdness of our economy of which no one has certain control or predictability. If you move to a more expensive area well you won't be will you unless you were very well off in your current area and are downsizing. many people do indeed talk of moving north just so that they can afford a house an an acquaintance has done just that. but this was not a lifestyle choice, this was a desperate measure to move 200 miles north just so that she can afford a house and may find wages are lower.

Location of a property make up more in value than the size of it. A friend recently bought a house in a newly constructed village, it is a so called semidetached with the actual distance between the detached pairs being about 0.6m so really semi detached only in name. If anything his property like mine is for practical purposes an end of terrace, he has a drive to the side of his house whereas his neighbors drive is in front of his house because land is expensive and not to be wasted. To be honest the quality of build is appalling with 3 problems having to be fixed as soon as he moved in one being the window mechanism would not work... The overall size of his land is a 3rd of mine, he has two bedrooms (I have 3) and a postage stamp that is called a garden. For this tiny delight he paid 210K just because of it's location some distance from a town centre where he can get a train to London that he does not want to get anyway as he works locally...... So he has paid a little under twice the value of my house for 1/3 the land and a house of lower build quality (mine being a bomb proof ex council house). Should i want to move there which is just 15miles down the road I would not stand a chance....... location, location, location and yes it's all vaporcash, non of it exists unless your in just the right place at the right time.

[Simon]

If houses prices didn't go up so sharply then buying a nicer house for more money would mean the gap in price would be smaller and achievable, it's all relative to wages too not just the gain in house price as you have to plug the gap with more debt, yes we are going round in circles because you won't accept that with the 50% rise an increase in this house of 60K means that anything better increases by more than that so the difference just becomes a bigger mortgage than I already have. Yes ultimately it comes down to wages, that is why people are stuck renting from ever larger landlords than control the market being able to buy houses cash and charge huge rents preventing them from saving for a deposit while your local MP uses his wife's name to buy a second home via a scheme that gets him a zero interest loan and was meant for first time buyers not politicians playing the system.

[tszaboo]

I feel we're just repeating ourselves here. What you gained is many tens of thousands of pounds compared to someone who just rented and never bought. An example:

- Dave buys a house worth 100000 monetary units. In 10 years, the house increases its value to 200000 units. You sell the house, pay back the bank and end up with 60000 monetary units you didn't put in by paying mortgage payments.
- Neighbour Dan couldn't get a loan and didn't buy. He rents a house. In 10 years, his house has increased value, but he gains nothing from it. If anything, his rent will be higher. Also, any money he puts in is lost.
 
Whatever comes next, buying another house or renting a place, the difference is there. If your house increases in value, you could always decide to cash out, buy a boat and sail the world. That wouldn't be possible for Dan. Even if within the housing market the gains aren't fattening your wallet, because prices are proportional to other prices, the gains do count in other markets.

What usually happens is this:
Dave buys a house and pays 1000 Units a month for 60 years. Housing market changes, goes up and down. He moves sometimes. Maybe he gains money, maybe he loses. If he gains, he pays taxes after it. If he loses, too bad sucker.
Dan rents for 500. He spends 200 on weed and beer and shiny stuff. He also places 300 on a bank account, which makes some more money for him. If he needs to pay 5000 unit, he pays it from his pocket, while Dave cannot sell his house. Dave has to take extra loans, and pay for that. Dan retires, he has enough money to live very comfortably in a small condo, and buy that sports car he always wanted.
Dave lives in a big empty house, he is surrounded by 17 sets of kitchenware, and he wonders if his wife should really get a 7th cat. Dave dies early because he did not have money to pay the doctors. His wife becomes the cat lady.

[sokoloff]

If houses prices didn't go up so sharply then buying a nicer house for more money would mean the gap in price would be smaller and achievable, it's all relative to wages too not just the gain in house price as you have to plug the gap with more debt, yes we are going round in circles because you won't accept that with the 50% rise an increase in this house of 60K means that anything better increases by more than that so the difference just becomes a bigger mortgage than I already have.

I completely accept this when looked at in dollars/pounds. (It's just straightforward math.) When looked at as a ratio of incomes, indexed to inflation, etc, it's not as large as the nominal increase.

Yes ultimately it comes down to wages, that is why people are stuck renting from ever larger landlords than control the market being able to buy houses cash and charge huge rents preventing them from saving for a deposit while your local MP uses his wife's name to buy a second home via a scheme that gets him a zero interest loan and was meant for first time buyers not politicians playing the system.

Presumably if the people care enough, they can vote such MPs out when things like this are discovered (or prosecute them for fraud if the elements of fraud are present and provable)?

I look at the wages issue as a relative issue. If your wages are rising/falling at the same relative rate as everyone else with whom you would be competing for housing (whether bought or leased), you're neither getting ahead nor falling behind. If your wages are rising faster, even slightly faster, you're making headway against them and improving your [financial] station in life.
It means that when house, car, milk, or eggs prices go up by N% for everyone, your income has gone up by (N+1)% and you're able to save the difference. Conversely, if your wages are trailing, even slightly, the average among your peer group, when prices go up by N% and your income only by (N-1)%, things get a lot tighter for you over time.

Compounding interest is a long lever. If you're on the good side of it, it's awesome. If you're on the bad side, it pinches your fingers like hell.

[Mr. Scram]

If houses prices didn't go up so sharply then buying a nicer house for more money would mean the gap in price would be smaller and achievable, it's all relative to wages too not just the gain in house price as you have to plug the gap with more debt, yes we are going round in circles because you won't accept that with the 50% rise an increase in this house of 60K means that anything better increases by more than that so the difference just becomes a bigger mortgage than I already have. Yes ultimately it comes down to wages, that is why people are stuck renting from ever larger landlords than control the market being able to buy houses cash and charge huge rents preventing them from saving for a deposit while your local MP uses his wife's name to buy a second home via a scheme that gets him a zero interest loan and was meant for first time buyers not politicians playing the system.

I'm fully aware that more expensive properties will increase more. Obviously, houses would ideally cost just the labour they represent. It's just a pile of bricks on a bit of mud, after all. Current housing prices are completely off the charts and mostly artificial, but that's not going to change anytime soon. At least you can make some money thanks to it, and you don't need much luck to make a lot. You can also draw the short straw, but that's the name of the game.

Normally, moving up means a bigger mortgage. That's typically offset by increased wages and the money already paid. You could also decide to stay put and live mortage free very cheaply.

[Mr. Scram]

What usually happens is this:
Dave buys a house and pays 1000 Units a month for 60 years. Housing market changes, goes up and down. He moves sometimes. Maybe he gains money, maybe he loses. If he gains, he pays taxes after it. If he loses, too bad sucker.
Dan rents for 500. He spends 200 on weed and beer and shiny stuff. He also places 300 on a bank account, which makes some more money for him. If he needs to pay 5000 unit, he pays it from his pocket, while Dave cannot sell his house. Dave has to take extra loans, and pay for that. Dan retires, he has enough money to live very comfortably in a small condo, and buy that sports car he always wanted.
Dave lives in a big empty house, he is surrounded by 17 sets of kitchenware, and he wonders if his wife should really get a 7th cat. Dave dies early because he did not have money to pay the doctors. His wife becomes the cat lady.

In a lot of EU countries, renting is more expensive than buying. It's just that not everyone gets a loan. Obviously, part of the price difference is the risk you do or don't assume.

I don't think I've ever heard of buying being that much more expensive than renting, so I don't see your example reflected in daily life.

[Nusa]

OK yes your argument works for second homes and if you may choose to no longer live in a house, I think 99.99999999% of people buy a house to live in and when they sell 99.9999999% of people buy another house with the money. ....

Too high a percentage, although I take your point.

A significant chunk (certainly larger than 0.00000001%) of home sales happen because an elderly or disabled person is moving into some kind of managed care facility or to live with family. They are not buying another home, although they are probably using some of the money for their final years.

[Simon]

Some of their money? You obviously don't live in the UK,

[Zero999]

What usually happens is this:
Dave buys a house and pays 1000 Units a month for 60 years. Housing market changes, goes up and down. He moves sometimes. Maybe he gains money, maybe he loses. If he gains, he pays taxes after it. If he loses, too bad sucker.
Dan rents for 500. He spends 200 on weed and beer and shiny stuff. He also places 300 on a bank account, which makes some more money for him. If he needs to pay 5000 unit, he pays it from his pocket, while Dave cannot sell his house. Dave has to take extra loans, and pay for that. Dan retires, he has enough money to live very comfortably in a small condo, and buy that sports car he always wanted.
Dave lives in a big empty house, he is surrounded by 17 sets of kitchenware, and he wonders if his wife should really get a 7th cat. Dave dies early because he did not have money to pay the doctors. His wife becomes the cat lady.

In a lot of EU countries, renting is more expensive than buying. It's just that not everyone gets a loan. Obviously, part of the price difference is the risk you do or don't assume.

I don't think I've ever heard of buying being that much more expensive than renting, so I don't see your example reflected in daily life.

Renting can be cheaper, than buying a house to live in (not buy to let) in some countries, where the interest rate is high, and house prices are fairly constant or falling. Don't assume it's the economic situation is the same for everyone in the world.

[Mr. Scram]

Renting can be cheaper, than buying a house to live in (not buy to let) in some countries, where the interest rate is high, and house prices are fairly constant or falling. Don't assume it's the economic situation is the same for everyone in the world.

I'm well aware of that. People assuming their situation is the same for everyone is one of my pet peeves and I've taken care not to do that. That why I've specified "in a lot of EU countries", which is a lot more specific than the whole world. For most of Europe, there's a very strong upwards trend, with the obvious hiatus during the 2008 crisis and the years after. The more developed parts of the EU seem to follow that trend more strongly.

[Simon]

In the UK renting is always more expensive, you are either renting from a large landlord who owns a large property management company with overheads and wanting to make a profit or an individual that in turn is paying rent with what you pay them and want to make some money.

[Mr. Scram]

In the UK renting is always more expensive, you are either renting from a large landlord who owns a large property management company with overheads and wanting to make a profit or an individual that in turn is paying rent with what you pay them and want to make some money.

It makes sense that's the general trend too. Owning a house has certain costs. Now, if someone else is living in that house, you will need to redeem at least those costs, plus something for your trouble. That makes it unlikely renting is going to be cheaper than owning it yourself.

There are a lot of reasons why it might pan out differently in specific siuations, but this won't change. We're not even talking about the fact that you will eventually own a house either.

[Simon]

Yes eventually you own a house and become mortgage free, however we were talking about affording to buy a house in the first place. And yes you may end up with a house at the end, you then sell that to pay for care costs in the UK.

[Mr. Scram]

Yes eventually you own a house and become mortgage free, however we were talking about affording to buy a house in the first place. And yes you may end up with a house at the end, you then sell that to pay for care costs in the UK.

Yes, I'm talking about your monthly costs when renting versus buying. That will be most important to most people.

[Simon]

Yes and buying in the UK is always cheaper, that is why I never went into renting, the mortgage was initially enough to deal with.

[Mr. Scram]

Yes and buying in the UK is always cheaper, that is why I never went into renting, the mortgage was initially enough to deal with.

Yes, that's the case in more places and as explained, a fairly natural state. It's generally not a case of being able to pay a mortgage, but whether the bank is prepared to lend you the money. Renting is more expensive, but the barrier to entry is lower. Oddly enough, proving you've paid similar amounts of money every month for the past years isn't always enough to convince a bank you are able to sustain the mortgage. If the big boys don't want to play, you're stuck.

[Zero999]

Renting can be cheaper, than buying a house to live in (not buy to let) in some countries, where the interest rate is high, and house prices are fairly constant or falling. Don't assume it's the economic situation is the same for everyone in the world.

I'm well aware of that. People assuming their situation is the same for everyone is one of my pet peeves and I've taken care not to do that. That why I've specified "in a lot of EU countries", which is a lot more specific than the whole world. For most of Europe, there's a very strong upwards trend, with the obvious hiatus during the 2008 crisis and the years after. The more developed parts of the EU seem to follow that trend more strongly.

Renting is also better for someone who often moves from one place to another, because they don't incur the costs of selling any buying property: estate agents, solicitor and mortgage fees.

[Mr. Scram]

Renting is also better for someone who often moves from one place to another, because they don't incur the costs of selling any buying property: estate agents, solicitor and mortgage fees.

Sure, there are compelling reasons to rent. A lack of stability or a need for mobility can be good reasons. Not buying when in a fresh relationship makes a lot of sense, for instance.

[Simon]

Yes renting has it's place, my sister and her husband rented for a year then got married and bought another house. but these days many are forced to rent due to job insecurity and low wages meaning no deposit. I made sure i didn't get stuck in that loop.

[vealmike]

Not sure some of the non UK posters realise quite how expensive it is over here.

UK average first house price is £208K.

UK average age for first time buyers is 30.

UK average earnings for a 30 year old is £26K gross(£21K net, £1750 per month).

With a fairly hairy five times salary mortgage the first time buyer can 'only' borrow £130K, leaving them needing a deposit of £78K. That's everything they earn for 3 years and 9 months, provided they spend nothing on food, petrol, clothes, shelter, etc.

I don't think you can still get a five times salary mortgage. If you could, £130K at Simon's 2% over 25 years is £550 per month, or 31% of the average 30 year old's take home pay.

 

Renting is worse, a £240K house rents for £1100pcm. The interest on good a 5 year fix, buy to let mortgage for that would be £600 per month.  The landlord doesn't see £500 profit, a lot (40% usually) goes in tax. But is shows how much more expensive the rental market is in the long term. [/Landlord]

And don't get me started on the cost of moving. Conveyancing is not cheap, but having to spunk £12K on tax really stings. [/About to move house]

[sokoloff]

And don't get me started on the cost of moving. Conveyancing is not cheap, but having to spunk £12K on tax really stings. [/About to move house]

There's a tax on moving? (Seeking to understand.)

[Simon]

Selling a second home incurs tax, unless you an MP of course screwing the nation.

[vealmike]

And don't get me started on the cost of moving. Conveyancing is not cheap, but having to spunk £12K on tax really stings. [/About to move house]

There's a tax on moving? (Seeking to understand.)

It's called Stamp Duty Land Tax:
https://www.gov.uk/stamp-duty-land-tax

Payable when you purchase property. These are the residential rates:

Property or lease premium or transfer value   SDLT rate
Up to £125,000   Zero
The next £125,000 (the portion from £125,001 to £250,000)   2%
The next £675,000 (the portion from £250,001 to £925,000)   5%
The next £575,000 (the portion from £925,001 to £1.5 million)   10%
The remaining amount (the portion above £1.5 million)   12%

So for a 330K house:
80K at 5%  £4000
125K at 2% £2500
125K @ 0%

SDLT bill = £6500

Edit.
Just for fun, a £3.3 million pad...
£125K @0%
£125K @ 2%       £2,500
£675K @ 5%     £33,750
£575K @ 10%   £57,500
£1.8mil @ 12% £216,000
SDLT bill = £309,750
Fortunately as an engineer who doesn't believe in buying lottery tickets, I will never have this problem!

[Mr. Scram]

There's a tax on moving? (Seeking to understand.)

It's not on moving, but on the purchase of a house, which isn't uncommon. It's like VAT on a different scale.

[sokoloff]

It's called Stamp Duty Land Tax:
https://www.gov.uk/stamp-duty-land-tax

Payable when you purchase property. These are the residential rates:

Property or lease premium or transfer value   SDLT rate
Up to £125,000   Zero
The next £125,000 (the portion from £125,001 to £250,000)   2%
The next £675,000 (the portion from £250,001 to £925,000)   5%
The next £575,000 (the portion from £925,001 to £1.5 million)   10%
The remaining amount (the portion above £1.5 million)   12%

So for a 330K house:
80K at 5%  £4000
125K at 2% £2500
125K @ 0%

SDLT bill = £6500

Wow. We have stamp duty as well, but it's much lower rate (0.456%) in MA, so 330K is a $1504 tax bill. I think New Hampshire was 0.75%.

[Simon]

You see when the rich and big business don't pay tax the rest of us do instead.

[vealmike]

Wouldn't be so bad if the houses were a decent size, but they're not.
The "average" fist time buyer's house is around 1000sq foot.

Ah, the economics of supply and demand.

[Simon]

yes hence the case of my friend buying a house in a desirable yet expensive area ending up with 1/3 the land. Sadly the ex council estates can be unpleasant but the house build quality is good.

[tszaboo]

Not sure some of the non UK posters realise quite how expensive it is over here.

Trust me, it is not just there.
Here is the situation in Belgium:
If I would purchase the apartment I'm living in, it would cost me about 250.000 EUR. The longest term is 25 years, with that, I would pay little bit more than the double of my rent on interests, and I need to put down about 50.000 EUR, and I would need to pay an extra 30.000 EUR for other fees, not including the interest.
Instead, I long term rent my apartment. They cannot move me out unexpectedly, otherwise they need to pay me 12 months of rent. The long term means 9 years, I have 6 years left. They can increase the monthly fee by the inflation, not higher.

So for 9 years, it looks like this:
A) I pay 2x9x12xrent to the bank, and about payed all the extra fees and interest to the bank. Hopefully the housing prices went up. If that is the case, I need to pay some extra tax for that.
B) I pay 1x9x12xrent to the bank, and I have 1x9x12xrent left as money.
BTW I dont think I want to live here 6 years from now, I'm actually looking for a nice house in the suburbs, with a garage and an extra room. Something that will suit my current lifestyle in the next 3-4 years better.

[Simon]

Well beleive it or not central eirope does run on pretty much the same economics. when i lived in italy people in the country simply built houses for their kids when they got married next to theirs on their own land....

[sokoloff]

Not sure some of the non UK posters realise quite how expensive it is over here.

Trust me, it is not just there.

Indeed not.

In my hometown, the http://realestate.boston.com/buying/2016/06/17/cambridge-most-expensive-home-prices/]median single family house last year[/url] was $1,675,000 (1281000GBP / 1442000EUR).

[Simon]

oh you mean like london prices

[Mr. Scram]

oh you mean like london prices

We all know one of the bombs of The Blitz knocked loose London's calibration pot. It's perception of a number of things has been off since.

[Simon]

well lets face it few uk residents own anything in london.....

[tszaboo]

Not sure some of the non UK posters realise quite how expensive it is over here.

Trust me, it is not just there.

Indeed not.

In my hometown, the http://realestate.boston.com/buying/2016/06/17/cambridge-most-expensive-home-prices/]median single family house last year[/url] was $1,675,000 (1281000GBP / 1442000EUR).

You are comparing the price of a 500 sqf flat to a 3000 sqf house with land.

[sokoloff]

You are comparing the price of a 500 sqf flat to a 3000 sqf house with land.

OK, median 1 bedroom (all housing types, though very few free-standing homes would be 1 BR, so you can assume these are small flats) is $527K.

Housing in desirable areas is expensive the world over, because there are a lot of people vying to buy in desirable areas.

[Zero999]

You are comparing the price of a 500 sqf flat to a 3000 sqf house with land.

OK, median 1 bedroom (all housing types, though very few free-standing homes would be 1 BR, so you can assume these are small flats) is $527K.

Housing in desirable areas is expensive the world over, because there are a lot of people vying to buy in desirable areas.

The trouble is with the UK, house prices, compared to average earnings are high country wide, not just in small areas. The problem is worse in London, than the rest of the UK but it's still bad, compared to most of the US.

[Simon]

indeed, as you know i'm not extravagant, live fairly simply and in 7 years have paid off just £3000, even a 4x salary mortgage and lowish rates is quite some price which is why i don't want to move into an even more expensive house with an even bigger mortgage. And i don't think lower house prices alone is the answer to the overall problem, We need higher wages all round, official inflation indexes are not necessarily realistic and even officially price rises are outpacing wages, house prices have risen even more in proportion. fortunately where i work we get a year on year increase that appears to match the official inflation figure (usually 2% we were treated to 3% this year) but then I think they are conscious that they are not exactly the top payers in the industry. people stay around because either like me they are trapped through lack of qualifications of they like the fact that you can get way with making minimal effort - which might be one reason for low wages, it's a vicious circle.

These days being a couple and both working is the only way to live quite comfortably. All this equality bollocks with women all going to work has done is to lower overall wages and now both partners are forced to work. Obviously there are those that seem to think they have to spend more money impressing people. We have just had the opening of a shopping complex, boasting shops 90% of which are cloths shops, it's always quite busy down there, if everyone going down there is spending money i bet there are going to be a few more mortgage defaults and reposessions round here

[forrestc]

Not sure some of the non UK posters realise quite how expensive it is over here.
UK average first house price is £208K.
UK average age for first time buyers is 30.
UK average earnings for a 30 year old is £26K gross(£21K net, £1750 per month

Renting is worse, a £240K house rents for £1100pcm. The interest on good a 5 year fix, buy to let mortgage for that would be £600 per month.  The landlord doesn't see £500 profit, a lot (40% usually) goes in tax. But is shows how much more expensive the rental market is in the long term.

This is as good of a place to insert my $0.02 as anywhere:

In many parts of the world, and many personal situations, renting vs owning is a lifestyle choice, not a financial choice.   I.E. who is responsible for fixing things, paying taxes, etc..   

Some places/situations it is better financially to own.   Some places/situations it is better financially to rent.

For instance, in the US, generally it is financially better to rent in most of the populated areas on the coasts, and better to own in the middle part of the country.   This is assuming a typical 'stay in the same home for a few years' lifestyle.

If you will never move again, 'better' shifts toward owning.  If you regularly move (temporary jobs, etc), 'better' shifts toward renting.   But in some parts of the country, it almost never makes sense to buy, and in other parts of the country it rarely makes sense to rent.

In the US, many financial advisors will tell you that the home you are living in generally should *not* be considered an investment, instead, you should look at it as a lifestyle/recurring financial choice.   The underlying reason is that situations change, and it's hard to do a good analysis of the plusses and minuses based on your unknown current financial and where you want to live questions.   But thinking of  your home as an investment isn't the right choice for most people.   Doing this is part of the cause of the US housing meltdown which caused the last financial crisis - many people bought homes based on their future value, and took loans based on that.   There is no guarantee that a home will be worth more in the future.   And there's no guarantee that you'll be living in the same spot 20 years from now.

[Mr. Scram]

Let's not forget that loans for houses were pushed quite aggressively by the power that were. That has caused a lot of people that shouldn't ever have gotten them to get loans, which subsequently went bad. It was as much failed policy as it was bad judgement by the people themselves. The fact that you can just walk away from a house in the US didn't really help either.

Even though your house isn't guaranteed to increase in value, in many areas values have increased for the past 100 years without fail. Even though the past crisis has ended that, prices have recovered and are well past what they were at their peak before it all went bad. That's as much as a sure thing as you're going to get in life. Obviously, there are going to be some exceptions, which can be fairly bothersome if that's you. And as always, money business is a long game.

[forrestc]

The fact that you can just walk away from a house in the US didn't really help either.

To clarify the policy for those elsewhere:

Once someone defaults on a loan in the US, the bank will take it back based on the fact that it is used to collateralize the loan.   The home is then sold through various methods, auction being a pretty common method.    The question is what to do if the amount earned from auction is different than the amount remaining on the mortgage.  This is where things get complicated, and can vary from   jurisdiction to jurisdiction.   

For instance, if the proceeds from sale do not entirely cover the loan amount, in most states, the prior homeowner is still on the hook for the amount of the shortcoming.  Only about 15 of the 50 states (mostly in the Western part of the US)  have laws on the books preventing this.   And even then, it isn't guaranteed that all of the debt secured by the home will be extinguished by the foreclosure.   For instance if the loan is a line of credit and/or a refinance, it might not be covered under these laws.   

Along the same lines, if you have more equity in your home than the remaining balance on the note, in some states, the bank gets to keep the surplus.  Or gets to keep it if you don't claim it in a certain period.   

One of the big underlying causes of the mortgage crisis was that banks were writing loans for more than the house was worth, based on future value.  The person buying the house would get a home for a certain period for only the cost of interest on the loan.   The theory was that at some period of time later, when the bank started to collect the principle part of the loan (commonly through a very large baloon payment at some point followed by higher monthly payments), that the homeowner would be able to either sell the home (and repeat the process elsewhere), or maybe their situation would change.   Many of the people who got taken in by this was looking at being able to be in a half-million dollar home for a few years for just the cost of the interest, and then move on.

What happened is that home values didn't go up as predicted.   As a result, people were not able to sell these properties and get out of the loan - and were also not able to make the balloon payment or make the increased payments on the loan because they were more than the home buyer planned for.  This resulted in a lot of properties being foreclosed on, and the lending banks losing a lot of money since this was really prevalent in California in particular which says the bank is stuck for any deficiency.   

In addition to the direct effect on the bank, it also triggered a major adjustment in home values, because now people are able to buy at auction very expensive homes for pennies on the dollar, further depressing the value of all homes in nearby areas.   

Banks also became very reluctant to lend money, which meant that fewer people could qualify to buy a home.   So if you were selling a home, there were fewer people able to buy it.  This also reduced housing values.   In many areas, homes have yet to recover to their pre-recession value.   

[IanB]

Only about 15 of the 50 states (mostly in the Western part of the US)  have laws on the books preventing this.

Such laws to me seem like quite a good idea, since they should force lenders to lend conservatively and not sucker people into taking on debt they may not be able to repay.

[Mr. Scram]

Such laws to me seem like quite a good idea, since they should force lenders to lend conservatively and not sucker people into taking on debt they may not be able to repay.

These laws also prevent foreclosing on people unless banks really must. Quickly selling a house from under someone at bargain prices, leaving them with a large deficiency debt is a problem in some parts of the world. The bank absorbing at least part of the debt forces them to work with the owner if he goes through a rough patch. Most people desperately want to pay, but need some time to recover or find a new job.

[SeanB]

Also are cases of a bank foreclosing on a house that they actually do not own, and the owner cannot afford the costs of the lawyers to prove this. Here there are a few cases wending through where the bank sold the house for ultra low prices to themselves, via an intermediary at the auction, then sold the place at a profit again, while still leaving the original owner liable for the shortfall on the first sale.

[Mr. Scram]

To clarify the policy for those elsewhere:

Once someone defaults on a loan in the US, the bank will take it back based on the fact that it is used to collateralize the loan.   The home is then sold through various methods, auction being a pretty common method.    The question is what to do if the amount earned from auction is different than the amount remaining on the mortgage.  This is where things get complicated, and can vary from   jurisdiction to jurisdiction.   

For instance, if the proceeds from sale do not entirely cover the loan amount, in most states, the prior homeowner is still on the hook for the amount of the shortcoming.  Only about 15 of the 50 states (mostly in the Western part of the US)  have laws on the books preventing this.   And even then, it isn't guaranteed that all of the debt secured by the home will be extinguished by the foreclosure.   For instance if the loan is a line of credit and/or a refinance, it might not be covered under these laws.   

Along the same lines, if you have more equity in your home than the remaining balance on the note, in some states, the bank gets to keep the surplus.  Or gets to keep it if you don't claim it in a certain period.   

One of the big underlying causes of the mortgage crisis was that banks were writing loans for more than the house was worth, based on future value.  The person buying the house would get a home for a certain period for only the cost of interest on the loan.   The theory was that at some period of time later, when the bank started to collect the principle part of the loan (commonly through a very large baloon payment at some point followed by higher monthly payments), that the homeowner would be able to either sell the home (and repeat the process elsewhere), or maybe their situation would change.   Many of the people who got taken in by this was looking at being able to be in a half-million dollar home for a few years for just the cost of the interest, and then move on.

What happened is that home values didn't go up as predicted.   As a result, people were not able to sell these properties and get out of the loan - and were also not able to make the balloon payment or make the increased payments on the loan because they were more than the home buyer planned for.  This resulted in a lot of properties being foreclosed on, and the lending banks losing a lot of money since this was really prevalent in California in particular which says the bank is stuck for any deficiency.   

In addition to the direct effect on the bank, it also triggered a major adjustment in home values, because now people are able to buy at auction very expensive homes for pennies on the dollar, further depressing the value of all homes in nearby areas.   

Banks also became very reluctant to lend money, which meant that fewer people could qualify to buy a home.   So if you were selling a home, there were fewer people able to buy it.  This also reduced housing values.   In many areas, homes have yet to recover to their pre-recession value.

Thanks for elaborating on my obviously way too terse remark

[Simon]

The problem is that the banks control the money. in the UK a mere 2% is state issued cash, 98% is created in the electronic systems of banks. When you borrow the money the bank "puts" the money into your account, but they don't take it from anywhere. With chains of loans propping each other up the whole thing came down pretty quickly. Unfortunately instead of treating the banks like any other business we all paid the price to keep them afloat. This was a big mistake as while on the surface lots of rules changed but basically all it meant was that people were treated as the problem and not the banks who behind closed doors carried on just as before whilst paying themselves lots of money for running their business into the ground. Any other industry would have just failed, as Iceland allegedly allowed it to happen and apparently they are doing very well.

The whole things was pitched as "if the banks crash everyone losses their money and the world as we know it ends". So if everyone was going to loose their money then the answer as Iceland demonstrated was simple: Let the banks fail, give the money back to individuals and start again. I'd have banned all of the executives from ever holding a position in a company again (any company) and start afresh. But no, we still have a broken system that we the public are paying for, in the UK this takes the form of "austerity" which basically means we are all now paying taxes but getting very little in return and while it was promised that the cutbacks would not affect front line services we all knew this was a lie (ask any of the few remaining police officers, they are all that pissed off they will be pretty blunt about it). Our health service is in crisis, crime is on the rise, disabled people are being left vulnerable, people poor scorn on Zimbabway, I think that reality is closer than we think here too. And what is all this for? so that we can pay off the debt that meant the banks could keep OUR money, so basically we have lost our money anyway. How does this happen? well what do you expect when a government is run by a bunch of old boys who all went to the same school and didn't get very good grades at that.

[woody]

The problem is that the banks control the money....

Well put!

This whole 'to big to fail' nonsense and the risks it evoked led to big profits for a couple of shareholders while the subsequent humongous losses were paid for by the rest of us. And we did learn anything? No, banks are yet again getting rules out of the way and making pre-crisis profits, while FED and ECB QE take over their bad loans. For us that means that our savings are evaporating but hey, who cares? They're gods, we're sheep.

[Simon]

Well in the UK and maybe further afield there is an organisation called "positive money" that seeks to have changes made in how money is controlled. Obviously they are banging on closed doors and talking to the deaf ears of the bankers cronies

[sony mavica]

+1
There'lll be other deals along shortly, probably in the January sales, so you have time to work out your budget so you have convertible funds available up to your self-imposed spending limit.   A few searches didn't show up any legitimate method of converting directly between PayPal and Skrill or visa-versa - they are competitors and don't cooperate - so you would be relying on the reputation of a 3rd party ecurrency exchange.  IMHO you dodged a bullet there.  Do your research before using any exchange service, or better yet, if you cant use the finds directly for planned purchases, convert in plenty of time ahead via your own bank account.

most of the money i was going to use was from giftcard to buy the laptop i get from doing surveys online  but yesterday i go one off the same site bought with giftcards from what i can see it looks to have the same specs as the other laptop i was going to get just they are selling it cheaper because they say the box is damaged

[Simon]

Oh really? Either it's more worthwhile doing those surveys where you are or you have not worked out what poor value for your time they are, been there tried it did not even get to cash in and felt brain dead every time I did one.

[vealmike]

The problem is that the banks control the money. in the UK a mere 2% is state issued cash, 98% is created in the electronic systems of banks. When you borrow the money the bank "puts" the money into your account, but they don't take it from anywhere. With chains of loans propping each other up the whole thing came down pretty quickly. Unfortunately instead of treating the banks like any other business we all paid the price to keep them afloat. This was a big mistake as while on the surface lots of rules changed but basically all it meant was that people were treated as the problem and not the banks who behind closed doors carried on just as before whilst paying themselves lots of money for running their business into the ground. Any other industry would have just failed, as Iceland allegedly allowed it to happen and apparently they are doing very well.

The whole things was pitched as "if the banks crash everyone losses their money and the world as we know it ends". So if everyone was going to loose their money then the answer as Iceland demonstrated was simple: Let the banks fail, give the money back to individuals and start again. I'd have banned all of the executives from ever holding a position in a company again (any company) and start afresh. But no, we still have a broken system that we the public are paying for, in the UK this takes the form of "austerity" which basically means we are all now paying taxes but getting very little in return and while it was promised that the cutbacks would not affect front line services we all knew this was a lie (ask any of the few remaining police officers, they are all that pissed off they will be pretty blunt about it). Our health service is in crisis, crime is on the rise, disabled people are being left vulnerable, people poor scorn on Zimbabway, I think that reality is closer than we think here too. And what is all this for? so that we can pay off the debt that meant the banks could keep OUR money, so basically we have lost our money anyway. How does this happen? well what do you expect when a government is run by a bunch of old boys who all went to the same school and didn't get very good grades at that.

Erm, no.
Whilst public sector finances and private sector wealth are clearly linked (govt. needs a healthy economy to tax), the financial crisis of 2007 isn't the root cause of the UK's austerity program.

I think many people in the UK fail to understand the difference between deficit and debt. Our politicians talk only about the former, and even the BBC's political editor (Kuenssburg) doesn't know the difference. With out a widespread grasp of these two fundamentals, it's easy to see why there is a backlash against austerity.

When our politicians talk about reducing the deficit to zero, the populous think they mean zero debt. They don't really care because they don't grasp the scale of the issue.

Deficit: The amount by which the governments income falls short of its expenditure each month or year.
Debt: The total sum of the money the government owes.

UK deficit last year was £56bn, 2.6% of GDP. It's a lot, but it was running at 10% GDP when the coalition took the reigns and austerity began.

UK debt however is running at 90% GDP. A debt of 100% GDP would mean that we're officially bankrupt. Government debt is £1.7 trillion (million million). Latest figures I can find for the interest on out debt are for 2015 (debt: £1.56trillion, 82% GDP), we paid £43 billion in interest that year. Roughly the same as our current budget deficit.

In short, we're almost broke. We can't afford our current lifestyle. We have to borrow money to pay the interest on our loan.
That is why our current government are hellbent on austerity.


You also said that increased wages would make houses more affordable. I'm afraid I think that's a little naive too. Increased spending power would merely lead to increased house prices as people spend the same proportion of their wages in an inflationary bunfight for their little corner of England. There are only two things that will reduce house prices. Thing one is a massive program of house building (see, the need for austerity above). Thing two is a massive reduction in the population (who knows, Brexit could result in an exodus!)


The assertion that the banks do not have to have money in order to loan money (quantitive easing excepted) is strawman woo of the most extraordinary kind. Sorry but that's the sort of thing I expect to hear from someone wearing a homemade faraday cage, constructed from aluminium kitchen foil. Perhaps this wasn't what you meant.

[Simon]

Yes i am aware of the difference between debt and deficit, our debt doubled when we bailed the banks out.... we need to stop the debt going up. An increase in wages may or may not produce an increase in house prices. As i already said it is now finally official figures that increase in cost of living is outpacing wage increases and we are effectively worse off than in the past as a nation. Officially figures include things like xboxs now, I can't think why, maybe because their price is sort of stable if not going down and it helps the figures. At the end of the day the market will have to settle but given the huge variation in wages and many on not enough they will never afford a house. As I explained, I bought during a slump, today I'm in the same boat as when I started 7 years ago, so yea, I think I'm underpaid. Of course if interest rates rise again then maybe that will force prices down, I think we need a combination of both, an increased pay rate at the bottom end and higher interest rates. As I said before it may mean that your just as bad off to start with but if you are clever you overpay your mortgage and quite quickly get out of debt.

the fact is that it costs an amount of money to run the country and more to run it properly, but the government won't do all that it could to collect enough tax (meanwhile the town of northampton "lost" 10m in a "loan" to a football club, it's all now being investigated but i doubt the money will ever be recovered). I can't see why my local council don't increase council tax, we have not had an increase in years above 2% that barely keeps pacer with inflation, meanwhile northamptonshire is effectively going bust with the government pulling out 60% funding (from my taxes!) I'm not sure if the deficit is actually going down, it need reversing if we are to end the doom you speak of but the BBC are the last people to actually be bothered to paint an accurate picture of fiance and technology while they simplify politics for the masses. Kunsberg is the political editor and not the financial one and I'm still not surprise that she is ignorant. The last "technology expert" I heard on the BBC basically said that if you bought a "smart" freezer the moment you plugged it in it would connect to your internet all by itself and could be hijacked by hackers. The simple fact that you would have to physically plug it into an ethernet port or allow it access to your password protected wfi first escaped this "expert".

I am afraid that banks lending money on the expecting increase in value of a property in the future is printing their own money, particularly when this forms a long chain of loan upon loan

[woody]

The assertion that the banks do not have to have money in order to loan money (quantitive easing excepted) is strawman woo of the most extraordinary kind. Sorry but that's the sort of thing I expect to hear from someone wearing a homemade faraday cage, constructed from aluminium kitchen foil. Perhaps this wasn't what you meant.

I have to disagree. Yes, you are right, banks are required to have a minimal capitalization (Basel tier 1...X) . I see two problems with that:

First the assets required, although increased since 2008, are still unreasonably low. Of course not low enough according to banks that put all their lobbying weight behind preventing more stringent rules being implemented.

Second, for capitalization we're not talking assets you can touch, like gold in a vault or buildings or machines. Assets are in complicated financial products (like the famous CDO) that get conjured up continuously by financial sorcerers in the City. These people are paid very well for a reason. Any controlling organization that is funded with tax money (FED/ECB/BoE) will not be able to keep up with that wizardry; we refuse to let them pay the salaries required to get to the same level of knowledge. Therefore we will always be light-years behind in knowledge of (the real value of) these products. In short, we don't know shit.

IMO the assertion that banks do not have to have money in order to loan money sums it up nicely. Certainly no strawman woo of an extraordinary kind. In or excluding QE.

[sokoloff]

UK debt however is running at 90% GDP. A debt of 100% GDP would mean that we're officially bankrupt.

That's not what that means. The GDP is the production of the country in a given year, while the debt is as you describe.

It may very well be the case that the current debt load is unsustainable, but there's no direct 1:1 linkage between the country's production in a year and the maximum amount of outstanding debt of the country.

[sony mavica]

Oh really? Either it's more worthwhile doing those surveys where you are or you have not worked out what poor value for your time they are, been there tried it did not even get to cash in and felt brain dead every time I did one.

i get them all the time i use like 7 websites 2 pay giftcard rest pay me paypal money  doing surveys and other things i can get like $80usd and like $45nzd gift cards or more some weeks i can make way more money then other weeks takes about 3hrs of work and i get payed about every 2-3 weeks

i heard from people i know living in the us and uk you get way more surveys and offers so you can make way more money

[Mr. Scram]

i get them all the time i use like 7 websites 2 pay giftcard rest pay me paypal money  doing surveys and other things i can get like $80usd and like $45nzd gift cards or more some weeks i can make way more money then other weeks takes about 3hrs of work and i get payed about every 2-3 weeks

i heard from people i know living in the us and uk you get way more surveys and offers so you can make way more money

What would you get paid if you spent the same time flipping burgers?

[sony mavica]

i get them all the time i use like 7 websites 2 pay giftcard rest pay me paypal money  doing surveys and other things i can get like $80usd and like $45nzd gift cards or more some weeks i can make way more money then other weeks takes about 3hrs of work and i get payed about every 2-3 weeks

i heard from people i know living in the us and uk you get way more surveys and offers so you can make way more money

What would you get paid if you spent the same time flipping burgers?

3hr maybe $35nzd

[Simon]

The surveys i filled in were long stupid boring time consuming and paid next to nothing, this is the UK you don't get anything for free just ripped off. Most of it is about bullshit branding and "how I feel"about this that and the other. when in reality I buy non branded stuff given the choice as i know that all I am paying for is branding.

[tszaboo]

UK debt however is running at 90% GDP. A debt of 100% GDP would mean that we're officially bankrupt.

Higher dept means better economy. If the economy would be bad, they wouldn't re-finance the dept with other dept. It actually means, that a country can spend other people's money for economic growth. What matters id how much you are paying for these dept.
For example, German national dept bonds for 5 years is financed at -0.37%. If they sell a billion euro of these bonds, they make money on this,while the countries' dept will show higher. Meanwhile they invest this money into infrastructure, which in return will increase the GDP.
It is not necessarily a bad thing.

[woody]

Yep. It seems we have forgotten how much money our ancestors lent and put in things like railroads, roads, telephone lines, dikes (in our case), education, hospitals, airports and what not. That infrastructure led to the prosperity that we are all accustomed to and that also paid off these loans.

Now that we are on the brink of another trillion-euro enterprise, the creation of a sustainable economy, our leaders have turned into a bunch of frightened supermarket managers. Suddenly the actual figure of our national debt seems more important than what you actually get for this debt in the long term.

Politicians both left and right used to have visions of a better world that they actively tried to attribute to but nowadays all they do is mind the shop. A vision is (at least in my country) seen as an elephant standing in front of the view. I often wonder when that became the norm.

[Simon]

I'm confused, public services which are being devastated in the UK are not investments that make money. They are services that WE ALL pay for, because free at point of service is one thing, but we all still pay in various amounts for these services. The problem is that the government does not collect tax from all that owe it. As the recent scandal shows lots of large companies are stock piling profits in offshore islands to avoid UK tax and tax around the world. So we have to pay more tax whilst going without a full compliment of services. The debt exists because we are not collecting enough taxes, the debt exists because we bailed out a bunch of rich corporations so that they can continue as before. i am afraid the system is bent because it is run by certain people.

[woody]

public services which are being devastated in the UK are not investments that make money. They are services that WE ALL pay for, because free at point of service is one thing, but we all still pay in various amounts for these services.

In a way those services do make us money. These services get us to work and back, give us internet, make us healthy when sick, feed us, shelter us etc. Yes, we all pay for that, but that is a fraction of the money involved if those services were not there and we had to pay to get them instated when needed.

I do agree with your other complaint, tax evasion. A real problem, and a really unfair one too. John Doe never gets a tax break; his income and spending are known to two decimals and fines for forgetting to declare something are heavy and speedy, while, if you have the money to pay one of those Smith, Jones and the Other accountants you are able to set up shady deals with the tax office and pay a fraction of what you are owned. Everything within the law and with help of the tax authorities. My country seems so good at this that someone on TV said it makes Luxembourg look like a kindergarten.

This not only makes the deficit much higher than needed, it completely wrecks the 'stronger shoulders carry the bigger weight' principle that is behind all taxes. It breaks society. Yes, the system is bent.

[Simon]

Nope public services do not make the country much profit at all, if the country becomes the rich that can afford private series and the poor are taken out of the economy and/or left to die then the "loss" is not to the economy represented only by the rich. Obviously I am taking things to the extreme but when you look at the UK you start to wonder. When ministers start making proposals like charging £10 a go to see your doctor (for a 10 minute slot - nice little earner) and local government score political points by refusing to collect enough tax to run their services you start to wonder. As i said earlier, my local regions government is basically broke and expect the news any day that it is bankrupt. It has also emerged that secret discussions went on about how to break the news and when, they choose now rather than try and peg on until 2019 because.............. in 2019 we will have regional elections....... so they want the bad news out of the way now.

[Simon]

oh and of course while the public purse is going bust we are handing money over to internet companies to install fibre optic because if we don't they won't install it, naturally they will make a fortune selling the service, the biggest money for old rope industry is getting handouts from the government so that it can become even richer........

[tszaboo]

I'm confused, public services which are being devastated in the UK are not investments that make money.

There is a clear and documented causation between investment in infrastructure and GDP. And another one for infrastructure and happiness. For example wide adaptation of high speed internet causes 3% economic growth.
A transport company is never going to move somewhere, where only dirt roads are.
I don't know, where your frustration is coming, but there is no need to start stretching facts and saying bullshit. Probably you are just pissed off about the UK politicians.

[Simon]

I did say that I was pushing examples to their limits, or at least I hope this situation is never a limit. It depends on who makes policies and what they want, it also depends on how close we are to an election. As i say, sure faster internet is good, but can't a massive company afford to install their own infrastructure? of course not because the share holders expect bigger and bigger payouts and success of a company is not based on how well it delivers it's services and it's customer satisfaction but how high it's stocks and shares are. So they turn to their friends in government who start a national scheme to help fund a private company updating it's infrastructure. Now if that service of telecoms had not been privatised then the government and the country as a whole would benefit from the improvements in infrastructure and the increased profits for the better service.