# Selling Property in these times!



## rotaels

We live in Mallorca and have our apartment on the market with three estate agents for nearly a year now with few viewings. Should we be advertising in the UK through someone like Right Move or try to advertise it ourselves in local newspapers or british papers... would this be a waste of time and money as have a small budget for self-promoting. Any advice would be really appreciated... as we keep thinking there must be something more we could be doing....


----------



## xabiaxica

rotaels said:


> We live in Mallorca and have our apartment on the market with three estate agents for nearly a year now with few viewings. Should we be advertising in the UK through someone like Right Move or try to advertise it ourselves in local newspapers or british papers... would this be a waste of time and money as have a small budget for self-promoting. Any advice would be really appreciated... as we keep thinking there must be something more we could be doing....


tough one to answer tbh

I know people who have had properties on the market for more than a year - even 2 years - & others who have sold within a week or two!!

the house next to me is for sale - has been for well over a year - & it's on one of the most sought after urbs in the town - all I can think is that they are expecting too much money for it.... 

others on the urb have sold in that time - & some are in not such a good position, either


----------



## 90199

2 years with a agent not one enquiry, one year with a sign in the window three enquiries, no one has yet viewed, price reduced considerably.

No one has any money so unless we get extremely fortunate, it will not sell.

Could have rented it umpteen times, but don't need the rental income and don't want nagging tenants.


----------



## rotaels

I know its tough... ours is in a very desirable area, shows well, priced well and still negotiable.. its just so frustrating when you feel your hands are tied...


----------



## Chopera

Your agent should be advertising on rightmove anyway. If not then use a different one that does.


----------



## Guest

I agree. You want an local Agent that is selling on RightMove or a UK Agent that sells on RightMove. Either way you need an agent active in the UK Market, not just an advert in a window front or maybe active in the Russian market too???


----------



## 90199

ironstone said:


> I agree. You want an local Agent that is selling on RightMove or a UK Agent that sells on RightMove. Either way you need an agent active in the UK Market, not just an advert in a window front or maybe active in the Russian market too???


Both pointless really, we do not have many U.K. people visit or settle here, besides us there are two other English, and I have never seen or heard of any Russians coming here.

Might be a good idea on the Iberian part of Spanish territories and perhaps the 
Baleares but certainly not here.


----------



## Guest

Really? Not many English in Mallorca? I never knew that. I actually know a Russian family looking to buy in Mallorca and they were saying they have to look at the UK to find properties in Mallorca.


----------



## rotaels

I'm in Mallorca and there is a big english community in our area so I must check with my agents to see if they show their properties with Right Move. Thanks for that I'll get on to it... anything else I should be doing....


----------



## Guest

Thanks, I thought I'd lost the plot for a moment


----------



## 90199

ironstone said:


> Really? Not many English in Mallorca? I never knew that. I actually know a Russian family looking to buy in Mallorca and they were saying they have to look at the UK to find properties in Mallorca.



Psssst, I live on the Meridian Isle of El Hierro,


----------



## 90199

Just this minute had another call some one wanting to rent.


----------



## Guest

Very good but the initial post said they live in Mallorca. You said "Both pointless really, we do not have many U.K. people visit or settle here, besides us there are two other English, and I have never seen or heard of any Russians coming here."


----------



## 90199

ironstone said:


> Very good but the initial post said they live in Mallorca. You said "Both pointless really, we do not have many U.K. people visit or settle here, besides us there are two other English, and I have never seen or heard of any Russians coming here."


I see where you got mixed up, so sorry if I confused you. Says next to my Avatar where we live though.


----------



## Guest

Yes it does, but didn't agree with my comment (not that you have to) but it was to do with Mallorca.


----------



## XTreme

Rightmove is not the big player....it's Kyero and to a lesser extent ThinkSpain.

If you're using an agent that doesn't promote their properties on Kyero then your options are going to be limited.


----------



## Guest

That's right but you need an Agent that's also marketing in the UK ideally with RightMove to increase that chance. When we were looking (before we moved here) we never came across Kyero and found Think Spain rubbish as a website to use.


----------



## XTreme

ironstone said:


> That's right but you need an Agent that's also marketing in the UK ideally with RightMove to increase that chance. When we were looking (before we moved here) we never came across Kyero and found Think Spain rubbish as a website to use.


Let me elaborate a bit!
I've been here 8 years and during that time have had around 100 different Estate Agents as clients.
I've seen them come....I've seen them go. 

Though I'm not an Estate Agent....I absolutely know what works in reality in terms of marketing! Because I see site statistics, bandwidth, email logs etc etc.....and if they're on Kyero it's heavy traffic. If they're off....it's very little traffic.

That's what Kyero does....that site alone can make or break them. I'm not saying don't put in other places....but if marketing budget is limited (as in most casaes) then Kyero has to be the number one choice.

So I'm giving you information here based on years of dealing with this industry on a day to day basis.....not as a casual bystander.


----------



## rotaels

I'll definitely investigate Kyero big thanks for that also... what else I should be doing am I missing anything else.... how about taking out an ad in the local newspaper here or an newspaper in UK is that a wast of time... it so hard to stand by and wait for maybe years when we really can't!!


----------



## Guest

Hi XTreme

I didn't say don't go with an agent that's on Kyero. Just go with an Agent that also advertises on RightMove in the UK as well.

For example if you search Google UK for "property for sale costa del sol" RightMove comes top, it's a UK brand that people in the UK will recognise. ThinkSpain is there and so is Kyero near the bottom.

I'm guessing you've done loads of websites for Spanish Estate Agents then?


----------



## XTreme

ironstone said:


> Hi XTreme
> 
> I didn't say don't go with an agent that's on Kyero. Just go with an Agent that also advertises on RightMove in the UK as well.
> 
> For example if you search Google UK for "property for sale costa del sol" RightMove comes top, it's a UK brand that people in the UK will recognise. ThinkSpain is there and so is Kyero near the bottom.
> 
> I'm guessing you've done loads of websites for Spanish Estate Agents then?


Yes.....absolutely loads! Mainly Brits, but also Spanish, Dutch, French, German......and even one Danish.

From 2006 to 2008 every other new site was an Estate Agent......now it's probably 1 in 5.


----------



## jojo

ironstone said:


> That's right but you need an Agent that's also marketing in the UK ideally with RightMove to increase that chance. When we were looking (before we moved here) we never came across Kyero and found Think Spain rubbish as a website to use.



Right move is great for the UK, but several agents on there who claim to deal in foreign countries are just doing it as a sideline and certainly havent a clue about Spain, the rules, the properties or anything else - a waste of time IMO - use a local agent, preferably Spanish or at least an established spanish company who knows what they're doing and understands the areas

Jo xxx


----------



## XTreme

You teasing me Jo?


----------



## Guest

Hi JoJo

What I am trying to say is get a local Agent (UK speaking) based in your area that's on Kyero etc but also exports their feed to RightMove in the UK.


----------



## jojo

ironstone said:


> Hi JoJo
> 
> What I am trying to say is get a local Agent (UK speaking) based in your area that's on Kyero etc but also exports their feed to RightMove in the UK.


Why?? Rightmove is and was the last place I'd look if I was planning to rent or buy in Spain - pointless!!!!!

I use it to sell my UK house. in fact my UK house is on it as I type lol!!, but definitely not Spain - I wouldnt recommend it at all for that!!!!

Jo


----------



## XTreme

It's bad enough with the headmistress disciplining me.......now you're playing with me as well. 

All we need now is ******** Strav to start droning on at me about Chav cars, ponytails, and Leper Colonies!


----------



## 90199

ironstone said:


> Yes it does, but didn't agree with my comment (not that you have to) but it was to do with Mallorca.


The title to the thread is "_*Selling property in these times*_," and that is what my post referred to,


----------



## rotaels

I'm with an English and also a German estate agency but not a spanish one as its mostly german, english and other europeans as the locals find the area too expensive,


----------



## Guest

Searching Google doesn't bring Kyero or local agents top. It brings RightMove up. People in the UK will look there first.

You don't get it. Not to worry


----------



## Guest

JoJo how do I close this account?


----------



## XTreme

ironstone said:


> Searching Google doesn't bring Kyero or local agents top. It brings RightMove up. People in the UK will look there first.
> 
> You don't get it. Not to worry


Depends on your search string, your location, and what server you're being routed to....because the results on each will vary depending on when their cache is refreshed.

So there is no definitive Google number one.....and being in first place doesn't mean you're doing any more business than somebody in sixth place. 

Google is not a magic bullet to success and wealth.......sure it helps, but it's not the major contributory factor.

And as I pointed out earlier, the results I've seen have permanently showed Kyero as the outright leader in this field....by a very wide margin.


----------



## jojo

ironstone said:


> Searching Google doesn't bring Kyero or local agents top. It brings RightMove up. People in the UK will look there first.
> 
> You don't get it. Not to worry


Rightmove is a big site and I'm sure it uses fair means to get to the top, altho it does depend on how often an individual views certain sites - but I'm sure that no one is going to look at it just cos its at the top and look at nothing else - the best thing to do is to visit Spain and find the area/property that suit you and that you are guided by an agent who knows their stuff. 

If you want to close your account, just log out

Jo xxx


----------



## xabiaxica

XTreme said:


> Depends on your search string, your location, and what server you're being routed to....because the results on each will vary depending on when their cache is refreshed.
> 
> So there is no definitive Google number one.....and being in first place doesn't mean you're doing any more business than somebody in sixth place.
> 
> Google is not a magic bullet to success and wealth.......sure it helps, but it's not the major contributory factor.
> 
> And as I pointed out earlier, the results I've seen have permanently showed Kyero as the outright leader in this field....by a very wide margin.


so if someone is in the UK they're more likely to get a UK based site like RightMove - & if they're in Spain, Kyero/fotocasa etc.??


----------



## jojo

XTreme said:


> Depends on your search string, your location, and what server you're being routed to....because the results on each will vary depending on when their cache is refreshed.
> 
> So there is no definitive Google number one.....and being in first place doesn't mean you're doing any more business than somebody in sixth place.
> 
> Google is not a magic bullet to success and wealth.......sure it helps, but it's not the major contributory factor.
> 
> And as I pointed out earlier, the results I've seen have permanently showed Kyero as the outright leader in this field....by a very wide margin.


....... unless they pay!

Jo xxx


----------



## XTreme

xabiachica said:


> so if someone is in the UK they're more likely to get a UK based site like RightMove - & if they're in Spain, Kyero/fotocasa etc.??


If you go to Google in let's say the US.....you'll be on the American version which prioritises the results according to the American audience. UK will be the same!

However....an experienced webmaster can assign a site within Google Webmaster Central to be prioritised towards the country of it's customer base.

So....in our case (we run our own dedicated servers in London and Chicago).....with an estate agent in Spain I would run the site out of London (and irrespective of it being .com, .net, .org) would specify that it gets spidered as a UK site. So it figures higher in UK searches.

Now you know the huge mistake people make? They get a .es.....and then target Britain. 
You cannot do that because an es domain will _automatically_ be targeted at Spain.....you can't change it. So if you've got an es and your target market is Britain then you're dead in the water.


----------



## XTreme

To clarify.....both Kyero, RightMove etc will all assign global location to their sites (by not specifying a target market).....as they want to hit all the EU.

So depending on what you search for you're not guaranteed that any of them will have total superiority. Plus it changes on a daily basis.


----------



## xabiaxica

XTreme said:


> To clarify.....both Kyero, RightMove etc will all assign global location to their sites (by not specifying a target market).....as they want to hit all the EU.
> 
> So depending on what you search for you're not guaranteed that any of them will have total superiority. Plus it changes on a daily basis.


interesting, thanks


----------



## Navas

xabiachica said:


> so if someone is in the UK they're more likely to get a UK based site like RightMove - & if they're in Spain, Kyero/fotocasa etc.??


It does depend on which language you use to do your search. If I search in Spanish, which I normally do, I get Fotocasa, Idealista, Mil Anuncios, Nestoria at the top of my search. If I do the exact same search in English, I get ThinkSpain at the top of my list, with RightMove (even though they have no properties where I'm looking) at 5th place.
I haven't built a web site in many a long year, but in the old days, you could affect ranking by using the right metadata (keywords) hidden in the HTML.


----------



## xabiaxica

Navas said:


> It does depend on which language you use to do your search. If I search in Spanish, which I normally do, I get Fotocasa, Idealista, Mil Anuncios, Nestoria at the top of my search. If I do the exact same search in English, I get ThinkSpain at the top of my list, with RightMove (even though they have no properties where I'm looking) at 5th place.
> I haven't built a web site in many a long year, but in the old days, you could affect ranking by using the right metadata (keywords) hidden in the HTML.


I do too, depending on what I'm looking for - & I use google.es

but I was really thinking of the average Brit who doesn't speak Spanish & probably doesn't even know that google.es exists!

I sort of understand that what keywords you use will make a difference - but I wondered how much difference the IP address of the computer doing the search made


----------



## XTreme

Navas said:


> I haven't built a web site in many a long year, but in the old days, you could affect ranking by using the right metadata (keywords) hidden in the HTML.


Long gone! Search Engine algorithms were very basic back then and that was their limitations. Quantity of back links is not particularly relevant now either.

Now it's solely down to quality of content.....which is great! And if a site looks like it's "over-SEO'd" then it'll be penalised for it.


----------



## XTreme

xabiachica said:


> I do too, depending on what I'm looking for - & I use google.es
> 
> but I was really thinking of the average Brit who doesn't speak Spanish & probably doesn't even know that google.es exists!
> 
> I sort of understand that what keywords you use will make a difference - but I wondered how much difference the IP address of the computer doing the search made


if you're in Spain and go to google.com then you're actually on .es because of your IP. And if your language preferences are set to English then you're on .es with results filtered for English.

I always work from google.co.uk because it know it gives a clearer representation of searches targetted at UK viewers. 

But as I always say, Google is not the be-all and end-all. Great positioning there does not mean money in the bank. This is a myth that has been perpetuated over numerous years to perpetuate the sale of "SEO" services.


----------



## Stravinsky

Well, have watched this and not commented. Until now 

I put my house on the market and sold it within 2 months. I did a lot of research before I put it on the market and decided on the following:

I put it on with two internet companies. Magnolia in the UK (who put it on their site and with Kyero, Rightmove etc etc) and a Russian estate agency site

With the help of Xtreme I created a page with my own pics and description

I put it on with three local estate agents

For the internet companies I got one enquiry from Russia with no follow ups. With the UK company I got about 10 enquiries, one of which resulted in a visit and I have several people who have intimated that they will come to view in August / September

Of the three estate agents the Spanish one didnt contact me with any leads. In fact they just never contacted me! The second established British one sent about 12 people to view. Most were brits, but a Norweigian and a German Family as well.

The third agent was a bought in a month into the sale and were very proactive from the start. They only sent two families up to view. The first took one look and said they didn't want a villa with any steps and refused even to go into the villa. The second family bought it. They werent British.

My conclusions were that (as I had originally surmised) I was unlikely to sell to Brits. I knew that Russians were buying, but as soon as I went on with the Russian site Cyprus happened, and I'm thinking that put Russians off buying abroad a little. Most of the real interest came from non UK Europeans.

So I wouldn't get wrapped up in Kyero or Right move because you are then relying on someone in the UK showing interest and then making the effort to come to Spain to view ....... what it seems _will _sell your house is (a) putting it up at a realistic price and (b) making sure you get the right estate agent.

There are quite a few villas for sale on our mountain. Most in my view (and the estate agents) will not sell for years, mainly because of the asking price. Some are on for €75k + more than ours was because people are just being unrealistic. One has been for sale since we moved to Spain in 2006!

Hope that helps


----------



## XTreme

I didn't know you'd sold Jon........what a result!

Though I will tell anybody reading this that the villa in question was absolutely stunning and it was up for sale at a great price!

And that's the key here.....the house can go up on any number of sites but without representing excellent value for money you haven't got a hope in this financial climate.

So don't obsess about Property Portal A having better positioning than Property Portal B.......just make sure that what you are offering is a great buy!


----------



## doro

Stravinsky said:


> ....... what it seems _will _sell your house is (a) putting it up at a realistic price and (b) making sure you get the right estate agent.
> 
> There are quite a few villas for sale on our mountain. Most in my view (and the estate agents) will not sell for years, mainly because of the asking price. Some are on for €75k + more than ours was because people are just being unrealistic. One has been for sale since we moved to Spain in 2006!
> 
> Hope that helps


This!

I doubt the agent is the main problem. Peoples who want to buy a property usually check different sites before, many many times. But what makes the final decision is *the price.*

You want to sell, put a realistic price for today, and you may have luck. You want to sell fast, put a dumping price, and move forward. Try to fool, and you will not sell. Sure, there are stupid peoples who pay fortunes for ruins, but those are one in a million, do not wait for them.

And try to think how a possible buyer think:
- "For xxx$ i can buy a better property in Portugal"
- "For half of money i can buy same property in next city"
- "seems to much, the prices will go down anyway, I can wait"
and list can continue.

Good luck!


----------



## Chopera

Stravinsky said:


> ...
> 
> So I wouldn't get wrapped up in Kyero or Right move because you are then relying on someone in the UK showing interest and then making the effort to come to Spain to view ....... what it seems _will _sell your house is (a) putting it up at a realistic price and (b) making sure you get the right estate agent.
> 
> There are quite a few villas for sale on our mountain. Most in my view (and the estate agents) will not sell for years, mainly because of the asking price. Some are on for €75k + more than ours was because people are just being unrealistic. One has been for sale since we moved to Spain in 2006!
> 
> Hope that helps


Yes, if a property is being well advertised and still not selling, then it's more than likely that the reason it's not selling is the price. A UK agent once told me that a correctly priced property will always sell. The problem in Spain is that the agents don't know how to price to a subdued market. In the UK most agents won't take on a property that is unrealistically priced, they'll consider the vendor to be a time waster. However in Spain they don't seem to care. Which makes it harder for everyone concerned to know what the market price is.


----------



## mrypg9

We live in an area where ten years ago villas were selling very quickly at prices well over €1million. Now these properties are on offer for half that price...and still not selling. There are very many that have been on the market since we moved here nearly five years ago.


----------



## Stravinsky

doro said:


> You want to sell, put a realistic price for today, and you may have luck. You want to sell fast, put a dumping price, and move forward. Try to fool, and you will not sell. Sure, there are stupid peoples who pay fortunes for ruins, but those are one in a million, do not wait for them.


I didnt put a "dumping price" on it. I put a realistic price on it, bearing in mind the current market. I was offered €30k less than the asking price a week after it went on sale. I didnt take it. I would have been incredibly stupid to do so, and eventually got what I wanted.

There's a difference between a dumping price and a realistic price. This is where so many make the mistake. Properties in Spain are overpriced period! Spanish owners it seems just leave them on at over inflated prices for years. It's their choice.


----------



## doro

Stravinsky said:


> I didnt put a "dumping price" on it. I put a realistic price on it, bearing in mind the current market. I was offered €30k less than the asking price a week after it went on sale. I didnt take it. I would have been incredibly stupid to do so, and eventually got what I wanted.
> 
> There's a difference between a dumping price and a realistic price. This is where so many make the mistake. Properties in Spain are overpriced period! Spanish owners it seems just leave them on at over inflated prices for years. It's their choice.


You are to kind when you say "overpriced". I would say "super-overpriced".

Shall I say that money for a modest apartment in Spain are the same with a nice villa in Croatia or Portugal?

Yes, some Spanish owners do not want to put the real prices because of greed, and some other can't because they can't afford to pay the lose I think.


----------



## jules 123

Stravinsky said:


> I didnt put a "dumping price" on it. I put a realistic price on it, bearing in mind the current market. I was offered €30k less than the asking price a week after it went on sale. I didnt take it. I would have been incredibly stupid to do so, and eventually got what I wanted.
> 
> There's a difference between a dumping price and a realistic price. This is where so many make the mistake. Properties in Spain are overpriced period! Spanish owners it seems just leave them on at over inflated prices for years. It's their choice.


Excellent news ... not surprised it sold quickly though; it is a beautiful property and quality sells.


----------



## Sirtravelot

I was in Germany and talked to an estate agent who was selling an apartment in Andrax. She said she didn't have one single person asking about it.


----------



## rotaels

Thanks everyone for your valued views and Stravinsky very interesting what you said... I'll certainly have a look at asking price again that is obviously where to start!


----------



## XTreme

jules 123 said:


> Excellent news ... not surprised it sold quickly though; it is a beautiful property and quality sells.


I've got rid of him at last Jules!


----------



## mrypg9

jules 123 said:


> Excellent news ... not surprised it sold quickly though; it is a beautiful property and *quality sells*.


If that were the case then there would be no unsold houses in this area...yet there are very many well-constructed large villas, some on three or four large plots, all with large pools and landscaped gardens, on the market for four years or more. 
Yet I can think of only two that have sold in the past year.
My guess is that people whose eyes were bigger than their bank balances bought these over-priced luxury properties in the boom years, now find they simply can't afford them yet are obliged to ask unrealistic prices to cover their unsustainable debts.


----------



## extranjero

I saw a letter in the Expat press which echoed my own thoughts. The writer suggested that insulting offers should be rejected, and if enough people did so give away prices would stop. The only thing is, that banks have loads of properties that they are prepared to give away at knock down prices. Someone said a beautiful property will always sell, but there are many such properties in the Murcia area and they have been for sale many years.How can you blame people for not wanting to give them away, after the money care and time spent on them?If you buy a house in UK, you buy an empty shell. Here buyers expect to get a furnished house, with white goods , rejas, mosquito screens, fireplaces, central heating, air conditioning, landscaped gardens, expensive garden furniture, no work to do, and still the greedy so and so,s put in an insulting offer. Of course there will always be reasons, such as bereavement, when the seller is prepared to make a reduction, but I wish more people would stand their ground!


----------



## baldilocks

extranjero said:


> I saw a letter in the Expat press which echoed my own thoughts. The writer suggested that insulting offers should be rejected, and if enough people did so give away prices would stop. The only thing is, that banks have loads of properties that they are prepared to give away at knock down prices. Someone said a beautiful property will always sell, but there are many such properties in the Murcia area and they have been for sale many years.How can you blame people for not wanting to give them away, after the money care and time spent on them?If you buy a house in UK, you buy an empty shell. Here buyers expect to get a furnished house, with white goods , rejas, mosquito screens, fireplaces, central heating, air conditioning, landscaped gardens, expensive garden furniture, no work to do, and still the greedy so and so,s put in an insulting offer. Of course there will always be reasons, such as bereavement, when the seller is prepared to make a reduction, but I wish more people would stand their ground!


That's why I think it disgusting the selfish bar stewards (even on this forum) who advocate waiting until people are so desperate to sell that they will almost give their hard-worked-for properties away. Offer a fair price for what you are going to get so that you don't add to the misery of those who, often, are faced with a sad misfortune through no fault of their own. BTW, I am not including the stupid in these who should never have come to Spain in the first place, especially with no money, no job, no pension, no income, no hope nothing and in many cases no functioning brain cells.


----------



## XTreme

baldilocks said:


> I am not including the stupid in these who should never have come to Spain in the first place, especially with no money, no job, no pension, no income, no hope nothing and in many cases no functioning brain cells.


Baldy......have you noticed that in real life and on forums, that you can always spot them a mile off!

Because they always talk in the past....."I was"...."I had"....."I did"....."I managed".....but in the here and now, there's NOTHING to talk about other than how bad Spain is.

The reality is that when people have the apron strings cut, and the safety blanket taken away.......it's THEN that you really see what they're made of.

It doesn't matter who you were or what you did in a past life.....all that matters is the here and now, and what YOU can bring to the table!

I love Spain....it's a great leveller!


----------



## jimenato

baldilocks said:


> That's why I think it disgusting the selfish bar stewards (even on this forum) who advocate waiting until people are so desperate to sell that they will almost give their hard-worked-for properties away. Offer a fair price for what you are going to get so that you don't add to the misery of those who, often, are faced with a sad misfortune through no fault of their own. BTW, I am not including the stupid in these who should never have come to Spain in the first place, especially with no money, no job, no pension, no income, no hope nothing and in many cases no functioning brain cells.


That's all very well but what is 'a fair price'? Who decides? My idea of a fair price is probably a lot different from yours...


----------



## jules 123

mrypg9 said:


> If that were the case then there would be no unsold houses in this area...yet there are very many well-constructed large villas, some on three or four large plots, all with large pools and landscaped gardens, on the market for four years or more.
> Yet I can think of only two that have sold in the past year.
> My guess is that people whose eyes were bigger than their bank balances bought these over-priced luxury properties in the boom years, now find they simply can't afford them yet are obliged to ask unrealistic prices to cover their unsustainable debts.


I agree - it sold because it was priced right but no matter what the price, the quality will have made a difference. I can't see many poorly built properties selling even at giveaway prices.


----------



## mrypg9

There is no such thing as a 'fair price' for a house.
A house is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
How long you worked to get it, your financial circumstances etc. have nothing to do with the price a punter will pay.


----------



## mrypg9

extranjero said:


> I saw a letter in the Expat press which echoed my own thoughts. The writer suggested that insulting offers should be rejected, and if enough people did so give away prices would stop. The only thing is, that banks have loads of properties that they are prepared to give away at knock down prices. Someone said a beautiful property will always sell, but there are many such properties in the Murcia area and they have been for sale many years.How can you blame people for not wanting to give them away, after the money care and time spent on them?If you buy a house in UK, you buy an empty shell. Here buyers expect to get a furnished house, with white goods , rejas, mosquito screens, fireplaces, central heating, air conditioning, landscaped gardens, expensive garden furniture, no work to do, and still the greedy so and so,s put in an insulting offer. Of course there will always be reasons, such as bereavement, when the seller is prepared to make a reduction, but I wish more people would stand their ground!


All of that misses the essential point that prices of anything whether fish or Spanish properties are governed by the laws of supply and demand.
There is currently a glut of properties on the market in Spain and prices will reflect that.
You can 'stand your ground' all you like if you can afford to but as Mrs Thatcher famously said 'you can't buck the market'. The circumstances of the vendor have nothing to do with the sale proce of anything.

We wanted a quick sale for our residential and commercial properties when we left the UK so we therefore asked a realistic price ......taking into account current market prices and pitching in just under. Yes we could have asked for more and lined up with similar properties in the area. But we wanted a quick sale at a realistic price
Result: money in the bank rather than empty properties with all the attendant costs and worries.
Far too many people here in Spain set their own unrealistic price on their properties, disregarding the current state of the market.
Life's a *****, not a beach, as a lot of people have discovered.


----------



## mrypg9

I rest my case!!


----------



## baldilocks

mrypg9 said:


> I rest my case!!


I though we were talking about property not collections of lego bricks coated in adobe!


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> I though we were talking about property not collections of lego bricks coated in adobe!


You can call it what you like, Baldy, but your townhouse inland, your finca in the campo, your piso in a gated community by the sea,your luxury villa are all property and all are subject to the laws of supply and demand.
You may love your little house to bits but to others it's just a collection of whatever bits it took to put it together.
Houses of all kinds are like tomatoes: when there's lots of them on the market, the prices fall.

I think the reason that the large, attractive well-built houses on the market round here aren't selling is simply that this area is mainly of interest to the Spanish market and domestic sales have dropped by 50% in this area, as I read in today's local paper. There is little work in this area so most purchases will be made by retired business or professional people from Madrid or Seville. Our neighbour Manolo is a retired architect. He wants to sell to move to Madrid but his house has been on the market for at least two years.

Interestingly, there are few if any houses for sale in the village. These are all typical Spanish pueblo houses and I'm guessing that they have been occupied by the same families for very many years. The big posh houses are mainly owned by outsiders from the bigger cities, I'd guess.


----------



## Leper

Let's face it, during the boom times we looked at our Spanish property the same way that an elderly gent looks at his 25 year old mistress. Then crash, bang and what was worth say €300,000 suddenly becomes €140,000. You've discovered that your mistress has aids and now you are heading for hospital with suspected aids.
The market place looks completely different from where the purchaser stands. The vendor does not want to come down in price; afterall, this venture was an investment, nest-egg or whatever you like.

If you want to sell, you will have to reduce the price. Otherwise, you will be waiting a long time . . . but, if you are in negative equity then your mistress is terminally ill.

Sorry, to break the bad news.


----------



## jojo

Leper said:


> Let's face it, during the boom times we looked at our Spanish property the same way that an elderly gent looks at his 25 year old mistress. Then crash, bang and what was worth say €300,000 suddenly becomes €140,000. You've discovered that your mistress has aids and now you are heading for hospital with suspected aids.
> The market place looks completely different from where the purchaser stands. The vendor does not want to come down in price; afterall, this venture was an investment, nest-egg or whatever you like.
> 
> If you want to sell, you will have to reduce the price. Otherwise, you will be waiting a long time . . . but, if you are in negative equity then your mistress is terminally ill.
> 
> Sorry, to break the bad news.


An interesting analogy lol!!

All I will say is that now isnt the time to buy an investment property in Spain. Things may pick up, but its high risk and very long term. The best thing to do is buy in Spain because you want to live there. You're buying a home and forget any money that may or may not be made, it should be a purchase from the heart or a necessity! 

Jo xxx


----------



## maxd

Seems like quite a few want to sell here. Just wondering why when it is probably the worst time to do so? Missing home?


----------



## keith277

jojo said:


> An interesting analogy lol!!
> 
> All I will say is that now isnt the time to buy an investment property in Spain. Things may pick up, but its high risk and very long term. The best thing to do is buy in Spain because you want to live there. You're buying a home and forget any money that may or may not be made, it should be a purchase from the heart or a necessity!
> 
> Jo xxx


Very wise words indeed....if you're looking for an investment with a return, stick to the UK market ;-)


----------



## Stravinsky

keith277 said:


> Very wise words indeed....if you're looking for an investment with a return,* stick to the UK market *;-)


Are you in the UK?

In the 80's and 90's I made a fair few quid out of house selling and buying. It's not the same any more. Property in the UK could be a wise investment back in the day, but even the "experts" think those days are gone. The first time buyer market has been destroyed, and that's where the trouble starts.


----------



## keith277

Stravinsky said:


> Are you in the UK?
> 
> In the 80's and 90's I made a fair few quid out of house selling and buying. It's not the same any more. Property in the UK could be a wise investment back in the day, but even the "experts" think those days are gone. The first time buyer market has been destroyed, and that's where the trouble starts.


No I float between the UK / Mallorca and work....but my point is.. if you are a UK resident then UK property prices are still good for buying and then renting / holding and getting a return on them...housing needs in the UK are increasing.
As previous posters have pointed out, buying in Spain for the sole reason of getting a good return / profit is no longer the dream that it was 10-15 years ago, and people looking to buy now should be doing so for a genuine reason not profit driven


----------



## agua642

Buying property now is as low in price as it has been for 20years, if you have the cash for an investment and know for sure you're not needing to sell I think it's a good opportunity time to buy, property market will pick up eventually it may take a few years but Spain will pull through.


----------



## jimenato

keith277 said:


> No I float between the UK / Mallorca and work....but my point is.. if you are a UK resident then UK property prices are still good for buying and then renting / holding and getting a return on them...housing needs in the UK are increasing.
> As previous posters have pointed out, buying in Spain for the sole reason of getting a good return / profit is no longer the dream that it was 10-15 years ago, and people looking to buy now should be doing so for a genuine reason not profit driven


Yes the basic characteristics of the housing markets are completely different in the UK and Spain. Spain (at least parts thereof) have a massive glut of housing which will remain unsold for many years. The position in the UK is that of shortage.

Obvious where to invest if you are that way inclined...


----------



## baldilocks

I have never bought property for the purpose of investment, just for living in which is why I advocate buying somewhere to live in Spain rather than renting. If it goes up in value, fine; if it doesn't, I'm not bothered unless I *need* to sell and since I have no intention of doing so, it doesn't matter.


----------



## keith277

We have a house in the Algaida area of Mallorca...so no influx of tourists at all..we bought for a couple of reasons but none of them were profit driven, we wanted to have somewhere to eventually retire / live and we love the island, we bought a typical Mallorcan villa / house that was pretty run down and in need of TLC...we have managed to do quite a lot to it over the last 3 years and have no intention of selling, we come over a lot and friends use it when we are not there..so best of both worlds really..in the ideal world we will move over full time in the next few years and sell or rent our UK property.


----------



## jojo

agua642 said:


> Buying property now is as low in price as it has been for 20years, if you have the cash for an investment and know for sure you're not needing to sell I think it's a good opportunity time to buy, property market will pick up eventually it may take a few years but Spain will pull through.


I'm sure you're right, the market is low, but to buy as an investment will take a long time AND lets not forget, Spain has some strange rules and regulations, which it seems to bring in at will and could nibble away at any possible investment opportunities, such as various taxes, rental rules, building restrictions...... blah, blah!!! Who knows??!!!

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> Seems like quite a few want to sell here. Just wondering why when it is probably the worst time to do so? Missing home?


Overstretched, more like it. Didn't do the sums properly back in the UK.
Just like Prague, there was a time when a little money went a long way.
Those days are over here, never to return.


----------



## mrypg9

agua642 said:


> Buying property now is as low in price as it has been for 20years, if you have the cash for an investment and know for sure you're not needing to sell I think it's a good opportunity time to buy, property market will pick up eventually it may take a few years but Spain will pull through.


It could take fifteen to twenty years before the property market in Spain 'picks up'. In the meantime, there is a backlog of over one million houses to clear...and that's not taking into account the amount of land zoned for residential development which for obvious reasons banks and other developers are holding back. Plus everything depends on the state of the Spanish and to some extent European economy.
Any serious investor would not see that as a good prospect.

People talk glibly about renting...but I wonder how many are experienced landlords? Renting can be an absolute nightmare. We had a few properties in the UK we rented out when we were living a short drive away, plus one abroad. Laws weighted in favour of tenants, agents' fees, 'difficult' tenants, maintenance, tax....bad enough when you're in the UK but owning rental property abroad when you are in the UK...
Of course not everyone has awkward tenants or has to fork out for expensive repairs. But having been there, done that etc. I was delighted when we finally divested ourselves of all properties. The last straw was when we had left the UK and were renting out one property, the tenant stole a credit card which the bank, although notified that I had left the UK, had thoughtfully sent to my previous address together with PIN and helped herself to £5000.

Having heard so many horror stories about tenants from hell here I would never contemplate renting any property I owned..but that's just my view of things.
Baldy and I also disagree about the renting/buying decision. It all depends on circumstances. We are dedicated SKINs as son and dil are both very big earners and dil will inherit from wealthy dad...so they don't need anything we have left. We aren't the only people in that position. I also know a few older people who are stuck in large houses that are now far too big for their needs and that they themselves can't look after and are obliged to hire gardeners, housekeepers etc. They would love to sell and downsize but can't find buyers.

Three or five more years in this house and we'll be downsizing with no worries about looking for a buyer. 
It's all horses for courses.


----------



## Chopera

In Spain there probably are areas with high demand and low supply, cities mainly, and in those areas there will be a buck to be made at some point. However most UK punters are focused on holiday lets in Spain, which somewhat limits their market. Also if you want to buy to let, it's a lot easier to get hold of credit in the UK, and landlords are a lot more protected in the UK. So the UK is a safer bet, but I do think that horse bolted 10 years ago. In Madrid I now see apartments going for €50k and you can let them for €500pcm. You don't see those returns in the UK anymore but the risks are higher and getting hold of credit is tough.


----------



## 90199

maxd said:


> Seems like quite a few want to sell here. Just wondering why when it is probably the worst time to do so? Missing home?


Here is home, in Valverde, I have interests in more than one property, quite apart from the one I live in. I have disposed of one earlier this year and I wish to sell an apartment and invest in another property that is also for sale.

However the market is stagnant, no one is buying, many want to but cannot get the finance. In the meantime I shall keep the sign in the window, whilst there is still an interest, we are still receiving calls and you never know we only need one purchaser, we are not in a hurry and have all the time in the world.


----------



## Aron

Every house has it's price. We have had people in our street selling houses, some have had offers, but are unwilling to drop the price of their house. The ones who did drop significantly have sold their house. If the house price is advertised too high you will never get a viewing. However, if the market is low you have to be prepared to take a hit. It really comes down on how desperate you are to sell. I do know some people who are desperate to leave but need the money to start again in the UK. It is a difficult decision to make.


----------



## Chopera

Aron said:


> Every house has it's price. We have had people in our street selling houses, some have had offers, but are unwilling to drop the price of their house. The ones who did drop significantly have sold their house. If the house price is advertised too high you will never get a viewing. However, if the market is low you have to be prepared to take a hit. It really comes down on how desperate you are to sell. I do know some people who are desperate to leave but need the money to start again in the UK. It is a difficult decision to make.


Yes low interest rates mean there aren't as many desperate sellers as you'd expect in times like these. Also if people are able to rent their property during the holiday season it puts a floor on the price: they'd rather rent it than sell below a certain value.


----------



## jojo

Chopera said:


> Yes low interest rates mean there aren't as many desperate sellers as you'd expect in times like these. Also if people are able to rent their property during the holiday season it puts a floor on the price: they'd rather rent it than sell below a certain value.


But low interest rates can work against folk if they're living on the interest they make on savings, and of course the euro/sterling exchange rate hasnt recovered to the heady days of 1.40€ - £1, which is where it was pre-recession !! Then there are some new rules and regs about renting, not to mention that there arent as many tenants wishing to rent, so rents are now lower and properties can be empty for longer.....

Jo xxx


----------



## 90199

jojo said:


> But low interest rates can work against folk if they're living on the interest they make on savings, and of course the euro/sterling exchange rate hasnt recovered to the heady days of 1.40€ - £1, which is where it was pre-recession !! Then there are some new rules and regs about renting, not to mention that there arent as many tenants wishing to rent, so rents are now lower and properties can be empty for longer.....
> 
> Jo xxx


There are tenants here Jo, we have a Se Vende sign in the window of our coastal apartment, people are always ringing up on the off chance that we might want to rent it.


----------



## Madliz

maxd said:


> Seems like quite a few want to sell here. Just wondering why when it is probably the worst time to do so? Missing home?


Why do people here want to sell? For many of us it's for the same reasons as for those in the UK - jobs in other areas, retiring, to be nearer family, downsizing, empty nests, bereavements, expanding families, receiving inheritances, winning the lottery (wishing hard here...  ) and I'm sure the list goes on and on. One doesn't move house only in good times!


----------



## Stravinsky

keith277 said:


> No I float between the UK / Mallorca and work....but my point is.. if you are a UK resident then UK property prices are still good for buying and then renting / holding and getting a return on them...housing needs in the UK are increasing.
> As previous posters have pointed out, buying in Spain for the sole reason of getting a good return / profit is no longer the dream that it was 10-15 years ago, and people looking to buy now should be doing so for a genuine reason not profit driven



I have to disagree to some extent.

If you have bought the right property in the right place then you can combine holiday home and investment. A 2 bedroom villa with pool down the road from us is successfully renting at £700 per week peak season (June / July / Aug. Before we moved to Spain we rented our place with ease at £500 pw peak season and seemingly could have done so again now for £700+, as ours is more than 2 bedroom.

I'm not saying that its a main reason for moving to Spain, but it certainly is a sign that you can make money and have a holiday home yourself


----------



## agua642

I agree! it's possible to have a holiday home and make a small investment, as long as you are happy with a small return on your investment & some great holidays!!


----------



## Chopera

Stravinsky said:


> I have to disagree to some extent.
> 
> If you have bought the right property in the right place then you can combine holiday home and investment. A 2 bedroom villa with pool down the road from us is successfully renting at £700 per week peak season (June / July / Aug. Before we moved to Spain we rented our place with ease at £500 pw peak season and seemingly could have done so again now for £700+, as ours is more than 2 bedroom.
> 
> I'm not saying that its a main reason for moving to Spain, but it certainly is a sign that you can make money and have a holiday home yourself


So £700/week for 12 weeks say, that's £8,400 pa. Take off say 20% agents fees that's £6720. Now factor in say £50/month ibi, and another £100/month on things like security systems, energy bills, maintenance, etc and that leaves £4320 pa. How much does the villa cost? £200k maybe? Then that's just over a 2% return. Considering it costs 12% to but the place and maybe 5% to sell it, if you ever can sell it, and it seems like a bad deal. Of course I'm guessing a lot with these figures, but I do these kind of sums every now and then when I consider buying a holiday home, and every time renting wins. If I'm missing something then please let me know.


----------



## Stravinsky

Chopera said:


> So £700/week for 12 weeks say, that's £8,400 pa. Take off say 20% agents fees that's £6720. Now factor in say £50/month ibi, and another £100/month on things like security systems, energy bills, maintenance, etc and that leaves £4320 pa. How much does the villa cost? £200k maybe? Then that's just over a 2% return. Considering it costs 12% to but the place and maybe 5% to sell it, if you ever can sell it, and it seems like a bad deal. Of course I'm guessing a lot with these figures, but I do these kind of sums every now and then when I consider buying a holiday home, and every time renting wins. If I'm missing something then please let me know.


Well, no you're not missing things, you seem to be improvising in the absence of real figures I guess.

Three months may well be £8400, but my neighbours house has been booked for most weeks from March onwards and has bookings in September and beyond also. IBI is nowhere near £50 a month and the security costs are next to nothing. Cost of such a villa around here is about €160 - €180k. It didnt cost us 12% to buy it and we sold it within 6 weeks of putting it on the market so that wasn't so difficult. I have no idea where you are getting the 20% agency fees. We only paid a changeover fee, and £200 per year for advertising on one internet site, which is what my neighbour does also.

So, maybe not the same figures you were working on, and a place you can gain income from and spend the odd weeks on holiday at as well


----------



## Chopera

Stravinsky said:


> Well, no you're not missing things, you seem to be improvising in the absence of real figures I guess.
> 
> Three months may well be £8400, but my neighbours house has been booked for most weeks from March onwards and has bookings in September and beyond also. IBI is nowhere near £50 a month and the security costs are next to nothing. Cost of such a villa around here is about €160 - €180k. It didnt cost us 12% to buy it and we sold it within 6 weeks of putting it on the market so that wasn't so difficult. I have no idea where you are getting the 20% agency fees. We only paid a changeover fee, and £200 per year for advertising on one internet site, which is what my neighbour does also.
> 
> So, maybe not the same figures you were working on, and a place you can gain income from and spend the odd weeks on holiday at as well


When I have enquired in the past, I've been told that 20% is the going rate for full management from an agent (marketing, cleaning, key handling, etc). Maybe it's less now, but I doubt if it could be less than 15%. I believe recent law changes could make it obligatory to use a registered agent.

I'm not really asking how much it cost you to buy or sell, I'm just trying to get a general idea. These days it'll cost 10 to 12% on the actual purchase, and then there are things like furniture, etc, so I rounded it up to 12%. IBI might be less (I used the figure we pay in Madrid) but then again I didn't count other taxes for second homes. Also it might have taken you 6 weeks to sell it, but I'd hazard a guess that it takes a lot longer now. Either way I think it's reaonable to assume that it'll cost about €30k to buy and sell a €180k property in Spain. That's a lot of money to get back before you even start making an overall profit.


----------



## Stravinsky

Chopera said:


> When I have enquired in the past, I've been told that 20% is the going rate for full management from an agent (marketing, cleaning, key handling, etc). Maybe it's less now, but I doubt if it could be less than 15%. I believe recent law changes could make it obligatory to use a registered agent.
> 
> I'm not really asking how much it cost you to buy or sell, I'm just trying to get a general idea. These days it'll cost 10 to 12% on the actual purchase, and then there are things like furniture, etc, so I rounded it up to 12%. IBI might be less (I used the figure we pay in Madrid) but then again I didn't count other taxes for second homes. Also it might have taken you 6 weeks to sell it, but I'd hazard a guess that it takes a lot longer now. Either way I think it's reaonable to assume that it'll cost about €30k to buy and sell a €180k property in Spain. That's a lot of money to get back before you even start making an overall profit.


All I can tell you (only trying to help) is that you really *dont* want to be employing an agent who charges you anything like that. There are plenty of reliable people around here that supply these services. We used to pay around €35 for a changeover. If people wanted a mid two week change of bedding then we charged a little extra. Paying 15 - 20% is sheer madness. As I said, we (and the neighbour) spent £200 advertising on ONE web site and that was good enough. After that, the recommendations do a lot to help

As regards the house sale .... no it wouldnt take me a lot longer than 6 weeks to sell it now because I have literally just sold it! The estimated "cost" of selling, about €9k, and some of that is witholding tax which will be refunded to me within 12 months.

And you are talking about Madrid. IF I was buying an investment property for the holiday market I wouldnt be buying in Madrid or experiencing the higher costs there. I would be buying near the coast, something with a good view of the sea, and a pool


----------



## mrypg9

Chopera said:


> When I have enquired in the past, I've been told that 20% is the going rate for full management from an agent (marketing, cleaning, key handling, etc). Maybe it's less now, but I doubt if it could be less than 15%. I believe recent law changes could make it obligatory to use a registered agent.
> 
> I'm not really asking how much it cost you to buy or sell, I'm just trying to get a general idea. These days it'll cost 10 to 12% on the actual purchase, and then there are things like furniture, etc, so I rounded it up to 12%. IBI might be less (I used the figure we pay in Madrid) but then again I didn't count other taxes for second homes. Also it might have taken you 6 weeks to sell it, but I'd hazard a guess that it takes a lot longer now. Either way I think it's reaonable to assume that it'll cost about €30k to buy and sell a €180k property in Spain. That's a lot of money to get back before you even start making an overall profit.


My son and daughter-in-law own a property right on the beach not far from us. They aren't interested in renting it as a commercial proposition but let friends stay. They have heard horror stories about holiday rentals, don't need the money and certainly don't want the hassle. 
A few years ago, a modest studio apartment in that area would sell for 250000 euros. Certainly not 'worth' half that, which means I wouldn't have paid that much for it...but some folks did. In the good times they could charge around 700 euros a week. But community fees in that development, which I'll admit is very attractive, are very high. Then there's IBI. Then there's taxes due. Then there's routine maintenance. Then there's cleaning, changing linen etc. The management company they use to clean when they or friends have used it charges something like 50 euros for a woman to slosh a bucket of bleach water over the floors. I do the linen for them...you didn't know my other profession is washerwoman..
As they know the people who use their house they don't have any worries about what some careless, drunken bunch of chavs might do to their property. Most of the people who stay there are well=paid City types...but that doesn't guarantee good behaviour or concern for other people's property. I once went to change the linen three days after one lot had left. It was very hot, 40C pls. When I opened the door I nearly passed out. The dishwasher was full of unwashed dishes and one of the loos hadn't been flushed. I agree, as you point out, scant return for that kind of investment, when all is said and done.
I personally would not like the thought of people, even friends, making free of a property that was my home,even merely for holidays.
But like everything, it's horses for courses. And of course there are people who rely on renting to be able to repay their mortgage.


----------



## extranjero

Chopera said:


> So £700/week for 12 weeks say, that's £8,400 pa. Take off say 20% agents fees that's £6720. Now factor in say £50/month ibi, and another £100/month on things like security systems, energy bills, maintenance, etc and that leaves £4320 pa. How much does the villa cost? £200k maybe? Then that's just over a 2% return. Considering it costs 12% to but the place and maybe 5% to sell it, if you ever can sell it, and it seems like a bad deal. Of course I'm guessing a lot with these figures, but I do these kind of sums every now and then when I consider buying a holiday home, and every time renting wins. If I'm missing something then please let me know.


? income tax?


----------



## extranjero

Stravinsky said:


> All I can tell you (only trying to help) is that you really *dont* want to be employing an agent who charges you anything like that. There are plenty of reliable people around here that supply these services. We used to pay around €35 for a changeover. If people wanted a mid two week change of bedding then we charged a little extra. Paying 15 - 20% is sheer madness. As I said, we (and the neighbour) spent £200 advertising on ONE web site and that was good enough. After that, the recommendations do a lot to help
> 
> As regards the house sale .... no it wouldnt take me a lot longer than 6 weeks to sell it now because I have literally just sold it! The estimated "cost" of selling, about €9k, and some of that is witholding tax which will be refunded to me within 12 months.
> 
> And you are talking about Madrid. IF I was buying an investment property for the holiday market I wouldnt be buying in Madrid or experiencing the higher costs there. I would be buying near the coast, something with a good view of the sea, and a pool


I thought they didn't retain tax if you were a fiscal resident?


----------



## missbusybusy

*So what is a property realy worth*

Hi All 
I have been reading various other posts with interest, especially the one about selling property in these times,

the following quotes were in there



> That's all very well but what is 'a fair price'? Who decides? My idea of a fair price is probably a lot different from yours...


and



> Every house has it's price. We have had people in our street selling houses, some have had offers, but are unwilling to drop the price of their house.
> The ones who did drop significantly have sold their house. If the house price is advertised too high you will never get a viewing. However,
> if the market is low you have to be prepared to take a hit. It really comes down on how desperate you are to sell.
> I do know some people who are desperate to leave but need the money to start again in the UK. It is a difficult decision to make.



we are flying out again next Tuesday to view certain properties again,
My question is how do you know if the price is to high !! 
What is the real value of a property at the moment ?

thanks
carol


----------



## StevejR1

An interesting thread, some interesting topics, and some interesting replies....

I've just returned from Andalucia, doing some in depth area research, and house viewings, with the intention of buying a property in Spain in the near future. It's been an interesting experience, and eye-opening, confusing, concerning, and many more things.

My opinion on some of the subjects raised on this thread, from someone on the other side of the fence, as I'm hoping to buy rather than sell.

Firstly, Rightmove. As a viewing platform I find it a good site. It allows you to view a broad sweep of what's on the market in a varied area coverage. The local selling agent is always listed, and that would be my point of contact, and therefore links to other properties too, and I'd never buy directly through Rightmove....I'm not even sure that you can???
I've visited ThinkSpain...that's ok...I've not delved too deep into Kelco, although I do know of them.

As regards the market in Spain I feel the market is kidding itself, and a lot of the owners too! The properties, although very nice, are HUGELY overpriced for the buyer to seriously consider, and I feel that the market values need to be more realistic.

I'll try and clarify my opinion....I'm not looking for an investment, it will be a home. It'll be where I live, and where I'll retire (even though I'm not that old). I'd still very much like to live in Spain, and as soon as I can, so I am a genuine buyer.

However.....lets say I have €300,000 to spend. I still want the property I buy to realistically hold that value, or at least not decline too dramatically. But I know that it is very unlikely to do so in the Spanish housing market. So although I may never sell the house (so therefore it's value is irrelevant) I could find myself living in a house worth €200,000, or very much less, very very quickly!
Therefore, although it's not being bought as an investment, it is still a huge gamble financially with a lot of money. It is a huge risk.

I do realise that the whole of Europe is in recession, and the housing market, even in the UK, is very stagnant. But in Spain the situation is very much worse that the UK. There is a very much higher risk in buying property in Spain than in the UK, because of the financial instability, the massive unemployment, and the uncertain future ahead.

Yet if I took my €300,000 and bought in the UK, a good house, in a good area, my risk would be minimal....and I would also be able to haggle a very reduced price.

And that is ironically what I've got...a nice house, in a sought after area, a very attractive home.......that is practically the same as what I've seen in Spain, nice houses, good areas, well presented. Ok they are a bit bigger in Spain, but not much, BUT the prices are practically the same!!...in fact a couple we've seen have been dearer than mine in the UK!!!!

So with a choice of buying my home...or a villa in Spain...the cost is the same, but the risk is four times more in Spain!! So how can they possibly be worth the same???!?!

For me to take the risk on investing a huge lump of money into the Spanish housing market, and into living in Spain, the prices would have to be DRAMATICALLY reduced to encourage me to entertain that risk!!! 

But I feel that the Spanish owners are not going to give their houses away..which you can understand...but they're not going to sell them either!!! That's why they're on the market for two years and more!

But if I bought an owners house for €300,000...then asked them to spend the cash on a house in Spain, they wouldn't, because of the risk/economic climate/ uncertainty.....YET THEY ARE EXPECTING ME TO!!! It is ridiculous.

One of the houses I saw was a large townhouse. Over our budget at €450,000, but it was in need of complete renovation to the tune of a further €100,000!...so when it was finished it would have COST €550,000....but it would no way have been WORTH that!! So why would I do that???

This is the problem....I as a buyer dictate the market, and the market rate. I don't want to screw anyone, but I'm only going to pay what I'm willing to spend given the risk/circumstances....if the sellers can't accept that, then maybe they need to get realistic, or take their houses of the market. It sounds brutal, but it's true. It's certainly no more brutal than asking someone to pay €300,000 for something that may be worth €150,000 or less in a years time!...maybe 9/6/3 months time!!!


----------



## baldilocks

For a start, most of the properties you find on the likes of Rightmove are either posted by British estate agents (who, in general, are the least to be trusted) or by Brits who are trying to sell their own property without using an agent. In very many, if not most cases they will be way overpriced. 

If it is posted by an agent he will likely have said to the vendor, "I can get you (say) €300k" purely in order to get the business. The property is probably only worth €200k or even less so the possibility of getting at least 50% more than what the vendor knows it is worth, even if he/she thinks it ought to be worth more, means the agent gets the business. Such figures give that agent lots of manoeuvring room.. He will say to the potential buyer "I think it is a bit overpriced at €400k, leave it with me, I'll see what I can do" He then goes to the vendor with a hard luck tale, that he's trying as hard as he can and he has someone who is really interested, but... and then the haggle starts. Frequently when an agent is involved, he/she tells both vendor and buyer not to discuss anything with the other party because he/she is trying to get the best deal (he/she neglects to include the words "for him/herself").

There will be the usual 'brown envelope' job so that the amount shown on all the paperwork is much lower than either party thinks is being exchanged. Given that the amount on the paperwork is, say €180k with maybe €70k in the envelope the buyer gives to the agent but only €30k (= €210k a bit over the amount that the vendor originally wanted) in the envelope when it gets to the vendor. The agent has made a cool €40k PLUS his commissions.

OK so you thought most brown-envelope jobs were carried out by Spanish agents - not so. Once the Brit agents cottoned onto the idea that there was a way to make extra money out of Brit buyers who would turn to him because he spoke English and 'After all, you can trust a fellow country-man better than a ****, can't you?. Right? ' - NO! - WRONG!

On the subject of the 'brown envelope'. The idea is to reduce the tax paid by the vendor and also to reduce certain fees which are based on the selling price. Avoid getting involved in the practice, if you can.

Hacienda are much wiser than they used to be and can keep better track of transactions both locally and throughout the country now that they have computers. This means they can come down on you (the buyer) for the amount of tax that is short and possibly also a penalty amount. Why you - the buyer when it was the vendor who got the proceeds? - because YOU have the property which can be confiscated to pay the bill.
If the amount shown on the paperwork is, say only €180k (you paid €250k) when it comes to your selling for, say, €300k then you have to pay tax on a capital gain of €120k when your actual gain was only €50k


----------



## Madliz

€450,000 for a run-down townhouse, aka terraced? Whereabouts are you looking, Steve? I would suggest that it must be in a very desirable area or else is truly owned by a resident of cloud cuckoo land. A quick search on idealista.com finds numerous examples of 'attached' houses under €300,000 in the Marbella region, and few coastal areas are considered more desirable.

If one is looking to live close to the sea, of course there is a premium to pay. For value, one has to move away from the coast. It is the same as in any country - the closer to the sea, or the city centre, the higher the prices.


----------



## Chopera

Stravinsky said:


> All I can tell you (only trying to help) is that you really *dont* want to be employing an agent who charges you anything like that. There are plenty of reliable people around here that supply these services. We used to pay around €35 for a changeover. If people wanted a mid two week change of bedding then we charged a little extra. Paying 15 - 20% is sheer madness. As I said, we (and the neighbour) spent £200 advertising on ONE web site and that was good enough. After that, the recommendations do a lot to help
> 
> As regards the house sale .... no it wouldnt take me a lot longer than 6 weeks to sell it now because I have literally just sold it! The estimated "cost" of selling, about €9k, and some of that is witholding tax which will be refunded to me within 12 months.
> 
> And you are talking about Madrid. IF I was buying an investment property for the holiday market I wouldnt be buying in Madrid or experiencing the higher costs there. I would be buying near the coast, something with a good view of the sea, and a pool


OK we'll assume we don't use an agent (even though that may be illegal in the near future). I'm not doubting that it took you 6 weeks to sell your place, I'm saying that in general it will take longer. I referred to Madrid in order to come up with a figure for IBI - I'm not considering a holiday rental there. I'm simply trying to quantify how profitable holiday rentals are in general, and as an alternative to renting. My feeling is that holiday rentals ceased to give sufficient returns to make them a good investment some time back in the 90s. After that people justified them because property values were going up. Now prices are falling it is hard to justify buying a holiday rental unless you can get hold of a real bargain.

Going back to your figures, even if you can get €10k a year gross income, and no rental fees, and negligible costs, and even ignoring the various taxes, and let's assume you do no maintenance on the property, you still have to wait 3 years to recuperate the €30k buying and selling costs. And after that you're earning 5.5% yield on a €180k property. Even with this unrealistic best-case-scenario it doesn't sound like a good investment.


----------



## StevejR1

Hi Baldilocks....(great name btw  )

I've been warned about the issue with the purchase price not relating to the paperwork, and I would have nothing to do with a sale under those conditions. If they tried it I'd pull out.

It's interesting to hear your views on the estate agents selling Spanish properties. I've read a lot about them over the past few months, and really didn't know what to expect.

We met four agents on our viewings.

I must admit that I was expecting the spawn of the devil, underhanded ex car salesman types with all the speal, and the oily charm offensive.....our experience wasn't like that at all!

Agency No1 was a local Spanish agent, and seemed very approachable. He didn't shy away from the pitfalls of the house he was showing us, nor the problems of the current climate. He tried to present the house in its best light, and wasn't pushy at all.
As our first contact with an agent selling property in Spain we were very surprised!

Agency No2 was very helpful, honest, didn't try to be pushy, and offered a lot of good advice. She took the time to sit with us for a fair amount of time, trying to fathom what we were after, and answering questions when asked, yet she didn't try to push other viewings onto us, or any other properties. She told us to find the specific area that we wanted first, then she'd help us in our search.
She also answered an email my partner sent her with a few varied questions very openly and honestly.

Agency No3 we did viewings with two agents. The first woman was very laid back, a bit more patter, but helpful, and more willing to mention the prices, and the possible acceptable price for the seller. She also spent a very long time with us, and although we felt a little guilty it didn't seem to bother her. We did four viewings with her, and I guess although perfectly acceptable of the dealings we had with her you could say that they were the least professional, although friendly.
The other viewing we did with this agency was done by the owner of the company. A lot more slick style, and more 'car salesman'. But after the viewing was over, again he was very straight with us, and offered some good advice regarding the climate and how to approach buying in Spain.

It must be said that I was very wary that I didn't want to be 'suckered in' and was very much on the look out for it. Even now I've looked back to see if I'm being too trusting/naive, and being lured along a trap!
I could see elements of what you suggest, but I'd say they were a long way from the practices that you're suggesting....I hope.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with all the agents.

I'm glad I'm not being too wide of the mark with my views on the asking prices. Although it seems harsh to offer €200k for a €400k house, I honestly don't think it's worth any more, and as such I would be stupid to pay any more.
There's a house I viewed that's on for €380k...I saw an equally good house in the same area for €280k.....I would seriously consider buying both properties if they were €200k...any more and I'm undecided....at €380k no chance!!


----------



## StevejR1

Madliz said:


> €450,000 for a run-down townhouse, aka terraced? Whereabouts are you looking, Steve? I would suggest that it must be in a very desirable area or else is truly owned by a resident of cloud cuckoo land. A quick search on idealista.com finds numerous examples of 'attached' houses under €300,000 in the Marbella region, and few coastal areas are considered more desirable.
> 
> If one is looking to live close to the sea, of course there is a premium to pay. For value, one has to move away from the coast. It is the same as in any country - the closer to the sea, or the city centre, the higher the prices.


It was inland, in Jimena. Totally in need of restoration, but would be an impressive property when finished. It was a corner house, with a good amount of terrace and garden areas, with a pool. No way was it worth €450k in its condition, and never be worth €550 when finished! Realistically, with the cost of doing it up, and all the aggravation associated with it I'd only be happy in offering maybe €180k? in today's climate....that is a world away from the asking price!


----------



## baldilocks

Steve.R said:


> Hi Baldilocks....(great name btw  )
> 
> I've been warned about the issue with the purchase price not relating to the paperwork, and I would have nothing to do with a sale under those conditions. If they tried it I'd pull out.
> 
> It's interesting to hear your views on the estate agents selling Spanish properties. I've read a lot about them over the past few months, and really didn't know what to expect.
> 
> We met four agents on our viewings.
> 
> I must admit that I was expecting the spawn of the devil, underhanded ex car salesman types with all the speal, and the oily charm offensive.....our experience wasn't like that at all!
> 
> Agency No1 was a local Spanish agent, and seemed very approachable. He didn't shy away from the pitfalls of the house he was showing us, nor the problems of the current climate. He tried to present the house in its best light, and wasn't pushy at all.
> As our first contact with an agent selling property in Spain we were very surprised!
> 
> Agency No2 was very helpful, honest, didn't try to be pushy, and offered a lot of good advice. She took the time to sit with us for a fair amount of time, trying to fathom what we were after, and answering questions when asked, yet she didn't try to push other viewings onto us, or any other properties. She told us to find the specific area that we wanted first, then she'd help us in our search.
> She also answered an email my partner sent her with a few varied questions very openly and honestly.
> 
> Agency No3 we did viewings with two agents. The first woman was very laid back, a bit more patter, but helpful, and more willing to mention the prices, and the possible acceptable price for the seller. She also spent a very long time with us, and although we felt a little guilty it didn't seem to bother her. We did four viewings with her, and I guess although perfectly acceptable of the dealings we had with her you could say that they were the least professional, although friendly.
> The other viewing we did with this agency was done by the owner of the company. A lot more slick style, and more 'car salesman'. But after the viewing was over, again he was very straight with us, and offered some good advice regarding the climate and how to approach buying in Spain.
> 
> It must be said that I was very wary that I didn't want to be 'suckered in' and was very much on the look out for it. Even now I've looked back to see if I'm being too trusting/naive, and being lured along a trap!
> I could see elements of what you suggest, but I'd say they were a long way from the practices that you're suggesting....I hope.
> 
> Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with all the agents.
> 
> I'm glad I'm not being too wide of the mark with my views on the asking prices. Although it seems harsh to offer €200k for a €400k house, I honestly don't think it's worth any more, and as such I would be stupid to pay any more.
> There's a house I viewed that's on for €380k...I saw an equally good house in the same area for €280k.....I would seriously consider buying both properties if they were €200k...any more and I'm undecided....at €380k no chance!!


You don't say anything about the nationalities of 2 and 3. I'm not saying that every agent you come across be he/she Brit, Spanish, Dutch, German or... is going to fit in with the scenario I mentioned but they are out there. For example, time-share salesman didn't just buzz off in a little spaceship to Mars, they re-invented themselves - some as something that is easier than time-share - estate agent. With time-share you have to first convince the punter that, without knowing it beforehand, what he really wants in life is a time-share. The estate agent is so much easier - just wave your banner and the punter comes looking for you.

Just be careful, just as you would be if you were buying a used car off a spiv on a bombsite.

The username comes from my wife calling me 'baldie' some 18 or so years ago when I was first involved with forums and looking for a user name. I was getting a little thin on top (still am and so is she now!!) so I decided (at the time Gegor Fisher and young Charlton were sporting comb-overs) that I would go for baldilocks on the expectation that when I got to the comb-over stage, I could then become "baldilocks and the three hairs" !


----------



## StevejR1

baldilocks said:


> You don't say anything about the nationalities of 2 and 3. I'm not saying that every agent you come across be he/she Brit, Spanish, Dutch, German or... is going to fit in with the scenario I mentioned but they are out there. For example, time-share salesman didn't just buzz off in a little spaceship to Mars, they re-invented themselves - some as something that is easier than time-share - estate agent. With time-share you have to first convince the punter that, without knowing it beforehand, what he really wants in life is a time-share. The estate agent is so much easier - just wave your banner and the punter comes looking for you.
> 
> Just be careful, just as you would be if you were buying a used car off a spiv on a bombsite.
> 
> The username comes from my wife calling me 'baldie' some 18 or so years ago when I was first involved with forums and looking for a user name. I was getting a little thin on top (still am and so is she now!!) so I decided (at the time Gegor Fisher and young Charlton were sporting comb-overs) that I would go for baldilocks on the expectation that when I got to the comb-over stage, I could then become "baldilocks and the three hairs" !


The Username just gets better! 

Thanks for the posts, and the advice....I really am trying not to get suckered into anything, and trying my best to keep my eyes wide open. It's hard not to get confused/carried away with things when the market place is so unstable, and the prices are being set by unrealistic owners, and desperate agents. Really they should be very glad to see me!! But somehow I feel I'm going to fight against their stubbornness!

The first agent was Spanish.

The second was British, and very upmarket and friendly. She'd lived in Andalucia since the 80's and clearly loved the area. She'd run the agency since the 90's I think. She also had an impressive knowledge of all the areas and individual villages, the climates, and the year round living conditions.....although I'm reluctant to say it I think I'd trust her.

The third agent was British. Friendly, but more ex-pat about her. She lived in the area we viewed 4 houses with her, and she clearly loved (...or sold to us) the area.
The fourth was her boss, and also British. Very oily suave, but straight enough...but very car salesman....a long term ex-pat type(??) who said he wanted to help us through all the process (none of the agents suggested getting legals through them though!...they all suggested getting very good legal advice). He may have been being genuine, but it was hard to tell...


----------



## Stravinsky

extranjero said:


> I thought they didn't retain tax if you were a fiscal resident?


Im no longer a fiscal resident 



Chopera said:


> OK we'll assume we don't use an agent (even though that may be illegal in the near future). I'm not doubting that it took you 6 weeks to sell your place, I'm saying that in general it will take longer. I referred to Madrid in order to come up with a figure for IBI - I'm not considering a holiday rental there. I'm simply trying to quantify how profitable holiday rentals are in general, and as an alternative to renting. My feeling is that holiday rentals ceased to give sufficient returns to make them a good investment some time back in the 90s. After that people justified them because property values were going up. Now prices are falling it is hard to justify buying a holiday rental unless you can get hold of a real bargain.
> 
> Going back to your figures, even if you can get €10k a year gross income, and no rental fees, and negligible costs, and even ignoring the various taxes, and let's assume you do no maintenance on the property, you still have to wait 3 years to recuperate the €30k buying and selling costs. And after that you're earning 5.5% yield on a €180k property. Even with this unrealistic best-case-scenario it doesn't sound like a good investment.


I think we're going around in circles 

Firstly, the buying and selling costs are not €30k

The income we are talking about is £, not €. The _costs _are in €.

A really good investment is putting your €180k (£152K) into a building society? At todays rates that might get you €2033 a year

So .... if I hadnt sold my villa (which I admit I didnt really expect to do) I would have rented it.

If examples shown me by nearby renters are carried forward I would have indeed earned something in the region of £10 to £12k a year minimum. Probably £3 to £4k more actually, as the example I quoted at £700 a week was a two bedroom and mine is / was four. I would have advertised it at £250 a year (checked the rate), and would have paid maybe €1100 changeover fees. On past experience I would have to paint the front every two years on one of the visits I made there, of course having a holiday villa available whenever free. Pool cleaning €720 for the year

Estimated income *£*13 - £16k a year, estimated costs *€*2115

Anyway, this is all hypothetical ... all I was trying to say was that a villa with the right attributes can generate a reasonable income without high overheads. There aint many ways you can generate income these days since anyone with savings was stuffed out of site some time ago by experts, governments and bankers.

I'm shortly getting some cash back, and quite honestly I have no idea whatsoever what to do with it because banks and building societies are simply not interested. They like you to invest your cash for absolutely no return, and I cant see things changing.

I'll probably plough it into bricks and mortar again ....


----------



## mrypg9

Steve.R said:


> It was inland, in Jimena. Totally in need of restoration, but would be an impressive property when finished. It was a corner house, with a good amount of terrace and garden areas, with a pool. No way was it worth €450k in its condition, and never be worth €550 when finished! Realistically, with the cost of doing it up, and all the aggravation associated with it I'd only be happy in offering maybe €180k? in today's climate....that is a world away from the asking price!


Jimena is lovely!! You'll need to learn Spanish, though. It has few British immigrants.


----------



## mrypg9

missbusybusy said:


> Hi All
> I
> What is the real value of a property at the moment ?
> 
> thanks
> carol


There is no such thing as the 'real' value of a property, neither is there a 'fair' price.. Property of any kind -cars, houses, everything - is worth what you are prepared to pay for it.

If you want something really badly, you'll pay more. If you want to get rid of something quickly, your price will reflect that.


----------



## Leeannandaidan

I'm looking for a 3 bed detached with separate annex and pool but not till next year


----------



## missbusybusy

> There is no such thing as the 'real' value of a property, neither is there a 'fair' price.. Property of any kind -cars, houses, everything - is worth what you are prepared to pay for it.
> 
> If you want something really badly, you'll pay more. If you want to get rid of something quickly, your price will reflect that.


Hi How can that be so !!, if a car is on the forecourt for say £10.000 with dents and high mileage and there is one in the next street exactly the same except with no dents and low mileage for the same price clearly one is priced above the average !!, is it not the same with property, for example its irrelevant what you purchased the item for but if 2 identical properties have sold for say 200,000 and another is on the market for 400,000 at the same time surely you would not buy it !!, so there must be some sort of common sense to apply ? as per in the UK at the moment ?


----------



## StevejR1

mrypg9 said:


> Jimena is lovely!! You'll need to learn Spanish, though. It has few British immigrants.


I'm more than happy to learn Spanish, in fact I'd think it insulting if I didn't!...I'm already trying, although it will take me a while 

I'm lucky in that my partner is Italian, and is picking it up very quickly as it is quite similar.

We like Jimena, and also Casares near Gaucin too


----------



## Madliz

> I'm lucky in that my partner is Italian, and is picking it up very quickly as it is quite similar.


Indeed it is - yesterday i was watching motogp on Telecinco and the Spanish interviewer was quzzing Honda's team boss Livio Suppo (Italian). They each spoke their own language in turn, completely understanding the other. I got the gist of the Italian answers too and felt very European.

This afternoon I watched the English winning the Ashes Test at Lord's and felt very English.

Not much work done today!


----------



## xabiaxica

missbusybusy said:


> Hi How can that be so !!, if a car is on the forecourt for say £10.000 with dents and high mileage and there is one in the next street exactly the same except with no dents and low mileage for the same price clearly one is priced above the average !!, is it not the same with property, for example its irrelevant what you purchased the item for but if 2 identical properties have sold for say 200,000 and another is on the market for 400,000 at the same time surely you would not buy it !!, so there must be some sort of common sense to apply ? as per in the UK at the moment ?


ahh - but if you don't know about the 200,000€ property & you're happy to pay 400,000€ for the one you want, then that is the value of it - both to you & the vendor....


----------



## mrypg9

missbusybusy said:


> Hi How can that be so !!, if a car is on the forecourt for say £10.000 with dents and high mileage and there is one in the next street exactly the same except with no dents and low mileage for the same price clearly one is priced above the average !!, is it not the same with property, for example its irrelevant what you purchased the item for but if 2 identical properties have sold for say 200,000 and another is on the market for 400,000 at the same time surely you would not buy it !!, so there must be some sort of common sense to apply ? as per in the UK at the moment ?


Not really. The point is that you look at the current market prices to get a rough idea of what property is selling for in that area at that time. But within those parameters there could be huge variations.
Your car analogy is invalid as the conditions of the two cars differ. So it is with property and sellers.

We sold our UK properties at a price lower than the then current market value for similarly sized properties. We wanted a quick sale and weren't desperate to get a top price.
When we rented our current villa we paid twice as much per month as we do now. The asking price was slightly OTT then but we badly wanted the house and at that time the rental market was buoyant. As the market has slumped so we've renegotiated the rent.

Consider what happens at property auctions....a keen buyer will go to the limit of their available rsources to get something they really want...and someone who wants it but has more cash will raise the bid....


----------



## StevejR1

Interesting that you mention that the market rate is the level at which things start to sell mrypg9....that's exactly right.

This is where I think owners in Spain are getting it wrong!...there's a lot of property out there, all unsold, and very few selling.....they're kidding themselves as to what they think buyers are prepared to pump into the spanish housing market, regardless of the quality of the houses.

It's all well and good saying this property was previously €500k...now reduced to €300k....so what!?!? I'm still not paying €300k for it! Isn't it funny how they never tell you the same property was once probably valued at €75k at some stage! It doesn't seem relevant to tell me if I'd bought it 20 years ago it'd have been a lot cheaper...which of course it isn't!!!! The figure that's relevant is what buyers are willing to pay today!!


----------



## mrypg9

Steve.R said:


> Interesting that you mention that the market rate is the level at which things start to sell mrypg9....that's exactly right.
> 
> This is where I think owners in Spain are getting it wrong!...there's a lot of property out there, all unsold, and very few selling.....they're kidding themselves as to what they think buyers are prepared to pump into the spanish housing market, regardless of the quality of the houses.
> 
> It's all well and good saying this property was previously €500k...now reduced to €300k....so what!?!? I'm still not paying €300k for it! Isn't it funny how they never tell you the same property was once probably valued at €75k at some stage! It doesn't seem relevant to tell me if I'd bought it 20 years ago it'd have been a lot cheaper...which of course it isn't!!!! The figure that's relevant is what buyers are willing to pay today!!



I bought a detached property in need of renovation for £5000 cash thirty years ago and spent roughly £15000 renovating it - I got a grant from the Council as it was a listed building. When we left the UK we wanted it off our hands so we sold at under local market value. As we made a six-figure profit on the sale, tax free as we had lived in it before leaving for Prague, we weren't upset at losing a few grand. Just relieved that we were finally free of all properties and the responsibilities that go with them.

So it will be for many in Spain, desperate to sell and return to the UK. They will pitch in at a lower price. This may of course have a knock-on effect on prices in that area.


----------



## maxd

How big were the places you were looking at Steve R? I always attain value by looking at the m2 . It costs about 1000 euro/m2 to build.

So if you see a building for 300k for 300m2 it is basically build cost and you get the land thrown in for free. Of course I would offer something closer to 700 eur/m2 to cover me against anymore downturns. All buildings are not created equal, it seems you possibly are maybe being too optimistic with your pricing levels.


----------



## StevejR1

maxd said:


> How big were the places you were looking at Steve R? I always attain value by looking at the m2 . It costs about 1000 euro/m2 to build.
> 
> So if you see a building for 300k for 300m2 it is basically build cost and you get the land thrown in for free. Of course I would offer something closer to 700 eur/m2 to cover me against anymore downturns. All buildings are not created equal, it seems you possibly are maybe being too optimistic with your pricing levels.


I was told that figure by an estate agency...€1000 per m2..as it happens.

One of the properties that we liked the building was 300m2....but was up for nearly €400k!.....by your calculations it should be up for €300k....but at €700/m2 the offer should be €210k.........which is exactly right by my calculations too!!

I think I would offer no more than €225k for the house, which is over your estimate, so I don't think I'm kidding myself at all ....but I can imagine an owner's reaction to my offer of €175k below his ridiculous valuation!!!

I still believe it is me as a buyer that sets the market value. 20 villas at €300k that haven't sold means they're overvalued...if one drops to €200k and sells, then that is the market value, not what the other 19 owners want to kid themselves it is!

I really like the house...at €400k I'm not buying it...at €300k I'd still not feel happy buying it...at €200k I'd seriously buy it tomorrow!....what does that prove?!?!?


----------



## maxd

Steve.R said:


> I was told that figure by an estate agency...€1000 per m2..as it happens.
> 
> One of the properties that we liked the building was 300m2....but was up for nearly €400k!.....by your calculations it should be up for €300k....but at €700/m2 the offer should be €210k.........which is exactly right by my calculations too!!
> 
> I think I would offer no more than €225k for the house, which is over your estimate, so I don't think I'm kidding myself at all ....but I can imagine an owner's reaction to my offer of €175k below his ridiculous valuation!!!
> 
> I still believe it is me as a buyer that sets the market value. 20 villas at €300k that haven't sold means they're overvalued...if one drops to €200k and sells, then that is the market value, not what the other 19 owners want to kid themselves it is!
> 
> I really like the house...at €400k I'm not buying it...at €300k I'd still not feel happy buying it...at €200k I'd seriously buy it tomorrow!....what does that prove?!?!?


I am saying cost is 300K plus the land, I am not sure how big the plot is. It sounds like this guy is is pretty near the cost and if you could knock 100k off it that would be quite OK in my book.

If you are not emotional you can select 10 or 20 you like and put in a cheeky offer based on the above and see who bites.


----------



## StevejR1

maxd said:


> I am saying cost is 300K plus the land, I am not sure how big the plot is. It sounds like this guy is is pretty near the cost and if you could knock 100k off it that would be quite OK in my book.
> 
> If you are not emotional you can select 10 or 20 you like and put in a cheeky offer based on the above and see who bites.


The villa we are looking at is 300m2, with under 400m2 as a total plot.

The trouble with making multiple low 'cheeky' bids, and seeing which owners are so desperate to bite, is that it does take the personal aspect away from buying a home, and it all becomes a bit too mercenary....a bit like shooting goldfish in a bowl.
I could in fact do something similar to this, as there two properties that we really like, so if we made two very low offers, and one was prepared to accept it I'd be happy with either.....maybe I should just be harder, and more mercenary?

I think there is too much variation between the house price bands....there are small townhouses in the village near the villa we're looking at going for €50-80k, small and medium villas going for €90-160k, step up to an 'exclusive' villa the price rises to €400k...it's ridiculous! *All of those properties remain unsold, and most likely will remain so in the present climate, even the cheaper ones.*

I feel the higher prices at the top end of the market are being driven by owners unwilling to accept that there villa, no matter how lovely, has drastically reduced in value, and they are trying to cling onto past equity. and the only people who will realistically buy at the top end prices, are people with more money than sense, or buyers from the upmarket parts of London that have been relatively untouched by the slump in the housing market.

The problem as I see it, is when was the €1000 per m2 guideline devised? How old is it? If it is based on the price to build rate, perhaps with the current unemployment rates it is nearer to €500 per m2?
My point is, the guideline is only relevant if it is accurate....I'm feeling in the present climate it isn't.

There are loads of exclusive villas on the internet...my partner found one last night, a lovely villa, in a nice area that we are considering, and it is up for €660,000!!!
Now it is a lovely villa, very impressive......but by comparison, if I was to take the same sort of money, and spend it in the UK, I would get a lovely house, very impressive, in a nice area.....but without the huge risk that you have in Spain that you are throwing your cash onto a roulette wheel!
Spain has a lot to offer don't get me wrong, but it is also a very risky proposition at the moment. Even with the current climate in the UK it's still nowhere near as risky as Spain...plus you have little of the complications.

The trouble is villas priced at this, make the villa we are looking at look realistic....but the fact is neither are sold, and neither are likely to! The market value is based on what something is actually selling for, not what somebody wants to put it on sale for....if it doesn't sell, it's over-priced!

I think Spanish owners should also take a peek at properties in central France....you can get a very large house/chateau, character features, lots of acres of land, all for under €200k and less! If you don't want land then you are talking silly money! That's where the buyers will go who are looking to move abroad, because the balance is right to take the risk. 

So as I see it, I am a buyer, with cash in my pocket, willing to buy a property in Spain. I accept it is not an investment, it will be a home....but by the same token it is still a risk, and it is a risk I'm not being encouraged to take!!

I don't mind taking a risk, but I'm not going to be out and out stupid with my money!!!

So it is no wonder that the Spanish property market is in such a depressed state....because I am seriously thinking about shelving the idea of moving to Spain, or certainly postponing the idea for a long while, until the prices fall to a realistic rate, and the owners/agents realise that buyers today are not just blinded by the opportunity of lots of sun!

I'm sure I'm not the only potential buyer that has, or will, walk away.....but maybe it's time to realise that if I/we continue to, then the Spanish property market will never get moving again. Common sense has to prevail!


----------



## StevejR1

mrypg9 said:


> I bought a detached property in need of renovation for £5000 cash thirty years ago and spent roughly £15000 renovating it - I got a grant from the Council as it was a listed building. When we left the UK we wanted it off our hands so we sold at under local market value. As we made a six-figure profit on the sale, tax free as we had lived in it before leaving for Prague, we weren't upset at losing a few grand. Just relieved that we were finally free of all properties and the responsibilities that go with them.
> 
> So it will be for many in Spain, desperate to sell and return to the UK. They will pitch in at a lower price. This may of course have a knock-on effect on prices in that area.


Another good example of where the Spanish property values are completely unrealistic.....

....you bought cheap and run-down in the UK (£5,000), spent on renovations (£15,000), sold in a healthy market and made a profit (£100,000). Great. That's impressive...I'm not so sure that you would be able to do it now perhaps, but you did your homework, and it paid off :clap2:

In Andalucía *last week* we viewed a townhouse valued at €450,000. It was a large townhouse, in a nice village, but it was in total need of renovation everywhere.

It was totally dated, had a few suspect cracks here and there, damp in the utility room area, and a roof to the rear that needed replacing because it had sagged so much it was now starting strain the retaining plates that had been bolted to it to try and stabilise it. In all I reckon you would have spent €75-100k doing it up.

Don't get me wrong, it would have been a stunning townhouse when it was finished...but worth €525-550,000?..I don't think so!....I certainly don't think, and this is the point, that if I bought it, did the work, then tried to sell it, would I even break even...in fact I am more likely to be €200,000+ out of pocket!

So the figures...buy for *€450,000*, restorations*€75-100,000*,sell for possibly *300,000*..........that tells me that the valuation at the moment is in cloud cuckoo-land!!!

It's not an isolated example either....saw a run down finca near a villa we were viewing, asked how much it was for sale for?...€80,000 (...but you'd get it for €60k I was told), needed a €20,000 roof I was told (she'd had quotes)......got to the apartment, searched for similar properties in the area...up for €50k without any work needed!....so being a sensible, rational, bloke, if I were to make an offer on the finca it's never going to be more than €25-30k.....and lets not forget that the houses I'm comparing it to still haven't sold!.....


----------



## mrypg9

Steve.R said:


> The villa we are looking at is 300m2, with under 400m2 as a total plot.
> 
> The trouble with making multiple low 'cheeky' bids, and seeing which owners are so desperate to bite, is that it does take the personal aspect away from buying a home, and it all becomes a bit too mercenary....a bit like shooting goldfish in a bowl.
> I could in fact do something similar to this, as there two properties that we really like, so if we made two very low offers, and one was prepared to accept it I'd be happy with either.....maybe I should just be harder, and more mercenary?
> 
> I think there is too much variation between the house price bands....there are small townhouses in the village near the villa we're looking at going for €50-80k, small and medium villas going for €90-160k, step up to an 'exclusive' villa the price rises to €400k...it's ridiculous! *All of those properties remain unsold, and most likely will remain so in the present climate, even the cheaper ones.*
> 
> I feel the higher prices at the top end of the market are being driven by owners unwilling to accept that there villa, no matter how lovely, has drastically reduced in value, and they are trying to cling onto past equity. and the only people who will realistically buy at the top end prices, are people with more money than sense, or buyers from the upmarket parts of London that have been relatively untouched by the slump in the housing market.
> 
> The problem as I see it, is when was the €1000 per m2 guideline devised? How old is it? If it is based on the price to build rate, perhaps with the current unemployment rates it is nearer to €500 per m2?
> My point is, the guideline is only relevant if it is accurate....I'm feeling in the present climate it isn't.
> 
> There are loads of exclusive villas on the internet...my partner found one last night, a lovely villa, in a nice area that we are considering, and it is up for €660,000!!!
> Now it is a lovely villa, very impressive......but by comparison, if I was to take the same sort of money, and spend it in the UK, I would get a lovely house, very impressive, in a nice area.....but without the huge risk that you have in Spain that you are throwing your cash onto a roulette wheel!
> Spain has a lot to offer don't get me wrong, but it is also a very risky proposition at the moment. Even with the current climate in the UK it's still nowhere near as risky as Spain...plus you have little of the complications.
> 
> The trouble is villas priced at this, make the villa we are looking at look realistic....but the fact is neither are sold, and neither are likely to! The market value is based on what something is actually selling for, not what somebody wants to put it on sale for....if it doesn't sell, it's over-priced!
> 
> I think Spanish owners should also take a peek at properties in central France....you can get a very large house/chateau, character features, lots of acres of land, all for under €200k and less! If you don't want land then you are talking silly money! That's where the buyers will go who are looking to move abroad, because the balance is right to take the risk.
> 
> So as I see it, I am a buyer, with cash in my pocket, willing to buy a property in Spain. I accept it is not an investment, it will be a home....but by the same token it is still a risk, and it is a risk I'm not being encouraged to take!!
> 
> I don't mind taking a risk, but I'm not going to be out and out stupid with my money!!!
> 
> So it is no wonder that the Spanish property market is in such a depressed state....because I am seriously thinking about shelving the idea of moving to Spain, or certainly postponing the idea for a long while, until the prices fall to a realistic rate, and the owners/agents realise that buyers today are not just blinded by the opportunity of lots of sun!
> 
> I'm sure I'm not the only potential buyer that has, or will, walk away.....but maybe it's time to realise that if I/we continue to, then the Spanish property market will never get moving again. Common sense has to prevail!


S/he who has the cash will set the market rate. And people with cash are getting wise to over-priced markets. Only those blinded by sunshine will pay over the top for property in Spain or anywhere.
What amazes me is the sheer stupidity and obvious lack of knowledge of the basic workings of capitalism evinced by some 'speculators'. Anyone with half a brain should have seen that over-production alone would lead to a glut of properties on the market with the inevitable drop in price that entails.
A friend of my son's bought three properties off-plan in an 'exclusive' development in the Marbella area. He agreed to a price which treflected market 'values' at the time of signing on the dotted line. The intention was to gain rental income which at that time, 2005, could have been substantial for properties in that area.
But by the time the properties were built the market prices had plummeted and the rental market had decreased substantially. As far as I know he still has these properties on his hands..
All property is subject to bubbles and bubbles burst. I cannot believe the sheer folly of the UK Government's assisted mortgage scheme. The taxpayer guaranteeing mortgages taken by people whose eligibility for getting a loan is their lack of finance! Has no-one learnt the lessons of Freddy Mac and ***** Mae??
We're going to experience a rerun of the crisis of 2006....asset bubbles, crazy speculation, trading on trade, borrowing on inflated asset values..
Will we never learn? It seems not. 
The root of the problem could be though that for many ordinary people a house is the only asset they can acquire. Trouble is, they spend their lives in debt acquiring it...
We are no way a property-owning democracy, we are a nation in hock.


----------



## StevejR1

mrypg9 said:


> S/he who has the cash will set the market rate. And people with cash are getting wise to over-priced markets. Only those blinded by sunshine will pay over the top for property in Spain or anywhere.
> What amazes me is the sheer stupidity and obvious lack of knowledge of the basic workings of capitalism evinced by some 'speculators'. Anyone with half a brain should have seen that over-production alone would lead to a glut of properties on the market with the inevitable drop in price that entails.
> A friend of my son's bought three properties off-plan in an 'exclusive' development in the Marbella area. He agreed to a price which treflected market 'values' at the time of signing on the dotted line. The intention was to gain rental income which at that time, 2005, could have been substantial for properties in that area.
> But by the time the properties were built the market prices had plummeted and the rental market had decreased substantially. As far as I know he still has these properties on his hands..
> All property is subject to bubbles and bubbles burst. I cannot believe the sheer folly of the UK Government's assisted mortgage scheme. The taxpayer guaranteeing mortgages taken by people whose eligibility for getting a loan is their lack of finance! Has no-one learnt the lessons of Freddy Mac and ***** Mae??
> We're going to experience a rerun of the crisis of 2006....asset bubbles, crazy speculation, trading on trade, borrowing on inflated asset values..
> Will we never learn? It seems not.
> The root of the problem could be though that for many ordinary people a house is the only asset they can acquire. Trouble is, they spend their lives in debt acquiring it...
> We are no way a property-owning democracy, we are a nation in hock.


Like I've said, common sense needs to prevail....if Spain loses potential buyers like me now, then it doesn't bode well for the future...

...pulling the wool over ours certainly isn't going to work either!

While we were there last week we visited Vinuela for the first time.......what a shame....if ever there is evidence that over building can just spoil an area that is it!
We didn't find the village itself very inspiring, but the lake, surrounded by some very impressive villas it has to be said, totally spoilt by the fact that there were just too many villas scattered everywhere, and far too many empty, or half built properties everywhere.


----------



## doro

You forget this scenario: buy what land you like, build your own villa. I am sure you can make it at half or less from current prices. Yeah.. what's the problem if you stay 6 more months with rent, in mean time your villa will be ready.


----------



## StevejR1

doro said:


> You forget this scenario: buy what land you like, build your own villa. I am sure you can make it at half or less from current prices. Yeah.. what's the problem if you stay 6 more months with rent, in mean time your villa will be ready.


I've not looked into that....but surely that must be a minefield getting planning permission nowadays after the recent issues?


----------



## mrypg9

Steve.R said:


> I've not looked into that....but surely that must be a minefield getting planning permission nowadays after the recent issues?


I have a feeling it's not as easy as doro seems to think...
We lived a short drive from Central 
Prague. Just a few km down the road was what had been a small village. In the three years we lived there literally hundreds of identikit semis and terraces were built. No schools, shops or health centre, in fact nothing. Seemingly no planning controls, just as in parts of Spain. That was and I guess is happening all over the Czech Republic.
Speculative building is the curse not only of Spain.


----------



## Aron

Steve.R said:


> Like I've said, common sense needs to prevail....if Spain loses potential buyers like me now, then it doesn't bode well for the future...
> 
> ...pulling the wool over ours certainly isn't going to work either!
> 
> While we were there last week we visited Vinuela for the first time.......what a shame....if ever there is evidence that over building can just spoil an area that is it!
> We didn't find the village itself very inspiring, but the lake, surrounded by some very impressive villas it has to be said, totally spoilt by the fact that there were just too many villas scattered everywhere, and far too many empty, or half built properties everywhere.


And many illegal!


----------



## StevejR1

Aron said:


> And many illegal!


Yes, and that's an added risk to even contemplating living there!


----------



## maxd

Why would you build when you can buy at cost in this market. There are plenty of other people's dreams who thought about making a nice place that now can be bought cheaply. Building now would be the last thing on my mind.

Steve R, materials are not getting any cheaper, maybe you can pay a labourer 5 euro instead of 7an hour so if anything over time the build cost will be the same or more.


----------



## StevejR1

maxd said:


> Why would you build when you can buy at cost in this market. There are plenty of other people's dreams who thought about making a nice place that now can be bought cheaply. Building now would be the last thing on my mind.
> 
> Steve R, materials are not getting any cheaper, maybe you can pay a labourer 5 euro instead of 7an hour so if anything over time the build cost will be the same or more.


I wouldn't ever consider building to be honest...it seems pointless when there are so many villas to chose from left unsold.

The issue is that they are priced at a level where they're not going to be bought!


----------



## oronero

Steve.R said:


> I wouldn't ever consider building to be honest...it seems pointless when there are so many villas to chose from left unsold.
> 
> The issue is that they are priced at a level where they're not going to be bought!


There may be much property for sale and not much selling but higher than expected prices are not just apparent in Spain. Items in Italy, Spain and Portugal are often at figures that are higher than what the British expect to see in these countries.

At a guess they are advertised at a price that the vendor would consider selling at and that is not necessarily what you may wish to pay. Do not think that everybody who advertises items for sale are desperate for the money, it may be that they are considering reducing their portfolio of assets. It does not necessarily mean that they are strapped for cash either. 

I have several Iberian family members who are in this position, owning several properties but not desperate to sell. They may be listed to see if they sell...if they do all well and good and if they don't all well and good!

On a slightly different note but in the same theme, I deal in high end Italian motorbikes, the prices sought on the continent are generally higher than the UK, much of the cheapish UK stock has now been depleted by Europeans purchasing in the UK for their own home markets.

Having grown up in the UK, it is here that I see most people taking ridiculous offers on items usually because they are strapped for cash! Just my opinion.


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> Steve R, materials are not getting any cheaper, maybe you can pay a labourer 5 euro instead of 7an hour so if anything over time the build cost will be the same or more.


I would be ashamed to pay anyone such a low wage. I pay my gardener 10 euros an hour as do most people round here. If you can't do business without exploiting people's misery in times like these you can't afford to do business, period.
Five euros is below the minimum wage so it would be an illegal cash in hand payment....
Would you like to earn on 200 euros for a forty hour week? Shame on you, max.


----------



## jimenato

It's true about building/rebuilding costs - at least around here. If you were _given_ a village house in need of a rebuild, by the time you had made it habitable you would have spent much more than you could sell it for. But of course you couldn't buy one for that money either - so no houses are moving at all.


----------



## maxd

mrypg9 said:


> I would be ashamed to pay anyone such a low wage. I pay my gardener 10 euros an hour as do most people round here. If you can't do business without exploiting people's misery in times like these you can't afford to do business, period.
> Five euros is below the minimum wage so it would be an illegal cash in hand payment....
> Would you like to earn on 200 euros for a forty hour week? Shame on you, max.


If I was building a house for a year and had to employ 3 of them for the entire time, yes I would if they agreed. All work is exploitation of some sort. My cleaner in Prague gets 5 euro an hour and my gardener 7.

In Spain if you are paying you are cleaner 10 euro an hour then you are a mug with so many people unemployed. I would pay no more than 7, cash.


----------



## baldilocks

maxd said:


> If I was building a house for a year and had to employ 3 of them for the entire time, yes I would if they agreed. All work is exploitation of some sort. My cleaner in Prague gets 5 euro an hour and my gardener 7.
> 
> In Spain if you are paying you are cleaner 10 euro an hour then you are a mug with so many people unemployed. I would pay no more than 7, cash.


Pay cheap if you wish but don't complain if you don't get a good job done.


----------



## maxd

baldilocks said:


> Pay cheap if you wish but don't complain if you don't get a good job done.


This I have learned the hard way. Totally agree, if you pay above the average quite often you get loyalty.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

maxd said:


> In Spain if you are paying you are cleaner 10 euro an hour then you are a mug with so many people unemployed. I would pay no more than 7, cash.


You're not a mug.
You're a person who can't afford a cleaner or a person who's taking advantage of someone else's circumstances.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

Pesky Wesky said:


> You're not a mug.
> You're a person who can't afford a cleaner or a person who's taking advantage of someone else's circumstances.


Ooops!
You're not a mug if you pay a cleaner 10 euros an hour. You're someone who can afford a cleaner.
If you don't pay a decent amount, you're a person who can't afford a cleaner or a person who's taking advantage of someone else's circumstances...


----------



## xabiaxica

Pesky Wesky said:


> Ooops!
> You're not a mug if you pay a cleaner 10 euros an hour. You're someone who can afford a cleaner.
> If you don't pay a decent amount, you're a person who can't afford a cleaner or a person who's taking advantage of someone else's circumstances...


I knew what you meant!

& if you're paying as little as 7€ an hour, you're encouraging the black economy - there's no way someone earning 7€ an hour can afford autónomo payments!


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> If I was building a house for a year and had to employ 3 of them for the entire time, yes I would if they agreed. All work is exploitation of some sort. My cleaner in Prague gets 5 euro an hour and my gardener 7.
> 
> In Spain if you are paying you are cleaner 10 euro an hour then you are a mug with so many people unemployed. I would pay no more than 7, cash.


You said it all. You live in Prague. 
You don't build a solid, decent business with that attitude. You get people who will take as much advantage of you as you are of them.
I have more respect for myself and others than to treat them like commodities.
By the way, I also buy clothes, food and other things for my gardener.

There is exploitation and there is robbery.


----------



## maxd

xabiachica said:


> I knew what you meant!
> 
> & if you're paying as little as 7€ an hour, you're encouraging the black economy - there's no way someone earning 7€ an hour can afford autónomo payments!


I honestly do not know anyone who gets a receipt from their cleaner. Is it really worth the hassle for a few hours a week?


----------



## maxd

mrypg9 said:


> You said it all. You live in Prague.
> You don't build a solid, decent business with that attitude. You get people who will take as much advantage of you as you are of them.
> I have more respect for myself and others than to treat them like commodities.
> By the way, I also buy clothes, food and other things for my gardener.
> 
> There is exploitation and there is robbery.


If you pay too little they will go and work somewhere else and you will get left holding with an empty building site for example. If someone says yes to something it is their choice alone and that is personal choice and a free market.

I am not saying I do pay 5 euro for a labourer but I would pay that if that is what the market is dictating.

For the record my cleaners in Barcelona are on 7 euros an hour full time. We could get away with 5 but that would get no loyalty. Many have been with us for several years so they seem to find that sort of wage OK.


----------



## xabiaxica

maxd said:


> I honestly do not know anyone who gets a receipt from their cleaner. Is it really worth the hassle for a few hours a week?


no-one is talking about receipts...

very few of my students want receipts/invoices - yet every quarter I submit the copies to my gestor so that he can do whatever he does 

I have a friend who makes bespoke cards & gifts - she is registered autónomo (probably the only cardmaker in our town who is ) & again, very few of her customers want receipts yet she also submits the copies to the gestor

we both find that because we CAN - & I am also IVA registered for translation work, so companies will use me rather than the many who can't - we are both in the happy position of having to turn work away....


----------



## baldilocks

To try to get away with paying the minimum one can get away with is mercenary and typical of the ways of the old Spanish land-owners who would turn away local people and bring in foreign labour (often single persons with no responsibilities) while the local peasant families were starving.


----------



## mrypg9

xabiachica said:


> I knew what you meant!
> 
> & if you're paying as little as 7€ an hour, you're encouraging the black economy - there's no way someone earning 7€ an hour can afford autónomo payments!


The Czech Republic runs on the black economy. It is a dreadful place to do business. There has been no civil society for over eighty years and no tradition of trust. There is a saying: 'He who doesn't steal robs his family'. Even my closest Czech friend whom I've known for over forty years is obsessed with paying as little as possible for anything...so she buys cheap, gets poor quality and complains.
It is rare for landlords to declare their rental income to the tax authorities. Our landlord owned two substantial properties, villas with inground pools, on the outskirts of Prague. He lived in a beautiful municipal apartment in central Prague which would have carried a very low rent. He must have earned around £3000 a month in rent from these properties which in Czech terms put him in the Very Wealthy category. He paid no tax and had his mail and that of his son delivered to the properties to make it look as if they lived in them. He actually asked me to say I was his girlfriend if anyone asked
The corollary of this was that poor quality goods were sold at ridiculous prices. Everything we bought in Prague fell to bits or malfunctioned after a short time of use. Making money and saving money seems a national preoccupation - that and being extremely racist towards Roma.
There is another side to this poverty pay issue. You may be saving a few euros but as no-one can live and keep a family on these pathetic wages, someone has to pay. That means us, the decent, law-abiding majority who subsidise these stingy payers via our taxes or donations to charity.
The old saying 'Pay peanuts, get monkeys' is very true.
I once watched a group of 'builders' spend weeks doing a job on a house opposite when we lived in Roztoky that would have been done in under a week in the UK or Spain. When I mentioned this to my friend she replied that they had employed Ukrainians 'because they were very cheap and they wanted to save money'. Result: weeks of disruption and a poor quality job.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

> maxd;1258881We could get away with 5 but that would get no loyalty. Many have been with us for several years so they seem to find that sort of wage OK.


It's not a question of "getting away with something"
It's a question of thinking about other people.
Sometimes also known as Maturity.


----------



## maxd

mrypg9 said:


> The Czech Republic runs on the black economy. It is a dreadful place to do business. There has been no civil society for over eighty years and no tradition of trust. There is a saying: 'He who doesn't steal robs his family'. Even my closest Czech friend whom I've known for over forty years is obsessed with paying as little as possible for anything...so she buys cheap, gets poor quality and complains.
> It is rare for landlords to declare their rental income to the tax authorities. Our landlord owned two substantial properties, villas with inground pools, on the outskirts of Prague. He lived in a beautiful municipal apartment in central Prague which would have carried a very low rent. He must have earned around £3000 a month in rent from these properties which in Czech terms put him in the Very Wealthy category. He paid no tax and had his mail and that of his son delivered to the properties to make it look as if they lived in them. He actually asked me to say I was his girlfriend if anyone asked
> The corollary of this was that poor quality goods were sold at ridiculous prices. Everything we bought in Prague fell to bits or malfunctioned after a short time of use. Making money and saving money seems a national preoccupation - that and being extremely racist towards Roma.
> There is another side to this poverty pay issue. You may be saving a few euros but as no-one can live and keep a family on these pathetic wages, someone has to pay. That means us, the decent, law-abiding majority who subsidise these stingy payers via our taxes or donations to charity.
> The old saying 'Pay peanuts, get monkeys' is very true.
> I once watched a group of 'builders' spend weeks doing a job on a house opposite when we lived in Roztoky that would have been done in under a week in the UK or Spain. When I mentioned this to my friend she replied that they had employed Ukrainians 'because they were very cheap and they wanted to save money'. Result: weeks of disruption and a poor quality job.



Honestly, do you think Spain is any different? 40% of the economy is meant to be cash. People hate the Roma and Moroccans and they use cheap south American labour.


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> . If someone says yes to something it is their choice alone and that is personal choice and a free market.
> 
> 
> .


A choice made under duress or when there is no alternative is no choice. It certainly isn't 'freedom'.
There is no such thing as a 'free market'. 
Interesting that all so-called 'free markets' come gift-wrapped with an intrusive, authoritarian state..
The logic of your post is that you drive your price as low as you can, a race to the bottom. So a starving homeless man should work for 1 euro an hour. You would see that as his 'free' personal choice.
Some businesses run on price, others on quality. A few businesses started up in competition with us and undercut our prices which were no way cheap but reflected our overheads amongst which were highly qualified technicians.
None of these businesses lasted. We made money putting right jobs their cheap workers botched.


----------



## maxd

Pesky Wesky said:


> It's not a question of "getting away with something"
> It's a question of thinking about other people.
> Sometimes also known as Maturity.


Rather condescending.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

maxd said:


> Rather condescending.


Yes, it is.


----------



## maxd

mrypg9 said:


> A choice made under duress or when there is no alternative is no choice. It certainly isn't 'freedom'.
> There is no such thing as a 'free market'.
> Interesting that all so-called 'free markets' come gift-wrapped with an intrusive, authoritarian state..
> The logic of your post is that you drive your price as low as you can, a race to the bottom. So a starving homeless man should work for 1 euro an hour. You would see that as his 'free' personal choice.
> Some businesses run on price, others on quality. A few businesses started up in competition with us and undercut our prices which were no way cheap but reflected our overheads amongst which were highly qualified technicians.
> None of these businesses lasted. We made money putting right jobs their cheap workers botched.


The trick is you need a smart one who you pay lots of money to make the monkeys dance. Governments decide minimum wages not me.

For the record everyone in my company gets paid over the minimum wage and the smart ones earn lots of money. I do not even know why I am having this conversation  I get it in the ear because I say I would pay what the market dictates. Some of you need to get off your high horses.


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> The trick is you need a smart one who you pay lots of money to make the monkeys dance. Governments decide minimum wages not me.
> 
> For the record everyone in my company gets paid over the minimum wage and the smart ones earn lots of money. I do not even know why I am having this conversation  I get it in the ear because I say I would pay what the market dictates. Some of you need to get off your high horses.


You are getting it in the ear because you posted something disagreeable, max.

'Your' company as you describe it operates in a highly competitive sector where driving down costs is often essential for survival. A glance at your and any similar website shows that. That's the nature of the business you're in. 
But not everyone has to be part of that, either as client or operator.

And I personally would rather ride a high horse than an ill-fed nag that will give upon me after a short time.


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> Honestly, do you think Spain is any different? 40% of the economy is meant to be cash. People hate the Roma and Moroccans and they use cheap south American labour.


Yes, you are right. Some people do evade due tax and employ cheap labour. But it's clear from replies to your posts that very many people deplore this cheapskate attitude.
No-one forces anyone to exploit people and cheat the system. I've changed garages here as the one in the village never gave invoices. Yes, I pay more...but I also pay IBA and have comeback if anything goes wrong with the job I've paid for.
Until more and more honest people make a stand nothing will change.

I remember some time back you posted on this Forum about some clients in your Prague holiday rentals who had defecated in the entrance hall. Raise your prices and you might get a better class of client...although it seems standards of public behaviour have dropped overall.


----------



## maxd

mrypg9 said:


> .
> 
> I remember some time back you posted on this Forum about some clients in your Prague holiday rentals who had defecated in the entrance hall. Raise your prices and you might get a better class of client...although it seems standards of public behaviour have dropped overall.


Funny you say that, after many years it has just happened again in Barcelona last week. The same nationality again, you guessed it, those lovely Brits.


----------



## oronero

maxd said:


> Funny you say that, after many years it has just happened again in Barcelona last week. The same nationality again, you guessed it, those lovely Brits.


Perhaps they are trying to tell you something!


----------



## maxd

oronero said:


> Perhaps they are trying to tell you something!


The state they were in apparently, even if they wanted to you would not be able to understand it


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> Funny you say that, after many years it has just happened again in Barcelona last week. The same nationality again, you guessed it, those lovely Brits.


Yes, some of us are rather disgusting. I was going to say emulate Mallorca, improve the standard of your apartments -just those in Prague, Barcelona and other cheap stag do places - and raise your prices so you would attract a 'better' class of clientele but that's no guarantee of good behaviour. My son has had work colleagues use his house on golfing trips, all highly paid City types and they have behaved badly, maybe not to the extent of crapping everywhere but certainly indulging in drunken riotous behaviour, like swimming at three in the morning shouting and yelling and disturbing neighbours.

The last time I visited Prague, a year ago, the city centre was packed with Brits, Italians, Spanish, every nationality but Czech. And those tour guides holding those umbrella thingies...

Interesting to note that there seem to be very few 'extra' people here this year. We used to get loads of Madrilenos with their maids and nannies and everyone complained about how rude, arrogant and pushy they were. But they miss the money they spent here....Quite a few French, though, and a scattering of Brits but not that many.

And that is bad news.....


----------



## maxd

mrypg9 said:


> Interesting to note that there seem to be very few 'extra' people here this year. We used to get loads of Madrilenos with their maids and nannies and everyone complained about how rude, arrogant and pushy they were. But they miss the money they spent here....Quite a few French, though, and a scattering of Brits but not that many.
> 
> And that is bad news.....


Wait until August!


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> Wait until August!


Yes, that will give a more accurate picture. Nothing in our village for tourists, though, apart from a couple of good restaurants.


----------



## Madliz

It seems the Irish property slump may be over, will Spain be next?

Irish Annual Home Prices Rise for First Time Since Crash Began - Bloomberg

"Irish annual home prices rose in June for the first time in more than five years, signalling the worst may be over in the biggest real estate crash in Western Europe since the financial crisis began."


----------



## baldilocks

Madliz said:


> It seems the Irish property slump may be over, will Spain be next?
> 
> Irish Annual Home Prices Rise for First Time Since Crash Began - Bloomberg
> 
> "Irish annual home prices rose in June for the first time in more than five years, signalling the worst may be over in the biggest real estate crash in Western Europe since the financial crisis began."


But that is American. Was the Irish real estate crash larger than Spain's? I don't have figures but I doubt it.


----------



## StevejR1

Madliz said:


> It seems the Irish property slump may be over, will Spain be next?
> 
> Irish Annual Home Prices Rise for First Time Since Crash Began - Bloomberg
> 
> "Irish annual home prices rose in June for the first time in more than five years, signalling the worst may be over in the biggest real estate crash in Western Europe since the financial crisis began."


That'll be interesting...the properties aren't selling now, and are overpriced dramatically...some owners will convince themselves the market is starting to rise, put the prices up, and kill the market stone dead! hwell:


----------



## Leper

Madliz said:


> It seems the Irish property slump may be over, will Spain be next?
> 
> Irish Annual Home Prices Rise for First Time Since Crash Began - Bloomberg
> 
> "Irish annual home prices rose in June for the first time in more than five years, signalling the worst may be over in the biggest real estate crash in Western Europe since the financial crisis began."


Forget it. Many auctioneers in Ireland are giving the impression that house prices are on the rise. This is a ruse; they're taking particular houses in particular streets in a particular city (Dublin) and are reframing the facts. They have a vested interest. These auctioneers were amongst the people (bankers, builders etc) who caused the property implosion in the first place.

Property prices in all other areas are still decreasing. Property rentals prices nearly everywhere in Ireland are increasing because Irish people are not buying. And those who want to buy cannot get mortgages. 

The slump in property prices is here to stay (in Ireland and in Spain, at least) and I cannot see any kind of improvement in prices this side of 2033. Furthermore, the Irish people were promised that the new property tax imposed on them would be used for services, but latest news is that 100% of this tax is now being put to pay some of what the Bankers etc caused.


----------



## Pesky Wesky

Stravinsky said:


> I have to disagree to some extent.
> 
> If you have bought the right property in the right place then you can combine holiday home and investment. A 2 bedroom villa with pool down the road from us is successfully renting at £700 per week peak season (June / July / Aug. Before we moved to Spain we rented our place with ease at £500 pw peak season and seemingly could have done so again now for £700+, as ours is more than 2 bedroom.
> 
> I'm not saying that its a main reason for moving to Spain, but it certainly is a sign that you can make money and have a holiday home yourself


I would say it was possibility, but it's dangerous to rely on that income to pay off something else or to use as your income. You never know what will happen to the market, in your clients' country if they are foreigners, or in the area where you have bought - a forest fire and you've lost your "Beautiful scenery" floods and you've lost your "secluded beach". 
I just don't think it's reliable enough and it could end up dragging you down instead of keeping you afloat.


----------



## StevejR1

Pesky Wesky said:


> I would say it was possibility, but it's dangerous to rely on that income to pay off something else or to use as your income. You never know what will happen to the market, in your clients' country if they are foreigners, or in the area where you have bought - a forest fire and you've lost your "Beautiful scenery" floods and you've lost your "secluded beach".
> I just don't think it's reliable enough and it could end up dragging you down instead of keeping you afloat.


I totally agree with what you're saying, I certainly wouldn't rely on future lettings as a guaranteed income, or think it would bring a better return for my investment. But although you quote natural disasters as a reason to worry, I think it is the current economic uncertainty that is the real concern.

....I should also point out that my purchase would be a home, not a holiday let, or an investment......although only a fool would buy something for €300k KNOWING its very likely to slump to €200k! Which is very likely. Owners effected by the crash weren't to know...but if you, or I, were to ignore the climate today we would be fools!


----------



## 90199

Here is a complete contradiction, I have just returned from a visit to Las Palmas de G.C. where a brave property developer has demolished a block and is in the process of constructing a block of 29 apartments. The block will overlook Las Canteras. The prices of the apartments are priced from from €300.000.00.........................................*all the apartments are sold*

Crisis what crisis?


----------



## StevejR1

Hepa said:


> Here is a complete contradiction, I have just returned from a vista to Las Palmas de G.C. where a brave property developer has demolished a block and is in the process of constructing a block of 29 apartments. The block will overlook Las Canteras. The prices of the apartments are priced from from €300.000.00.........................................*all the apartments are sold*
> 
> Crisis what crisis?


That's good to hear, for the developer, and Spain....so now there's a benchmark....assuming he hasn't saturated the market, the market value in that area is €300k....cos it's based on *sales*.

....my question is what are the asking prices in other areas based on???......optimism I think!


----------



## Pesky Wesky

Hepa said:


> Here is a complete contradiction, I have just returned from a visit to Las Palmas de G.C. where a brave property developer has demolished a block and is in the process of constructing a block of 29 apartments. The block will overlook Las Canteras. The prices of the apartments are priced from from €300.000.00.........................................*all the apartments are sold*
> 
> Crisis what crisis?


I know what you're saying Hepa,and what people always say about shopping centres - they are always packed. Seems like 2+2 = 5 or maybe 55.
I stand by what I say and know. I know people who have lost jobs, and a lot of people who have reduced hours, increased work load and decreased spending power. Of course I know a lot more people who are still doing ok and therefore have increased spending power due to the decrease in prices 
It would be interesting to know who bought the apartments. Was it big companies who are going to sell them on, and sell them on and sell them on, so the apartment has already had several owners before it's first occupied as used to happen in the good old days? Is it Spanish investment, or foreign?


----------



## 90199

Pesky Wesky said:


> I know what you're saying Hepa,and what people always say about shopping centres - they are always packed. Seems like 2+2 = 5 or maybe 55.
> I stand by what I say and know. I know people who have lost jobs, and a lot of people who have reduced hours, increased work load and decreased spending power. Of course I know a lot more people who are still doing ok and therefore have increased spending power due to the decrease in prices
> It would be interesting to know who bought the apartments. Was it big companies who are going to sell them on, and sell them on and sell them on, so the apartment has already had several owners before it's first occupied as used to happen in the good old days? Is it Spanish investment, or foreign?


I cannot answer those questions. It was just amazing to see the property being developed, and we were completely floored when we found out that all the properties were sold at above €300,000.00. Someone somewhere has money and the confidence to invest.

Mind you Las Canteras rates as one of the top ten beaches in Spain.


----------



## doro

Hepa said:


> Here is a complete contradiction, I have just returned from a visit to Las Palmas de G.C. where a brave property developer has demolished a block and is in the process of constructing a block of 29 apartments. The block will overlook Las Canteras. The prices of the apartments are priced from from €300.000.00.........................................*all the apartments are sold*
> 
> Crisis what crisis?


Who said the rich are in crisis?


----------



## jojo

doro said:


> Who said the rich are in crisis?



Lets hope they're not. We need the rich to spend and invest right now

Jo xxx


----------



## baldilocks

doro said:


> Who said the rich are in crisis?


They aren't, it is only those who have to *depend* on an income and have little in the way of a buffer such as savings, who are finding it more difficult.


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> Lets hope they're not. We need the rich to spend and invest right now
> 
> Jo xxx


The UK and Spain would be better off if the rich paid their due taxes so the Governments could invest in better public services and infrastructure and put more money in hands of the 98% of ordinary people who aren't rich. The rich spend money on luxury goods and over-priced properties and squirrel away much of their unearned dosh in Swiss and other foreign banks. Very little of their wealth benefits the economy as a whole.
The 'trickledown' theory is a myth. There is no proof that income has been redistributed, quite the reverse. 
In the last thirty years we've seen the percentage of millionaires and billionaires grow massively yet the living standards of ordinary middle-class and 'working-class' people have at best stagnated. If the trickledown theory were true, this would not be so, neither would the gap between the haves and have-nots have increased so dramatically.
To get the economy moving, here and in the UK, ordinary working people need more money in their pockets and certainly more disposable income.


----------



## baldilocks

mrypg9 said:


> The UK and Spain would be better off if the rich paid their due taxes so the Governments could invest in better public services and infrastructure and put more money in hands of the 98% of ordinary people who aren't rich. The rich spend money on luxury goods and over-priced properties and squirrel away much of their unearned dosh in Swiss and other foreign banks. Very little of their wealth benefits the economy as a whole.
> The 'trickledown' theory is a myth. There is no proof that income has been redistributed, quite the reverse.
> In the last thirty years we've seen the percentage of millionaires and billionaires grow massively yet the living standards of ordinary middle-class and 'working-class' people have at best stagnated. If the trickledown theory were true, this would not be so, neither would the gap between the haves and have-nots have increased so dramatically.
> To get the economy moving, here and in the UK, ordinary working people need more money in their pockets and certainly more disposable income.


I agree, and it is deplorable that the recommended pay increase for MPs is greater than the total income of many people who may be on a pension or poorly paid job


----------



## stmary

rotaels said:


> We live in Mallorca and have our apartment on the market with three estate agents for nearly a year now with few viewings. Should we be advertising in the UK through someone like Right Move or try to advertise it ourselves in local newspapers or british papers... would this be a waste of time and money as have a small budget for self-promoting. Any advice would be really appreciated... as we keep thinking there must be something more we could be doing....



Hi why don't you put your self on facebook , loads of people see stuff there , good luck and hope you get your place sold soon


----------



## Madliz

It's certainly interesting to read about the living standards of the average family in the UK - this is a report from this month:

"Household spending is also continuing to rise with the average British home now spending £360 a week, according to figures compiled by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Britons are continuing to enjoy themselves as spending on leisure goods and services remains the largest single element of household expenditure.
That category, which includes trips to the cinema, football matches and holidays, now accounts for £62.50 of the average household's weekly bill, up £2.50 in real terms from last year when having a good time became Britain's biggest single expense for the first time.
The figures follow a study of the spending habits of 7,000 households throughout the UK in the ONS's latest snapshot of spending trends. People from all walks of life were asked to keep fortnight-long diaries during the study to record where and how much money they spent."

I agree totally that there is inequality in society with too much wealth in the hands of too few, but when Mr and Mrs Average spend more on leisure than food, it appears that things are perhaps not as bad as some headlines suggest, for the majority at least.

The word 'poverty' is very emotive, yet what does it mean these days? In the early Eighties, Tony Byrne and Colin F. Padfield defined relative poverty in Britain as a situation in which people are able to survive adequately, but they are either less well off than they used to be (such as when they retire from paid employment) or that they are at a serious disadvantage “in their ability to experience or enjoy the standard of life of most other people – for example, not being able to afford an annual holiday. By this definition I would suggest that many of us here could claim we were living in 'poverty' which is plainly absurd.


----------



## jimenato

baldilocks said:


> I agree, and it is deplorable that the recommended pay increase for MPs is greater than the total income of many people who may be on a pension or poorly paid job


Remember that some of the pay increase is at the cost of some expenses and pension rights.

I have always thought that MPs were not paid enough for what (they are supposed) to do. I wouldn't work an unsocial hours job in central London for their sort of money.


----------



## StevejR1

jimenato said:


> Remember that some of the pay increase is at the cost of some expenses and pension rights.
> 
> I have always thought that MPs were not paid enough for what (they are supposed) to do. I wouldn't work an unsocial hours job in central London for their sort of money.


Is politics work???


----------



## Calas felices

Interesting that yet again someone has had a pop at MPs. No one ever mentions people like Ronaldo , Rooney or even Murray who picked up 1.6 million for about 8 hours work


----------



## mrypg9

Madliz said:


> It's certainly interesting to read about the living standards of the average family in the UK - this is a report from this month:
> 
> "Household spending is also continuing to rise with the average British home now spending £360 a week, according to figures compiled by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
> Britons are continuing to enjoy themselves as spending on leisure goods and services remains the largest single element of household expenditure.
> That category, which includes trips to the cinema, football matches and holidays, now accounts for £62.50 of the average household's weekly bill, up £2.50 in real terms from last year when having a good time became Britain's biggest single expense for the first time.
> The figures follow a study of the spending habits of 7,000 households throughout the UK in the ONS's latest snapshot of spending trends. People from all walks of life were asked to keep fortnight-long diaries during the study to record where and how much money they spent."
> 
> I agree totally that there is inequality in society with too much wealth in the hands of too few, but when Mr and Mrs Average spend more on leisure than food, it appears that things are perhaps not as bad as some headlines suggest, for the majority at least.
> 
> The word 'poverty' is very emotive, yet what does it mean these days? In the early Eighties, Tony Byrne and Colin F. Padfield defined relative poverty in Britain as a situation in which people are able to survive adequately, but they are either less well off than they used to be (such as when they retire from paid employment) or that they are at a serious disadvantage “in their ability to experience or enjoy the standard of life of most other people – for example, not being able to afford an annual holiday. By this definition I would suggest that many of us here could claim we were living in 'poverty' which is plainly absurd.



But what this report fails to mention is that most of this spending is on credit. That has many implications for the economy, none good.
We in the UK are a nation in hock...mortgages, credit cards, second mortgages, loans, payday loans...
We work to pay off our debts. 

But I agree with you about poverty. Current 'measurements' of poverty are arbitrary and meaningless.
Sub- Saharan Africa is poor. Somalia is poor.
A family in the UK living in social housing on benefits are compatively poor to others in the UK.
An important difference.


----------



## mrypg9

jimenato said:


> Remember that some of the pay increase is at the cost of some expenses and pension rights.
> 
> I have always thought that MPs were not paid enough for what (they are supposed) to do. I wouldn't work an unsocial hours job in central London for their sort of money.


I totally agree. An MP's salary is not huge, although expenses are generous.
Most professionals, even teachers working in large cities especially London, earn more than that.
And as for the earnings of those in the financial sector.....


----------



## Pesky Wesky

Calas felices said:


> Interesting that yet again someone has had a pop at MPs. No one ever mentions people like Ronaldo , Rooney or even Murray who picked up 1.6 million for about 8 hours work


Am I missing something?
I thought tax payers paid politicians salaries?
As far as I know I don't contribute to footballers salaries or singers or actors...


----------



## mrypg9

Steve.R said:


> Is politics work???


Well, it was for me.
When I was politically active I turned down offers of promotion in my day profession so I lost out fnancially as well as taking on extra work and responsibility.
Same with my partner. We calculated that if we had devoted as much time and effort to our businesses as we did to politics we'd have been multi- millionaires.
Instead of which we helped local people get homes, served on school governing bodies, ran surgeries for local residents, acted as an unofficial CAB....
Can we please stop these cheap shots at politicians? It can only deter good people from putting themselves forward for election at any level....


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> The UK and Spain would be better off if the rich paid their due taxes so the Governments could invest in better public services and infrastructure and put more money in hands of the 98% of ordinary people who aren't rich. The rich spend money on luxury goods and over-priced properties and squirrel away much of their unearned dosh in Swiss and other foreign banks. Very little of their wealth benefits the economy as a whole.
> The 'trickledown' theory is a myth. There is no proof that income has been redistributed, quite the reverse.
> In the last thirty years we've seen the percentage of millionaires and billionaires grow massively yet the living standards of ordinary middle-class and 'working-class' people have at best stagnated. If the trickledown theory were true, this would not be so, neither would the gap between the haves and have-nots have increased so dramatically.
> To get the economy moving, here and in the UK, ordinary working people need more money in their pockets and certainly more disposable income.


I disagree - My husbands business thrives on the rich spending money and we do very well - as do alot of his associates. When the rich dont spend, we dont earn. Paying higher taxes just means they dont spend as much and the government can pay dole to those who would otherwise be employed.

Just up the road from us we have a prestige car factory (Rolls Royce) - they employ and pay good wages to our local community. A friend of mine has just got a job there earning double what he was earning. He in turn is now employing a cleaner and a gardener "trickle down" - if people stop buying RRs, my friend would lose his job and so would his cleaner and gardener...... !

Thats how my simple brain sees it

Jo xxx


----------



## Navas

mrypg9 said:


> I totally agree. An MP's salary is not huge, although expenses are generous.
> Most professionals, even teachers working in large cities especially London, earn more than that.
> And as for the earnings of those in the financial sector.....


As far as the teaching profession is concerned, I believe only Advanced Skills Teachers and some Headteachers in inner London can earn more than an MP. I certainly don't earn anywhere near that much (not in London) and don't get any expenses. In fact we tend to subsidise the school by paying for many of our own resources.


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> I disagree - My husbands business thrives on the rich spending money and we do very well - as do alot of his associates. When the rich dont spend, we dont earn. Paying higher taxes just means they dont spend as much and the government can pay dole to those who would otherwise be employed.
> 
> Just up the road from us we have a prestige car factory (Rolls Royce) - they employ and pay good wages to our local community. A friend of mine has just got a job there earning double what he was earning. He in turn is now employing a cleaner and a gardener "trickle down" - if people stop buying RRs, my friend would lose his job and so would his cleaner and gardener...... !
> 
> Thats how my simple brain sees it
> 
> Jo xxx


Yes, a few people are doing well. My son has been headhunted for a job at the BoE and has bought a new toy, an F type Jag. No doubt there are other people on this Forum who also have themselves,or have family or friends who have done as well or better.
But one swallow doth not a summer make and in a way, you are proving my point.
How many people buy F type Jags or RRs? How many people earn six figure salaries? Very very few. Probably fewer than 5% of the working population.
The mass of the working people in the UK and Spain are struggling to make ends meet. The average UK wage is around £27k per annum. Over a million are on the dole.
Just because a few of us are or know someone who is doing well does not mean that this wealth is being distributed lower down, far from it.
Check out the official figures for who owns what and earns what.
Of course I'm happy that you are doing well. I'm happy for my son too as when I've spent all our savings I'll be at his door with my suitcases.


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> Yes, a few people are doing well. My son has been headhunted for a job at the BoE and has bought a new toy, an F type Jag. No doubt there are other people on this Forum who also have themselves,or have family or friends who have done as well or better.
> But one swallow doth not a summer make and in a way, you are proving my point.
> How many people buy F type Jags or RRs? How many people earn six figure salaries? Very very few. Probably fewer than 5% of the working population.
> The mass of the working people in the UK and Spain are struggling to make ends meet. The average UK wage is around £27k per annum. Over a million are on the dole.
> Just because a few of us are or know someone who is doing well does not mean that this wealth is being distributed lower down, far from it.
> Check out the official figures for who owns what and earns what.
> Of course I'm happy that you are doing well. I'm happy for my son too as when I've spent all our savings I'll be at his door with my suitcases.


But thats not a reason to take more from the high earners who, mostly have worked really hard and have taken serious risks to achieve their goal - a goal that most of us would like. I often see the "tax the rich" argument as a jealousy tax. I vaguely remember a government several decades ago putting high earners tax "thru the roof" only to find they all left the country and hid their money - Its far better IMO to be envious and see high earners as inspirational than to be jealous and cry "its not fair, I want some of they've got". Leave then to spend their hard earned money - which they will and do and the nation would benefit!

Jo xxx


----------



## maxd

Labour, enemy of tax avoiders, beats corporation tax | The Times Here is one for Mary's lovely champagne socialists.


----------



## mrypg9

Navas, I retired from teaching quite a while ago and I was in the then top tax bracket --just -as Head of a medium-sized school. Most of my friends who are still working in education and are running big inner-city comprehensives are earning well over an MP's salary.
I don't know what London weighting is now but it must be around £15-20k on top of the usual salary.
There are Heads in London earning six figures and good luck to them!! I wouldn't do that job for double their salaries...


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> Labour, enemy of tax avoiders, beats corporation tax | The Times Here is one for Mary's lovely champagne socialists.


Max, I've told you before that what you know about 'socialism' could fit on a postage stamp!! I would never describe myself as a socialist but I have been involved in running successful businesses whilst paying all tax due and paying our staff some of the highest wages in the county. I got expelled from the Labour Party almost twenty years ago, not for some k=left or right-wing heresy but for having opposing views on local government reform.

I think you and Jo are hazy as to what constitutes wealth these days. In my experience of professional people those on six figure salaries are high earners but not what I would call wealthy. Many people living in properties in the M25 radius own or have mortgages on properties worth over a £1 million but that doesn't make them wealthy.

Tax avoidance is unethical and harms the real economy. Economic recovery in the UK and Spain -everywhere in fact - has to be built o something more solid than the financial sector, the service industries and internet bubbles. For this you need good infrastructure and well-educated well-trained staff. This will not come from private philanthropy. It can only come from public investment.

The other point to be taken into consideration is the very real problem of inequality in the UK and Spain, to a lesser extent. The gap between the wealthy and the rest is massive in the UK. This is dangerous to social cohesion apart from imo being morally wrong. At one level, it requires a very strong and intrusive state to keep down discontent and police unrest...and that is a drain on the public purse.

Bear in mind also that your business actually requires working people with surplus cash to spend on holidays. At times of economic depression you cut your prices and your profit margins suffer. People have to buy food, get their cars repaired, buy clothes for their children etc. but they don't have to go on holiday.

Champagne socialists or and shoestring 'capitalists' are equally risible, in my book. I think your view is very short-sighted and not conducive to real, sustained prosperity.


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> But thats not a reason to take more from the high earners who, mostly have worked really hard and have taken serious risks to achieve their goal - a goal that most of us would like. I often see the "tax the rich" argument as a jealousy tax. I vaguely remember a government several decades ago putting high earners tax "thru the roof" only to find they all left the country and hid their money - Its far better IMO to be envious and see high earners as inspirational than to be jealous and cry "its not fair, I want some of they've got". Leave then to spend their hard earned money - which they will and do and the nation would benefit!
> 
> Jo xxx



Ahh..the old 'jealousy' argument.. That usually gets trotted out. I know very many high earners who think that the rich should be taxed. I also know many people who *think* they are high earners who want to hold on to what they've got which is probably peanuts compared to the truly wealthy of this world. During the 1980s when canvassing in elections I met many people who proudly said they could not vote Labour as they owned their home and were Company Directors. Turned out their home was a cheap discounted council property and the Company was me, my dad and our lorry. 
Many of these people who thought they had become part of the 'upwardly mobile' society found themselves bankrupt and homeless during the recession years of the late 80s. As Director of a Housing Association we snapped up their repossessed houses to rehousefamilies from the waiting list.

Very many of your high earners did not get their money by hard work but by luck. Being in the right time at the right place is often more important in business than hard work. We worked hard but luck played a major role in our siccesses and failures too.

Do you have proof that these high earners 'fled the country'? People will always move where there's career advantage. My son and dil were talking of going to work in Switxerland or The Gulf states before vthe BoE job came up. They still might if the money's right...but they will pay their taxes. When they receive bonuses 50% is taxed..they don't complain.

To describe people who think the rich should pay their share of taxes as 'jealous' is a rather sad argument and a little nasty too, not like you. It is something that exists in your mind only and can be only a supposition that can never be proved.

As I see it, it's about not only fairness and decency but self-preservation too. Squeeze people too hard and the peasants will revolt.


----------



## mrypg9

Navas said:


> As far as the teaching profession is concerned, I believe only Advanced Skills Teachers and some Headteachers in inner London can earn more than an MP. I certainly don't earn anywhere near that much (not in London) and don't get any expenses. In fact we tend to subsidise the school by paying for many of our own resources.


Just checked in my old 2010 Diary and after six years a classroom teacher's salary reached £38k. It must be £40000 plus by now. .
That's without areas of responsibility, or being an AST . Hasn't that been dropped now?

Plus some schools can set their own pay scales.


----------



## Navas

mrypg9 said:


> Just checked in my old 2010 Diary and after six years a classroom teacher's salary reached £38k. It must be £40000 plus by now. .
> That's without areas of responsibility, or being an AST . Hasn't that been dropped now?


That £38k may be the case in Inner London but don't forget there have been no pay rises for a while now! They are still giving information about AST positions on the DfE site that seems fairly current (April 2013).



mrypg9 said:


> Plus some schools can set their own pay scales.


Yes, that's right.


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> Ahh..the old 'jealousy' argument.. That usually gets trotted out. I know very many high earners who think that the rich should be taxed. I also know many people who *think* they are high earners who want to hold on to what they've got which is probably peanuts compared to the truly wealthy of this world. During the 1980s when canvassing in elections I met many people who proudly said they could not vote Labour as they owned their home and were Company Directors. Turned out their home was a cheap discounted council property and the Company was me, my dad and our lorry.
> Many of these people who thought they had become part of the 'upwardly mobile' society found themselves bankrupt and homeless during the recession years of the late 80s. As Director of a Housing Association we snapped up their repossessed houses to rehousefamilies from the waiting list.
> 
> Very many of your high earners did not get their money by hard work but by luck. Being in the right time at the right place is often more important in business than hard work. We worked hard but luck played a major role in our siccesses and failures too.
> 
> Do you have proof that these high earners 'fled the country'? People will always move where there's career advantage. My son and dil were talking of going to work in Switxerland or The Gulf states before vthe BoE job came up. They still might if the money's right...but they will pay their taxes. When they receive bonuses 50% is taxed..they don't complain.
> 
> To describe people who think the rich should pay their share of taxes as 'jealous' is a rather sad argument and a little nasty too, not like you. It is something that exists in your mind only and can be only a supposition that can never be proved.
> 
> As I see it, it's about not only fairness and decency but self-preservation too. Squeeze people too hard and the peasants will revolt.


I guess I see it from mine and my husbands point of view. When he started his business all those years ago, we had to mortgage, beg and borrow huge sums of money - he gave up a secure, steady job and I had to work my butt off. We took some knocks, we had sleepless nights and I was terrified we'd lose everything.... but we did it. He got some good contracts from very wealthy superyacht owners, he aqlso installed lots of home automation systems in some very expensive houses, the business flourished. The recession was scary cos the "rich" held on to their money and the work slowed a bit and of course by then we were in Spain. This is why he kept going back to the UK, to network and to make sure the work was still coming in.

I'm very much a believer in the law of the jungle. We could so easily have failed - we didnt, thanks to those very wealthy clients, but surely those risks all those years ago should be rewarded and not taxed to pay for those who didnt - its the same for the super rich IMO!


Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> I guess I see it from mine and my husbands point of view. When he started his business all those years ago, we had to mortgage, beg and borrow huge sums of money - he gave up a secure, steady job and I had to work my butt off. We took some knocks, we had sleepless nights and I was terrified we'd lose everything.... but we did it. He got some good contracts from very wealthy superyacht owners, he aqlso installed lots of home automation systems in some very expensive houses, the business flourished. The recession was scary cos the "rich" held on to their money and the work slowed a bit and of course by then we were in Spain. This is why he kept going back to the UK, to network and to make sure the work was still coming in.
> 
> I'm very much a believer in the law of the jungle. We could so easily have failed - we didnt, thanks to those very wealthy clients, but surely those risks all those years ago should be rewarded and not taxed to pay for those who didnt - its the same for the super rich IMO!
> 
> 
> Jo xxx


I agree with all you say because it was our experience too. We too had wealthy clients...big national and global corporations and some very wealthy individuals. We had good times and not-so-good times, like any other business. 
We operated a seven day a week twenty-four hour business and were open 365 days of the year...Sandra worked extremely hard, on more than one occasion I took her mother on holiday as she couldn't leave the office. I should get a place in heaven for that, btw 
We deserved every penny earned and are grateful that we could take early retirement.
But I do not consider us as 'rich'. Well-off compared to some, certainly. I do not consider my son and dil 'rich' although both are very high earners.
They, you and Gerry, Sandra and many others deserve what they have as they got it by hard work and paid taxes due. I'm betting that like us, Gerry paid his employees more than a living wage.
'Rich' these days is having so much capital that you don't work, not in the sense that you are talking about, or in invoicing enormous sums of money for 'sitting on the Board' of various companies. When I refer to tax avoidance I'm referring to companies like amazon, Starbucks, ebay, the Barclay Brothers, the Duke of Westminster and their ilk. They are few in number but control the vast majority of the nation's wealth.
I'm like Peter Mandelson...I'm imtensely relaxed about people making money.....as long as they do it by paying all tax due and not paying their workers poverty pay.
But I am concerned about the gap between the haves and have-nots in the UK. The UK is truly in many respects a broken society where social cohesion, concern for others, personal responsibility and a common national purpose are almost extinct.

Incidentally, do you think all business models are ethically acceptable? What do you think of Wonga, the company that profits by driving indebted people even deeper into debt? 
I must say I'm pleased that the CoE has stepped in here and hope the Catholic Church will do likewise, especially after the Pope's strong words in Brazil.


----------



## mrypg9

Navas said:


> *That £38k may be the case in Inner London* but don't forget there have been no pay rises for a while now! They are still giving information about AST positions on the DfE site that seems fairly current (April 2013).
> 
> 
> .


Nope, that was the basic 2010 spine pay scale for teachers without AS or posts of responsibility. London weighting would be additional. When I worked in Outer London many years ago the weighting was around £1500 as far as I can remember. Can't remember what Inner London was.
As I said, I can only go by my own salary of some years ago which was then roughly on a par with an MP's salary but without expenses for duck houses, moat cleaning, expensive bookcases etc. etc. etc..


----------



## mrypg9

*Nicholas Van Hoogstraten is flourishing under Mugabe's murderous regime. The British exile owns two sprawling homes replete with tennis courts, swimming pools and garish chrome architecture. Van Hoogstraten is the self-confessed 'amoral businessman' who made his fortune as a slum landlord in Britain but is better known for being the brains behind the gruesome gangland slaying of a business rival, who was stabbed five times before being shot in the head*. 

An individual truly deserving of his wealth, would you say?


----------



## StevejR1

mrypg9 said:


> *Nicholas Van Hoogstraten is flourishing under Mugabe's murderous regime. The British exile owns two sprawling homes replete with tennis courts, swimming pools and garish chrome architecture. Van Hoogstraten is the self-confessed 'amoral businessman' who made his fortune as a slum landlord in Britain but is better known for being the brains behind the gruesome gangland slaying of a business rival, who was stabbed five times before being shot in the head*.
> 
> An individual truly deserving of his wealth, would you say?


God he sounds a nice chap!


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> *Nicholas Van Hoogstraten is flourishing under Mugabe's murderous regime. The British exile owns two sprawling homes replete with tennis courts, swimming pools and garish chrome architecture. Van Hoogstraten is the self-confessed 'amoral businessman' who made his fortune as a slum landlord in Britain but is better known for being the brains behind the gruesome gangland slaying of a business rival, who was stabbed five times before being shot in the head*.
> 
> An individual truly deserving of his wealth, would you say?


OMG, I went on a date with him once - he lived around the corner from me in Uckfield - yes, he was an arogant slimeball, I think I was the wrong colour for him. If I remember rightly, he actually got "someone" to set fire to the slumland flats he owned and made his money on the insurance



Jo xxx


----------



## jojo

mrypg9 said:


> I agree with all you say because it was our experience too. We too had wealthy clients...big national and global corporations and some very wealthy individuals. We had good times and not-so-good times, like any other business.
> We operated a seven day a week twenty-four hour business and were open 365 days of the year...Sandra worked extremely hard, on more than one occasion I took her mother on holiday as she couldn't leave the office. I should get a place in heaven for that, btw
> We deserved every penny earned and are grateful that we could take early retirement.
> But I do not consider us as 'rich'. Well-off compared to some, certainly. I do not consider my son and dil 'rich' although both are very high earners.
> They, you and Gerry, Sandra and many others deserve what they have as they got it by hard work and paid taxes due. I'm betting that like us, Gerry paid his employees more than a living wage.
> 'Rich' these days is having so much capital that you don't work, not in the sense that you are talking about, or in invoicing enormous sums of money for 'sitting on the Board' of various companies. When I refer to tax avoidance I'm referring to companies like amazon, Starbucks, ebay, the Barclay Brothers, the Duke of Westminster and their ilk. They are few in number but control the vast majority of the nation's wealth.
> I'm like Peter Mandelson...I'm imtensely relaxed about people making money.....as long as they do it by paying all tax due and not paying their workers poverty pay.
> But I am concerned about the gap between the haves and have-nots in the UK. The UK is truly in many respects a broken society where social cohesion, concern for others, personal responsibility and a common national purpose are almost extinct.
> 
> Incidentally, do you think all business models are ethically acceptable? What do you think of Wonga, the company that profits by driving indebted people even deeper into debt?
> I must say I'm pleased that the CoE has stepped in here and hope the Catholic Church will do likewise, especially after the Pope's strong words in Brazil.



Dont you think that the reason the gap between the haves and have-nots is getting bigger because the have-nots dont take risks? Fewer do these days. The countries ethos today is very much protective and doesnt encourage risk taking??? So we now have a generation of folk who dont live by the law of the jungle and dont "get out there"

This next up and coming generation are even worse. I know so many youngsters who are on the dole, not because theres no work, but because they simply dont want to work, they dont want to get up in the mornings and they dont have any drive or ambition. They're not "hungry"!

As for Wonga - I dont really know enough about it to comment, but I would probably say that as long as the facts/rates etc are there in black and white, people have choices - Now, off topic, I need a rant lol) Again, another gripe of mine, they dont teach domestic finances in schools - mortgages, loans, basic house keeping, budgeting, *loans*..... or typing lol!!!!!!

Jo xxx


----------



## mrypg9

jojo said:


> Dont you think that the reason the gap between the haves and have-nots is getting bigger because the have-nots dont take risks? Fewer do these days. The countries ethos today is very much protective and doesnt encourage risk taking??? So we now have a generation of folk who dont live by the law of the jungle and dont "get out there"
> 
> This next up and coming generation are even worse. I know so many youngsters who are on the dole, not because theres no work, but because they simply dont want to work, they dont want to get up in the mornings and they dont have any drive or ambition. They're not "hungry"!
> 
> As for Wonga - I dont really know enough about it to comment, but I would probably say that as long as the facts/rates etc are there in black and white, people have choices - Now, off topic, I need a rant lol) Again, another gripe of mine, they dont teach domestic finances in schools - mortgages, loans, basic house keeping, budgeting, *loans*..... or typing lol!!!!!!
> 
> Jo xxx


You can't take a risk if you have no money yourself and the bank won't lend you money. How can someone who has lost their job and who exist on the dole take a risk? There's also the fact that not everyone has entrepreneurial skills. I actually think there's too much 'law of the jungle'. We are human beings, not rapacious wild animals and we would live happier lives if we based our existence on co-operation and care for others, not on a beggar-my-neighbour approach to life.

If you are out of work, on low benefits or JSA, have bills to meet, then you don't have a choice, do you.....no-one who had other options would even consider a payday loan at those rates. These people thrive on others' misery and I'm glad the CoE has stepped in.

I do agree about the lack of teaching of how to handle finances. It seems cooking as a skill isn't taught these day either.

Yes, there are many young people who don't want to work. But ask yourself why....this wasn't the case thirty or forty years or so ago. I don't know the reasons for this but I'm guessing that the 'easy money' culture is very strong with these youngsters. They don't want to graft, they think money should come easily..


----------



## jimenato

mrypg9 said:


> Incidentally, do you think all business models are ethically acceptable? What do you think of Wonga, the company that profits by driving indebted people even deeper into debt?
> I must say I'm pleased that the CoE has stepped in here and hope the Catholic Church will do likewise, especially after the Pope's strong words in Brazil.


I reckon the people at Wonga could teach the churches, particularly the RC church, a thing or two about morals and ethics.


----------



## mrypg9

jimenato said:


> I reckon the people at Wonga could teach the churches, particularly the RC church, a thing or two about morals and ethics.


Elaborate!!

Bunch of loan sharks preying on desperate people...


----------



## maxd

The current form of government is out of control. Mega pensions for retired public sector workers means instead of employing 2 new policemen we are paying for 4, because the old ones retire on full wages, it goes on and on. No one ever thought that it is dumb and the next generations would be saddled with that debt?

I think government should be limited to a proportion of GDP. The French spend 56% of its' cash on government stuff ( nonsense), limit it to something like 25% of all spending by law then you will stop the decay and theft of productive people's wealth.


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> The current form of government is out of control. Mega pensions for retired public sector workers means instead of employing 2 new policemen we are paying for 4, because the old ones retire on full wages, it goes on and on. No one ever thought that it is dumb and the next generations would be saddled with that debt?
> 
> I think government should be limited to a proportion of GDP. The French spend 56% of its' cash on government stuff ( nonsense), limit it to something like 25% of all spending by law then you will stop the decay and theft of productive people's wealth.


Oh dear Max...you do see things in very simple terms. Sadly, real life isn't like that. Sometimes I wish it were.

Public sector workers'pensions are paid for by: public sector workers, who pay up to 9% of their salaries towards their pensions. That includes policemen too, btw. 
This money is not however invested productively by the UK government but used to finance current expenditure. So the burden of paying future pensions lies on the shoulders of future generations of workers. This seems to me a poor way to handle £millions of public sector workers' money. My own contribution to my admittedly generous pension amounted to several £000 a year. MY money, max, MY money. How many people in the private sector save that much towards their pensions? Has it occurred to you that if when they retire they have no savings of any kind then they will become a burden on public finances? I am assuming you would not wish to see retired people homeless or starving.

Secondly...how do you propose a government, any government, can limit its spending in this way? I agree that in most countries the public sector takes up an excessive amount of GDP but what should the Government have done in 2007 when because of greed and incompetence the whole UK banking system was near collapse? Until that point Cameron and Osborne supported Brown's spending plans, just as Brown continued implementing the Tory Government's spending plans in 1997. When the crash came the Tories had no alternative plan to what Brown and later Darling imposed.

Don't make me laugh about the 'theft of productive people's wealth'.  I seem to remember that some time back you were advocating that people should buy houses via tin-pot low-tax regimes to avoid due taxes in the country where they were living. Advocating paying people 5 euros an hour in times of unemployment as you did is not only cheapskate but a theft of working people's productivity. 

Some of us might wonder what is 'productive'about flying people in to get drunk and crap on the floors of your apartments.......
There is productive economic activity and froth. Productive activity adds to a nation's wealth, utilises the country's skills base and plays a part in social life as social cohesion and a contented workforce enhances productivity, as anyone who has been in business for any length of time knows well.

Incidentally, thinking about 'champagne socialists'.....I'm no socialist but I'm trather partial to a drop of Mumm. Not that cheap Czech Bohemia Brut...Spanish Cava is a better substitute. I believe that the enjoyment of the good things in life should not be limited to the few. Champagne for all would be my election slogan. If it's good enough for me then everyone should have it if they wish


----------



## ptrclvd

maxd said:


> The current form of government is out of control. Mega pensions for retired public sector workers means instead of employing 2 new policemen we are paying for 4, because the old ones retire on full wages, it goes on and on. No one ever thought that it is dumb and the next generations would be saddled with that debt?
> 
> I think government should be limited to a proportion of GDP. The French spend 56% of its' cash on government stuff ( nonsense), limit it to something like 25% of all spending by law then you will stop the decay and theft of productive people's wealth.


Misinformation scattered as if true does annoy me. I would never deny that the police pension was ( not so much now) an excellent scheme. However it did not mean you retired on full wages . The old scheme was a final salary scheme which provided 2/3 of your final basic salary. However for that a substantial percentage of income had to be paid. In my case at retirement I was paying 12.5% of my pre tax income into the scheme. That amounted to a very substantial sum per year. 

I am grateful that now I receive a very healthy pension. Hopefully that is helping make up to my wife the devastation I caused to her life over 30 plus years missing birthdays,anniversaries Christmas etc as well as constantly disturbing her sleep with the phone ring many nights ( when I was home for them).

Very few public service employees get the 'gold plated' pensions often spoken about. The police (under the old scheme do) but many others do not. My wifes pension as a senior specialist nurse is very poor. So please let us try to avoid using generalisation and assertions as if they are facts when they are clearly not,


----------



## maxd

ptrclvd said:


> Misinformation scattered as if true does annoy me. I would never deny that the police pension was ( not so much now) an excellent scheme. However it did not mean you retired on full wages . The old scheme was a final salary scheme which provided 2/3 of your final basic salary. However for that a substantial percentage of income had to be paid. In my case at retirement I was paying 12.5% of my pre tax income into the scheme. That amounted to a very substantial sum per year.
> 
> I am grateful that now I receive a very healthy pension. Hopefully that is helping make up to my wife the devastation I caused to her life over 30 plus years missing birthdays,anniversaries Christmas etc as well as constantly disturbing her sleep with the phone ring many nights ( when I was home for them).
> 
> Very few public service employees get the 'gold plated' pensions often spoken about. The police (under the old scheme do) but many others do not. My wifes pension as a senior specialist nurse is very poor. So please let us try to avoid using generalisation and assertions as if they are facts when they are clearly not,



Police pensions bill now hits £2.5billion | UK | News | Daily Express

Well I would like to agree with you but read this.


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> Police pensions bill now hits £2.5billion | UK | News | Daily Express
> 
> Well I would like to agree with you but read this.


Do you really believe what you read in the Express??? Next you'll be telling me the Daily Mail is a serious paper of record. You'll get better, more accurate information from the Times, Independent and FT.

Did you really think that public sector workers got their pensions 'free', max??
I will tell you once more: public sector workers PAY for their pensions. An amount equivalent to 9% is deducted from their salaries. This money is in fact misused in that it is not invested as are most private pension funds but used by governments for current expenditure. So what you have read is a distortion of the truth, typical of rags like the Express, as it does not take into account the funds taken from public sector employees during their working years.
There is no doubt that all pension provision needs to be looked at in view of the ageing population but we need to get our facts straight.
A disturbing number of private sector workers have no pension of any kind. When they retire public sector workers' taxes will go to paying their benefits.

Incidentally, what pension arrangements does the company you work for provide for their employees, I wonder? When we were in business we offered our employees a pension scheme which actually cost us. There are plans to make this compulsory in the UK. I daresay you'll be describing that as 'socialism'.
That's what socially responsible businesses do.

So...do you now understand that public sector employees actually pay for their pensions??? Over the years I, like other better-paid public sector workers, have contributef £00000s to our pension fund. Like many people, I chose to add more to my contributions I would get an even better pension on retirement.


----------



## jimenato

Sorry Mary - you are just wrong on this. 

From The Actuary



> These are on top of the £15.4bn the Office for Budget Responsibility expects the shortfall between public sector pension contributions and pensions in payout to have reached by 2016/17. Taxpayers also face a bill of at least £17bn a year in employer contributions, the report, written by pensions analyst Michael Johnson, said.


Public workers absolutely do not pay for their pensions. They pay for part of them - the taxpayer pays the rest.


----------



## ptrclvd

maxd said:


> Police pensions bill now hits £2.5billion | UK | News | Daily Express
> 
> Well I would like to agree with you but read this.


Thank you for posting that as it reinforces my original point which was related to misleading information and this article is a super example.Whilst what it says is correct what it misses out and its terminology is simply designed to inflame public opinion which it clearly is. I will not give a full thesis on the subject but will point out a few of the defects in it.

The main problem is that it is comparing apples with oranges with pears. It is true the pension costs of the groups it mentions differ but so do the contributions those groups make to their pensions. In the NHS contributions vary between 5 and 10.9%. The latter only applies to those earning over £110000 and the average contribution is 6%. Teachers contribute between 6.4 and 11.2%The high rate is hit at £100000 so again the average is around 9%. The armed forces is non contributory. The police contributions are complex. What you pay depend in which scheme you are in. The one always mentioned actually only applies to officers who joined over 20 years ago. They currently pay 13.5 to 15%. The highest rate is hit at £60000. The vast majority of officers are on a less generous scheme but their contributions start at 11.5%. Length of service for a full pension also varies between all groups as does the age you can retire. With the armed services it is 20 years ,police is 30 for some but 35 for the majority and the others more. In the NHS some nurses can retire at 55 others 60.

The article also fails to mention that a significant portion of police officers are ex servicemen and women. Their service pension will be absorbed into the police pension so the figures for those two groups are influenced considerably by this reducing the services costs and increasing the police cost. It also mentions police officers retiring at 50 after 25 years which they can but at the cost of a much smaller pension which is not indext linked for many years.

Significantly it also fails to mention that politicians have caused much of the problems by the way those contributions have been used. Whilst the NHS has an invested fund from its contributions those from the police ( MPS pensions are exactly the same) have just been absorbed into general government coffers. That is to say the government has taken the money and used it elsewhere without regard to the future. That worked for them up to about 1995 as they were then taking in more than police pensions cost. However they did not account for the boom in police numbers which followed the Edmund Davis review in 1977. Prior to that the police had been very badly paid and had trouble recruiting. Large pay increases at that time led to a big increase in police numbers. My own force went from about 24000 people to 36000 over a 15 year period. Of course that also meant that from around the millennium a large number of people started to hit retirement age. So now payments out are greater than contributions in. The government did recognise this in the late 1980s and changed the pension scheme then but whilst this wil help in the future it does mean there is still a cash flow issue for the next 20 years or so.

I could go on further and go into more detail about the language used in the article (NHS staff for instance which means the pension figure given includes cleaners, canteen workers etc as well as nurses and doctors) but if I did this reply would become the size of a novel. I should also though point out it was published in early 2012 and is now irrelevant as the new (new) police scheme which comes into force in 2015 includes career averages etc rather than final salary.

No one will argue that the UK is in a mess. However ill informed and inaccurate comment does not help anyone. The media ,particularly papers like the Mail and Express do not help as they thrive on trying to drive wedges between different groups in society. All I ask ,no doubt in vain , is that people and more importantly the government make comment and decisions on real fact with sensible background information. I could be waiting a long time. 

PS I apologise for any inaccuracies in my figures. They came from government web sites so I would hope they are right but.............


----------



## mrypg9

jimenato said:


> Sorry Mary - you are just wrong on this.
> 
> From The Actuary
> 
> 
> 
> Public workers absolutely do not pay for their pensions. They pay for part of them - the taxpayer pays the rest.


I pointed that out, Simon. The reason for that I also pointed out: that the money public sector workers pay directly to the government is not invested to produce a return, thus increasing the final yield payable on retirement, as is the casse with private sector pensions. It is used for current expenditure. 

My union campaigned for years against this on the dual grounds that it shortchanged public sector workers who did not receive the full investment potential of their contributions and it also placed an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer who had to pay the shortfall.

I also pointed out that it was bad policy to administer pensions in this way because it was unfair to taxpayers who of course include very many public sector workers and to the public sector employees.

Of course max is talking nonsense when he says that public sector workers retire on ful pensions. The maximum would be around 50% of final salary. These pensions are subject to a highly complex formula.

Serious people should be worried about pensions. But the real worry is the majority of private sector employees who have no pension schemes whatsoever and whose state pensions will need to be topped up by taxpayers as they will be in receipt of substantial welfare benefits to complemet the meagre SRP.


----------



## maxd

I am not blaming you guys for your pensions. I am blaming the game not the players. Mary and ptrclvd you paid in 9-12% for up to 40% benefit filled by today's tax payers, I would do that too if I could.

What about taxi drivers, truck drivers, shift workers who have stressful lives too. They have no chance of getting such a deal.

The issue is successive governments promising everything to everyone and have kicked the can down the road, if you do not want to know the shocking shortfall then do not click these links. 

The UK's Most Disturbing Number: Total Unfunded Pension Obligations = 321% Of GDP | Zero Hedge

ONS reveals full UK pension liabilities « The Intergenerational Foundation.

Enjoy your pensions because sooner or later it is going to explode or the government will reneg on their deals they have with you.


----------



## jimenato

mrypg9 said:


> Elaborate!!
> 
> Bunch of loan sharks preying on desperate people...


Oo! Sorry missed that one.

Try this...

Wonga to start new religion



> As the Church said it was moving into the payday lending business, Wonga said a move into religion was the logical next step for their business.
> 
> Wonga Chief Executive Errol Damelin said, ”We’re both targeting vulnerable people who really should know better – so there’s a lot of synergy here.”
> 
> “The Wonga religion won’t make ridiculous claims about returns you’ll never see, like eternal afterlife. Where’s the fine print on that one, eh Justin?”





> “Clearly we don’t have a coherent moral and spiritual code but frankly neither does most of the clergy and at least we can offer gay marriage.”
> 
> Asked if he wanted to take on the Catholic Church he said, “The COE is one thing but when it comes to an ingrained history of child abuse, misplaced guilt, irrational superstition and celibacy we will leave it to the experts.”


----------



## mrypg9

ptrclvd said:


> Thank you for posting that as it reinforces my original point which was related to misleading information and this article is a super example.Whilst what it says is correct what it misses out and its terminology is simply designed to inflame public opinion which it clearly is. I will not give a full thesis on the subject but will point out a few of the defects in it.
> 
> The main problem is that it is comparing apples with oranges with pears. It is true the pension costs of the groups it mentions differ but so do the contributions those groups make to their pensions. In the NHS contributions vary between 5 and 10.9%. The latter only applies to those earning over £110000 and the average contribution is 6%. Teachers contribute between 6.4 and 11.2%The high rate is hit at £100000 so again the average is around 9%. The armed forces is non contributory. The police contributions are complex. What you pay depend in which scheme you are in. The one always mentioned actually only applies to officers who joined over 20 years ago. They currently pay 13.5 to 15%. The highest rate is hit at £60000. The vast majority of officers are on a less generous scheme but their contributions start at 11.5%. Length of service for a full pension also varies between all groups as does the age you can retire. With the armed services it is 20 years ,police is 30 for some but 35 for the majority and the others more. In the NHS some nurses can retire at 55 others 60.
> 
> The article also fails to mention that a significant portion of police officers are ex servicemen and women. Their service pension will be absorbed into the police pension so the figures for those two groups are influenced considerably by this reducing the services costs and increasing the police cost. It also mentions police officers retiring at 50 after 25 years which they can but at the cost of a much smaller pension which is not indext linked for many years.
> 
> Significantly it also fails to mention that politicians have caused much of the problems by the way those contributions have been used. Whilst the NHS has an invested fund from its contributions those from the police ( MPS pensions are exactly the same) have just been absorbed into general government coffers. That is to say the government has taken the money and used it elsewhere without regard to the future. That worked for them up to about 1995 as they were then taking in more than police pensions cost. However they did not account for the boom in police numbers which followed the Edmund Davis review in 1977. Prior to that the police had been very badly paid and had trouble recruiting. Large pay increases at that time led to a big increase in police numbers. My own force went from about 24000 people to 36000 over a 15 year period. Of course that also meant that from around the millennium a large number of people started to hit retirement age. So now payments out are greater than contributions in. The government did recognise this in the late 1980s and changed the pension scheme then but whilst this wil help in the future it does mean there is still a cash flow issue for the next 20 years or so.
> 
> I could go on further and go into more detail about the language used in the article (NHS staff for instance which means the pension figure given includes cleaners, canteen workers etc as well as nurses and doctors) but if I did this reply would become the size of a novel. I should also though point out it was published in early 2012 and is now irrelevant as the new (new) police scheme which comes into force in 2015 includes career averages etc rather than final salary.
> 
> No one will argue that the UK is in a mess. However ill informed and inaccurate comment does not help anyone. The media ,particularly papers like the Mail and Express do not help as they thrive on trying to drive wedges between different groups in society. All I ask ,no doubt in vain , is that people and more importantly the government make comment and decisions on real fact with sensible background information. I could be waiting a long time.
> 
> PS I apologise for any inaccuracies in my figures. They came from government web sites so I would hope they are right but.............


Thanks for that. My post has outlined the way in which we former public sector employees and taxpayers are shortchanged by the government. 
ALL employers, whether government or private sector, who offer FS pension schemes pay a contribution towards those schemes, of course. As I stated earlier, we offered our employees the opportunity to pay into a pension scheme. We could afford to do so. Many businesses cannot, especially those who trade on cut prices and low profit margins. Some businesses have no sense of social responsibility. These are rarely long-lived.
The whole question of provision for an ageing population is an urgent and pressing one. I have read that the current government is planning to introduce some compulsory scheme for private sector employees but when I don't know.


----------



## mrypg9

jimenato said:


> Oo! Sorry missed that one.
> 
> Try this...
> 
> Wonga to start new religion


All of which is very entertaining but it doesn't alter the fact that they are a bunch of loan sharks preying on the vulnerable, does it..
I'm glad the CoE is looking into its investment portfolio. At one time it owned properties which housed some of the most notorious brothels in London. Same with the RC Church.
It's not just the churches that see the need to provide alternatives to the loan sharks. Local credit unions are springing up everywhere. That pleases me also because I think the more that people can do locally within their communities without state interference, the better.

I'd personally rather play the violin in a brothel than work for or invest in such a company.

P/S I can't play the violin but I'm guessing that clients of brothels don't patronise them for the quality of any incidental music they provide.....


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> I am not blaming you guys for your pensions. I am blaming the game not the players. Mary and ptrclvd you paid in 9-12% for up to 40% benefit filled by today's tax payers, I would do that too if I could.
> 
> *What about taxi drivers, truck drivers, shift workers who have stressful lives too. They have no chance of getting such a deal.*
> 
> The issue is successive governments promising everything to everyone and have kicked the can down the road, if you do not want to know the shocking shortfall then do not click these links.
> 
> The UK's Most Disturbing Number: Total Unfunded Pension Obligations = 321% Of GDP | Zero Hedge
> 
> ONS reveals full UK pension liabilities « The Intergenerational Foundation.
> 
> Enjoy your pensions because sooner or later it is going to explode or the government will reneg on their deals they have with you.


I doubt that last point. Not in my lifetime or yours. That's a fantasy , along with the Express misinformation you linked to.

Yes, max, what about truck drivers, taxi drivers etc? If they are self-employed they will fund their pensions just as we do. As does my son. As do all sensible Company Directors or self-employed people. As should anyone who cares abpout a decent income in retirement and doesn't want to be a burden on the state. Of course it's hard for people on low incomes but you approve of paying people as little as possible.
So I'm not sure what point you are making here. Are you saying that everyone should have a state-assisted pension? That is what is likely to happen in the near future. There has to be adequate provision for income in retirement, unless of course you are suggesting euthanasia for all retirees.
You are free to pay as much as you like into your pension fund, max, or rather as much as you can afford. No-one is stopping you. That's what my partner did when she was a Company Director/owner. Her pension income is more than adequate. Enough for us both to live on if your Doomsday scenario comes to pass. That's because she wisely made provision for retirement whilst working and was incidentally able to retire at a very early age. Part of her income though comes from a SIP which of course also benefits from a tax subsidy. So it's not just public sector workers whose retirement incomes are subsidised by the taxpayer.

The whole issue is much more complex than you seem to think. My pension contributions, like those of all public sector employees, went into the government coffers...and out again. Just imagine what return I could have made if my broker had invested all those £00000s into equities or other profitable investments...
Public sector pension recipients contributions have been swallowed up in current government expenditure, perhaps on useless wars, welfare benefits to top up the wages of employees whose employers can't afford to pay them a living wage... 
No-one denies there is a shortfall. But it's a shortfall for both sides, public sector employees and taxpayers.
In a way it's a double whammy for current public sector employees as they are taxpayers too so are contributing themselves towards these pensions for retired public sector employees. Very unfair all round, really.


----------



## ptrclvd

jimenato said:


> Sorry Mary - you are just wrong on this.
> 
> From The Actuary
> 
> 
> 
> Public workers absolutely do not pay for their pensions. They pay for part of them - the taxpayer pays the rest.


That is true. However do not forget that Nurses,Doctors, Teachers,Police etc are taxpayers too. Funnily enough I also pay tax on my pension too!!!
Of course in some cases like the NHS that tax might be paid in Spain but Crown servants including police and the Armed Forces have their pensions taxed in the UK no matter where you live.


----------



## jimenato

The point that is being missed here is that it is just about impossible to get a defined benefits pension any more in the private sector. As soon as big companies cottoned on to the fact they were unaffordable they dropped them unlike the government.

Also, the fact that the government misuses pension contributions is a big red herring. There is no way that employee contributions, if invested, would provide fixed benefit pensions of the size being paid out.


----------



## Navas

ptrclvd said:


> That is true. However do not forget that Nurses,Doctors, Teachers,Police etc are taxpayers too. Funnily enough I also pay tax on my pension too!!!


You beat me to it - I was just about to say the same thing. And as for retiring on full wages - I wish!

I'm a teacher, by the way.


----------



## maxd

jimenato said:


> The point that is being missed here is that it is just about impossible to get a defined benefits pension any more in the private sector. As soon as big companies cottoned on to the fact they were unaffordable they dropped them unlike the government.
> 
> Also, the fact that the government misuses pension contributions is a big red herring. There is no way that employee contributions, if invested, would provide fixed benefit pensions of the size being paid out.


This was my original point and public money could be spent on something worthwhile rather than funding your jolly retirements in the sun ( sarcasm), but hey why is this thread called Selling Property in these times!


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> This was my original point and public money could be spent on something worthwhile rather than funding your jolly retirements in the sun ( sarcasm), but hey why is this thread called Selling Property in these times!


No, max, it wasn't your original point.Your original point was quite unfounded and based on some tripe from the Express.
I and others have maade some very valid points which you seem unable to answer. You have not addressed my points about non-investment neither have you addressed the issue of how to ensure that all have a decent retirement after forty or so years of work without being a burden on the taxpayer.
Simon, you are quite right. As I said, many individuals and companies cannot afford to fund decent retirement pensions. I have explained what I see as an unfairness in the way public sector pension contributions are handled by the government.
But what uninformed people like max won't address is how to properly, affordably and equitably ensure that all people have a decent income in retirement.
Unless euthanasia is on the table...

Perhaps the reason that this topi is being addressed at length under this thread title is that it is only people with decent pensions, whether public or private FS schemes or simple private investment into pension funds, can afford to buy property in Spain.
And pay their gardeners and cleaners decent wages....


----------



## baldilocks

mrypg9 said:


> As I said, many individuals and companies cannot afford to fund decent retirement pensions.


Which means that, for many of us, all this fancy talk about fabulous pensions is extremely irritating especially when the recipients of those pensions are still not happy about them. They should think themselves lucky that they had the opportunity to get those pensions. Many Occupational pension schemes are operated as much for the benefit of the employer as the employees, despite the post-Stonehouse restrictions, there are still opportunities for employers to either reduce their commitment to the pension fund or extract what their actuaries determine is 'over-provision'.



mrypg9 said:


> Perhaps the reason that this topi is being addressed at length under this thread title is that it is only people with decent pensions, whether public or private FS schemes or simple private investment into pension funds, can afford to buy property in Spain.
> And pay their gardeners and cleaners decent wages....


For many, the result of a person's life's work is sufficient funds (savings/lump sum/capital gain) to be able to buy a place in the sun and a far-from-extravagant lifestyle. I have a far from 'decent pension' (two employment pensions plus a small private one add up to £255 per month)

Yes, we do have a cleaner - she isn't necessary but as a pension-less widow, it is a way of applying a little charity without making her feel obligated.


----------



## Chopera

All public sector money comes from taxing the private sector these days, including the money that funds public sector penions. Even though public sector workers may think they are contributing to their pensions by having a percentage taken from their salary, the reality is that their salary is entirely paid for by through private sector taxation. The fact that the contribution shows up on their pay slip is irrelevant, it is just a paperwork excercise, their salary is paid for by private sector tax revenues, and the bit that is taken from their salary to go towards their pension is also paid for by the private sector. 

Years ago nationalised companies such as BA and British Leyland sold stuff directly to the private sector, so back then there were other public sector income streams apart from taxation. Although many of those industries effectively ended up being propped up by the tax payer anyway. But these days there is no escaping it - the public sector (including their pensions) are entirely financed through taxes.


----------



## mrypg9

Chopera said:


> [B*]All public sector money comes from taxing the private sector these days, including the money that funds public sector penions*_. Even though public sector workers may think they are contributing to their pensions by having a percentage taken from their salary, the reality is that their salary is entirely paid for by through private sector taxation. _[/B]The fact that the contribution shows up on their pay slip is irrelevant, it is just a paperwork excercise, their salary is paid for by private sector tax revenues, and the bit that is taken from their salary to go towards their pension is also paid for by the private sector.
> 
> Years ago nationalised companies such as BA and British Leyland sold stuff directly to the private sector, so back then there were other public sector income streams apart from taxation. Although many of those industries effectively ended up being propped up by the tax payer anyway. But these days there is no escaping it -* the public sector (including their pensions) are entirely financed through taxes*.


Oh dear, someone else who has missed the point. If what you say is correct could you tell me where the £00000s of my salary deducted as pension contributions went? Could it have gone towards tax breaks for private corporations, perhaps? Or to make up the for the tax avoidance and evasion of wealthy individuals and companies?

The government as employer makes up part of the pension contribution as do responsible private sector employers.

I've said more than once that current pension provision is paid for from the proceeds of taxation but that is because the government spends the income from public sector contributions as soon as it receives it. It is not earmarked, ring-fenced or invested.
So...who stole the £00000s I had taken from me without my express consent, btw, as contribution to my future pension fund? The Queen? The Army? Romanian immigrants in social housing?

You are quite right though in saying that all government revenue comes from the proceeds of private enterprise. That and borrowing, of course, plus income from lending. That I know as we had businesses in the UK. I was perhaps unusual in being able to sit on both TUC committees and have membership of the Institute of Directors.
So I can see problems from both sides, having worked in the public sector and enjoyed income from the private sector.


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> Which means that, for many of us, all this fancy talk about fabulous pensions is extremely irritating especially when the recipients of those pensions are still not happy about them. They should think themselves lucky that they had the opportunity to get those pensions. Many Occupational pension schemes are operated as much for the benefit of the employer as the employees, despite the post-Stonehouse restrictions, there are still opportunities for employers to either reduce their commitment to the pension fund or extract what their actuaries determine is 'over-provision'.
> 
> 
> 
> For many, the result of a person's life's work is sufficient funds (savings/lump sum/capital gain) to be able to buy a place in the sun and a far-from-extravagant lifestyle. I have a far from 'decent pension' (two employment pensions plus a small private one add up to £255 per month)
> 
> Yes, we do have a cleaner - she isn't necessary but as a pension-less widow, it is a way of applying a little charity without making her feel obligated.


I have never complained about my FS pension, Baldy, far from it. 
For me the real problem is low pay. Far too many people in the UK receive wages which have to be topped up by the taxpayer via Working Family Tax Credit - and that includes of course people like me in receipt of FS public sector pensions who pay taxes in retirement. This is a direct subsidy to people who are either too mean to or can't afford to pay a living wage.

It is scandalous that people work all their lives on taxpayer subsidised wages only to face penury in retirement.
Instead of resenting the fact that SOME teachers, nurses, policemen and other valuable and socially-indispensible public servants get decent pensions after forty years of work, why do people not whinge that their taxes are subsidising skinflint employers through WF tax credits and grasping landlords through Housing Benefit?

Because of this misplaced focus things will never improve in Britain. People with two-pence-halfpenny thinking they're 'superior to people with threepence while those with many £s piss on them...i I despair sometimes.

Btw, I will never have a cleaner as my old mum spent her working life cleaning up for disgracefully low pay after people who weren't fit to lick her shoes.


----------



## Chopera

mrypg9 said:


> Oh dear, someone else who has missed the point. If what you say is correct could you tell me where the £00000s of my salary deducted as pension contributions went?


I have no idea where it went. I do know where it came from though - private sector taxation. I repeat, "your salary" (as you like to call it) was paid for with other people's money, through taxation. Following your logic you might as well have been paid 10% more gross salary and have those additional 10% put aside as pensions contributions. Of course it would have made no difference to the amount of money you took home. It would have cost the tax payer an extra 10% though, and you could then claim how you had paid an additional 10% into your pension, because some civil servant decided to account for it that way, but knowing full well that the extra 10% was paid for by the tax payer.



mrypg9 said:


> Could it have gone towards tax breaks for private corporations, perhaps? Or to make up the for the tax avoidance and evasion of wealthy individuals and companies?


I'm talking about where the money comes from, where it ends up is another matter.



mrypg9 said:


> The government as employer makes up part of the pension contribution as do responsible private sector employers.


And where does the government get the money from to make up it's part of the pension contribution? 

And how is the money taken from responsible private sector employers?




mrypg9 said:


> I've said more than once that current pension provision is paid for from the proceeds of taxation but that is because the government spends the income from public sector contributions as soon as it receives it. It is not earmarked, ring-fenced or invested.


Yes it's a ponzi scheme in other words. Like the banking system in many ways.



mrypg9 said:


> So...who stole the £00000s I had taken from me without my express consent, btw, as contribution to my future pension fund? The Queen? The Army? Romanian immigrants in social housing?


It wasn't stolen from you. It was taken from the tax payer. It was the tax payers money that paid for your salary and it was the tax payers money that had your pension contribution removed from it, as well as the contribution that you took home. Just because it appeared on your payslip as a pension contribution doesn't mean it was your money that was being contributed.



mrypg9 said:


> You are quite right though in saying that all government revenue comes from the proceeds of private enterprise. That and borrowing, of course, plus income from lending. That I know as we had businesses in the UK. I was perhaps unusual in being able to sit on both TUC committees and have membership of the Institute of Directors.
> So I can see problems from both sides, having worked in the public sector and enjoyed income from the private sector.


The government revenue from borrowing is simply tax revenue taken from future generations.

I'm not particularly against public sector workers by the way - they didn't design the system either. And let's face it, if the grass is greener in the public sector then why don't all the sheep mover over there? I'm just trying to make the point that ultimately all public sector revenue comes from taxation (now or in the future) and any promises made (such as promises to pay guaranteed pensions) are backed up by private sector money.


----------



## mrypg9

Chopera said:


> I have no idea where it went. I do know where it came from though - private sector taxation. I repeat, "your salary" (as you like to call it) was paid for with other people's money, through taxation. Following your logic you might as well have been paid 10% more gross salary and have those additional 10% put aside as pensions contributions. Of course it would have made no difference to the amount of money you took Err yes, it was actually MY salary. home. It would have cost the tax payer an extra 10% though, and you could then claim how you had paid an additional 10% into your pension, because some civil servant decided to account for it that way, but knowing full well that the extra 10% was paid for by the tax payer.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about where the money comes from, where it ends up is another matter.
> 
> 
> 
> And where does the government get the money from to make up it's part of the pension contribution?
> 
> And how is the money taken from responsible private sector employers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it's a ponzi scheme in other words. Like the banking system in many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't stolen from you. It was taken from the tax payer. It was the tax payers money that paid for your salary and it was the tax payers money that had your pension contribution removed from it, as well as the contribution that you took home. Just because it appeared on your payslip as a pension contribution doesn't mean it was your money that was being contributed.
> 
> 
> 
> The government revenue from borrowing is simply tax revenue taken from future generations.
> 
> I'm not particularly against public sector workers by the way - they didn't design the system either. And let's face it, if the grass is greener in the public sector then why don't all the sheep mover over there? I'm just trying to make the point that ultimately all public sector revenue comes from taxation (now or in the future) and any promises made (such as promises to pay guaranteed pensions) are backed up by private sector money.


 Err yes, it was actually MY salary... I seem to remember working for it for several decades. It wasn't you standing in that classroom, was it? With respect, that is a rather silly remark.  I worked, damned hard at times, so I received a SALARY.It's normal....
Of course public sector workers are paid for from taxation. But don't public sector workers pay taxes?
You can't discuss this issue sensibly without asking where the many £millions if not £billions of public sector pension contributions goes. Believe me, it was taken from my and other employees salaries each month. This can't be brushed aside.
Taxpayers which category includes public sector workers, a point that needs repeating, perform valuable services, some at very low wages. Nurses, doctors, policemen, teachers....do you think these professions would be better organised privately? Some do. I don't. The private sector is quite rightly interested in pursuing maximum legally and decently gained profit. That was our business aim.
Not much profit to be gained from a nurse tending the chronically sick and dying or a teacher teaching a handicapped child.
So what if taxpayers fund public services? As long as they are well run - which admittedly some such as the NHS and education aren't, that's how they should be organised. Bad management is the fault of government and its appointees.
No-one replying to my posts has addressed the question of future provision for a decent retirement. I'm not surprised, frankly. It's a difficult issue which can't be solved when so many public and private sector employees are on such low wages. How can a person on under £20k a year fund an adequate pension pot?

You know, it's quite amusing to hear people moan about public sector pension schemes whilst ignoring the enormous subsidies taxpayers give to private individuals and companies.
Some moaners no doubt are justified in their resentment: after all, if you're a low earner how the hell can you put money aside for a devent pension?

But can you not see that the taxpayer i.e. me subsidises companies that pay poverty wages by our taxes going to the welfare benefits that poor pensioners receive...and deserve?

That, as a former high-rate taxpayer, annoys me more than the public sector pension issue.


----------



## maxd

There is no money really in the UK, debt is already 90% of GDP and the treasury still has to borrow 128 billion a year. Austerity, my bottom.

This means they will either tax the productive people even more to pay for their past sins or print money (debt) . The real solution is to live within your means, sack a boat load of people in the wealth sucking sector but that is something all the political class are incapable of doing because they are dumb greedy slobs who only care about being re-elected and not dealing with the elephant in the room. 

I do not even live there anymore so does not bother me too much.


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> There is no money really in the UK, debt is already 90% of GDP and the treasury still has to borrow 128 billion a year. Austerity, my bottom.
> 
> This means they will either tax the productive people even more to pay for their past sins or print money (debt) . The real solution is to live within your means, sack a boat load of people in the wealth sucking sector but that is something all the political class are incapable of doing because they are dumb greedy slobs who only care about being re-elected and not dealing with the elephant in the room.
> 
> I do not even live there anymore so does not bother me too much.


The 'political class' won't tax the real wealth suckers, i.e. the tax evaders and avoiders who suck the wealth from the people who work to keep the country going because many of them are their funders.

You keep mentioning 'productive' people and 'productive activity'. 
Would you define as 'productive' renting cheap rooms to people who crap on the floor?

My definition of 'productive' would be businesses that actually make or mend things, businesses that pay workers decent wages so they can spend money in the real economy -and if they wish spend it on going to Prague for boozy weekends and public defecation - nurses who mend the people who get smashed up on said boozy weekends, police who deal with all varieties of slimeballs, scientists who invent cures for cancer and other diseases, mainly funded by the taxpayer....that kind of thing is economically and socially productive, surely?

No, I don't live in the UK any more and never will. But some of my income is taxed there. I've tried Prague, lovely city but in many respects underdeveloped. We intended to spend periods of time in other European cities but Spain offers everything you could possibly wish for...perfect climate, excellent food and wine, beautiful scenery and people who smile, are friendly and shower and use deodorant.
Evey person who visited us commented on poor public and personal hygiene. I read in the Prague Post recently that the city authorities are spraying trams and buses with some kind of scent.
They should spray some of the people...


----------



## Chopera

mrypg9 said:


> Err yes, it was actually MY salary... I seem to remember working for it for several decades. It wasn't you standing in that classroom, was it? With respect, that is a rather silly remark.  I worked, damned hard at times, so I received a SALARY.It's normal....
> Of course public sector workers are paid for from taxation. But don't public sector workers pay taxes?


Sorry but if there was no revenue from private sector taxes you would have no salary and no contribution to your pension. The money comes from the private sector.

I've got plenty of friends and family who work in the public sector and they all seem to accept that. None of them jump to the conclusion that that somehow belittles their jobs. Pointing it out doesn't mean that I think you don't deserve what you were paid. I know plenty of people in the public sector who provide an excellent service for very little money, and others who don't. Same with the private sector. In fact many private sector companies are effectively subsidised by the public sector, and they try their best to rip it off. It is very much swings and roundabouts.

I work in the private sector and my salary is effectively subsidised by the private sector as well. We sell products to other private sector companies, they pay us, some of that gets put towards my pension scheme as contributions and some of it is paid towards the state and some of it gets paid to me. However many of our clients are banks that have been propped up by the government, so down the line I am probably being paid money that was taken from me as taxes in order to bail out those banks. So in a way I am also being paid (indirectly) by the government, whose main object is to get money flowing around the economy in a fair and beneficial way. So by saying that your pension was paid for by the private sector does not mean I think of you as a parasite or whatever other crap the neocons spew out. I'm trying to get an angle on how money flows, and the way I look at it is that the private sector subsidises the public sector through taxes. That is the simplest way of looking at a rather complex system - occam's razor if you like.



mrypg9 said:


> You can't discuss this issue sensibly without asking where the many £millions if not £billions of public sector pension contributions goes. Believe me, it was taken from my and other employees salaries each month. This can't be brushed aside.


I'm not brushing it aside.



mrypg9 said:


> Taxpayers which category includes public sector workers, a point that needs repeating, perform valuable services, some at very low wages. Nurses, doctors, policemen, teachers....do you think these professions would be better organised privately? Some do. I don't. The private sector is quite rightly interested in pursuing maximum legally and decently gained profit. That was our business aim.
> Not much profit to be gained from a nurse tending the chronically sick and dying or a teacher teaching a handicapped child.
> So what if taxpayers fund public services? As long as they are well run - which admittedly some such as the NHS and education aren't, that's how they should be organised. Bad management is the fault of government and its appointees.
> No-one replying to my posts has addressed the question of future provision for a decent retirement. I'm not surprised, frankly. It's a difficult issue which can't be solved when so many public and private sector employees are on such low wages. How can a person on under £20k a year fund an adequate pension pot?
> 
> You know, it's quite amusing to hear people moan about public sector pension schemes whilst ignoring the enormous subsidies taxpayers give to private individuals and companies.
> Some moaners no doubt are justified in their resentment: after all, if you're a low earner how the hell can you put money aside for a devent pension?
> 
> But can you not see that the taxpayer i.e. me subsidises companies that pay poverty wages by our taxes going to the welfare benefits that poor pensioners receive...and deserve?
> 
> That, as a former high-rate taxpayer, annoys me more than the public sector pension issue.


Public sector is preferable to the private sector for plenty of things, health, infrastructure, regulations, education, etc. As you say, it needs to be better organised. The main problem is lack of accountability - in the private sector you are accountable to the market to some extent, it's not so straight forward in the public scetor.

A big step towards fixing the retirement issue would be to express the retirement age as a function of life expectancy, say 85%, rather than a particular age, that has to be revised every now and then in a rather painful and expensive way.


----------



## mrypg9

Chopera said:


> Sorry but if there was no revenue from private sector taxes you would have no salary and no contribution to your pension. The money comes from the private sector.
> 
> I've got plenty of friends and family who work in the public sector and they all seem to accept that. None of them jump to the conclusion that that somehow belittles their jobs. Pointing it out doesn't mean that I think you don't deserve what you were paid. I know plenty of people in the public sector who provide an excellent service for very little money, and others who don't. Same with the private sector. In fact many private sector companies are effectively subsidised by the public sector, and they try their best to rip it off. It is very much swings and roundabouts.
> 
> I work in the private sector and my salary is effectively subsidised by the private sector as well. We sell products to other private sector companies, they pay us, some of that gets put towards my pension scheme as contributions and some of it is paid towards the state and some of it gets paid to me. However many of our clients are banks that have been propped up by the government, so down the line I am probably being paid money that was taken from me as taxes in order to bail out those banks. So in a way I am also being paid (indirectly) by the government, whose main object is to get money flowing around the economy in a fair and beneficial way. So by saying that your pension was paid for by the private sector does not mean I think of you as a parasite or whatever other crap the neocons spew out. I'm trying to get an angle on how money flows, and the way I look at it is that the private sector subsidises the public sector through taxes. That is the simplest way of looking at a rather complex system - occam's razor if you like.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not brushing it aside.
> 
> 
> 
> Public sector is preferable to the private sector for plenty of things, health, infrastructure, regulations, education, etc. As you say, it needs to be better organised. The main problem is lack of accountability - in the private sector you are accountable to the market to some extent, it's not so straight forward in the public scetor.
> 
> A big step towards fixing the retirement issue would be to express the retirement age as a function of life expectancy, say 85%, rather than a particular age, that has to be revised every now and then in a rather painful and expensive way.


I meant to say earlier that I agree with you about public sector pensions being Ponzi schemes..but then the way that all state pensions are administered really makes them Ponzi schemes.
Also agree about my salary coming from private sector taxation. But I put in years of work to earn it!! I was frequently reminded of that by my OH. Very frequently, in fact. And tbh, I learnt a lot and was obliged through force of experience to modify or even abandon a lot of my views after we bought the businesses..
I'm a great believer in stopping tax avoidance as you might have gathered from reading my rants and I'm glad Cameron is doing something about it. If everyone paid their fair share, we'd all pay less. But I'm coming round to thinking that the state does take far too much of our income. I don't believe in an unregulated 'free' market because such a market isn't free, it is dominated by and organised for the benefit of global capital markets.
Socialism means the state owns you, free market capitalism means the markets own you. We are nearly all debtors, not owners, working not to save but to pay off debt. That's no way to run your life or an economy.
So we need a true property-owning democracy. Currently the only form of asset most people can afford is property but that isn't a productive asset. I think that workers should be given a stake in their workplaces, the John Lewis Partnership being a good example of how to do it. Cameron made a good speech at Rochdale about conservative co-operatives. I was quite taken with that idea.
Mind you, we tried giving our employees shares in our business. It didn't work. They were too short-sighted to see the benefits. So we sold up before we left the UK.

Mods, I know we're off-topic here but can we continue elsewhere if necessary as there is interesting stuff for me here. But I don't want to bore the arse off others.


----------



## Chopera

mrypg9 said:


> I meant to say earlier that I agree with you about public sector pensions being Ponzi schemes..but then the way that all state pensions are administered really makes them Ponzi schemes.
> Also agree about my salary coming from private sector taxation. But I put in years of work to earn it!! I was frequently reminded of that by my OH. Very frequently, in fact. And tbh, I learnt a lot and was obliged through force of experience to modify or even abandon a lot of my views after we bought the businesses..
> I'm a great believer in stopping tax avoidance as you might have gathered from reading my rants and I'm glad Cameron is doing something about it. If everyone paid their fair share, we'd all pay less. But I'm coming round to thinking that the state does take far too much of our income. I don't believe in an unregulated 'free' market because such a market isn't free, it is dominated by and organised for the benefit of global capital markets.
> Socialism means the state owns you, free market capitalism means the markets own you. We are nearly all debtors, not owners, working not to save but to pay off debt. That's no way to run your life or an economy.
> So we need a true property-owning democracy. Currently the only form of asset most people can afford is property but that isn't a productive asset. I think that workers should be given a stake in their workplaces, the John Lewis Partnership being a good example of how to do it. Cameron made a good speech at Rochdale about conservative co-operatives. I was quite taken with that idea.
> Mind you, we tried giving our employees shares in our business. It didn't work. They were too short-sighted to see the benefits. So we sold up before we left the UK.
> 
> Mods, I know we're off-topic here but can we continue elsewhere if necessary as there is interesting stuff for me here. But I don't want to bore the arse off others.


Yes I agree with that. I'm a fan of land value tax as an alternative to income tax (maybe implement a flat rate of income tax at say 20% and then make up the difference with a LVT of 2%, or however much it takes). 

Income tax is impossible to implement in a fair way and besides, I think there is something wrong with taxing people for doing something that should be encouraged: work. Land value tax is easier to implement (you can't hide land so easily!) and I think it is somewhat fairer to tax people for using a resource that everyone requires to some extent, rather than taxing them for saving up in order to afford it in the first place. By saying that I am somewhat shooting myself in the foot as I own a few properties in the UK and Spain, but having income streams from both property and work I can see that property owners get a much easier ride in fiscal terms than those who have to rely on work for their income.

The thing is, every time I mention that to people I get glaring looks as if I'm some kind of Marxist trying to steal their wealth. But given that we're gonna got taxed one way or the other, I'd rather they taxed my wealth rather than my work.


----------



## Madliz

Chopera said:


> Yes I agree with that. I'm a fan of land value tax as an alternative to income tax (maybe implement a flat rate of income tax at say 20% and then make up the difference with a LVT of 2%, or however much it takes).
> 
> Income tax is impossible to implement in a fair way and besides, I think there is something wrong with taxing people for doing something that should be encouraged: work. Land value tax is easier to implement (you can't hide land so easily!) and I think it is somewhat fairer to tax people for using a resource that everyone requires to some extent, rather than taxing them for saving up in order to afford it in the first place. By saying that I am somewhat shooting myself in the foot as I own a few properties in the UK and Spain, but having income streams from both property and work I can see that property owners get a much easier ride in fiscal terms than those who have to rely on work for their income.
> 
> The thing is, every time I mention that to people I get glaring looks as if I'm some kind of Marxist trying to steal their wealth. But given that we're gonna got taxed one way or the other, I'd rather they taxed my wealth rather than my work.


I can't say I've ever herd of a land value tax but it sounds eminently sensible and fair. What proportion of the voting public would object to an idea that taxed their earnings less and taxed the wealthier landowners more? Those who couldn't afford the tax on their land could either sell on the open market to realise funds or pass it on to the government (that is, the taxpayer/voter) in lieu of taxes.

Now, how can we bring this about?


----------



## Chopera

Madliz said:


> I can't say I've ever herd of a land value tax but it sounds eminently sensible and fair. What proportion of the voting public would object to an idea that taxed their earnings less and taxed the wealthier landowners more? Those who couldn't afford the tax on their land could either sell on the open market to realise funds or pass it on to the government (that is, the taxpayer/voter) in lieu of taxes.
> 
> Now, how can we bring this about?


There is a campaign here: Land rent for public revenue (mods I'll remove the link if you wish)

(I am in no way connected to it)

It's one of those things that various individuals from all the parties have endorsed but I think only the Lib Dems have really pushed for it as a party (which doesn't say that much I know). I've heard various Labour, Green and Tory MPs say they favour it, but they always seem to be in the minority within their respective parties.


----------



## Navas

Chopera said:


> There is a campaign here: Land rent for public revenue (mods I'll remove the link if you wish)
> 
> (I am in no way connected to it)
> 
> It's one of those things that various individuals from all the parties have endorsed but I think only the Lib Dems have really pushed for it as a party (which doesn't say that much I know). I've heard various Labour, Green and Tory MPs say they favour it, but they always seem to be in the minority within their respective parties.


The website doesn't like me.
"403 Forbidden"


----------



## olivefarmer

I read somewhere that the UK public sector now costs £11,200 p.a. per person. Clearly not sustainable.

I also read that poorer people making the move from 16 hours a week to more hours effectively get taxed at up to 85% on the money they earn compared with the difference being on benefits. That is fairly mad. I know IDS is tinkering with that. 

The whole system needs rebalancing. Will it happen? Maybe.

What is certain is that in desperate times governments will take desperate measures. These are desperate times. Bank account grabs (with issued worthless bonds in exchange) is one. I expect to see such measures in the coming years here in Spain and back in the UK.


----------



## maxd

Also Mary said that it would not happen in my lifetime or hers that the government would backtrack on pensions. Tell that to the pensioners in Detroit, one of many I expect over the next decade.


----------



## baldilocks

Navas said:


> The website doesn't like me.
> "403 Forbidden"


You haven't missed much - it is mostly about the quirky ideas of an American economist who died back in 1897. The Liberal government in the early 1900 tried to push something like that through - it caused major changes in the House of Lords.


----------



## Chopera

maxd said:


> Also Mary said that it would not happen in my lifetime or hers that the government would backtrack on pensions. Tell that to the pensioners in Detroit, one of many I expect over the next decade.


Those who have retired with a private sector pension during the last 5 years will have found annuity rates to be dire. Many have delayed retirement. The investment fund industry is largely a scam, with the public forced into buying over complex products that inevitably contain hidden fees for the fund company. And that's on top of the additional taxes Brown introduced back in the 90s. It's no wonder so many people went into more tangible assets like property. We're going to have to find a way of enabling people to work longer, but in a more flexible way.


----------



## baldilocks

IMO the only fair taxation is income tax - it is the only one that taxes people according to their income. BUT it has to be fairly applied across the board on worldwide earnings. 

Tax havens and other means of squirrelling money away to avoid meeting one's tax obligations should be treated as fraud and a criminal offence. 

Taxing people for spending their money (e.g. VAT) is ridiculous. If people don't spend then money just stays locked up and doesn't filter through the system and the economy goes nowhere - if people don't spend, they don't buy; if people don't buy the manufacturers don't sell; if manufacturers don't sell, there's no need for workers to make goods; so manufacturers don't need to employ workers; no employment means workers get no pay so no income tax paid, etc......


----------



## mrypg9

maxd said:


> Also Mary said that it would not happen in my lifetime or hers that the government would backtrack on pensions. Tell that to the pensioners in Detroit, one of many I expect over the next decade.


Do all retired people in Detroit receive a City pension, I wonder? And do you really think that these people will be left penniless? 

That kind of comment is a bit pointless, really, max. You know well that all any government has to do is print money if push comes to shove. Of course we will all then see the value of our money decline..but at least everyone will have a piece of paper they can buy stuff with.
Doomsday scenarios are pointless and get us nowhere.. They are apocalyptic and entertaining, probably to the same kind of people that get off on conspiracy theories.
What is important is to think sensibly about the future as if these awful things do come to pass we will all suffer, you too, as no-one will be able to afford the basics,let alone cheap flights and cheap holidays.

We in the West are facing a future where an ageing population will need decent retirement incomes, affordable health care and all the other necessities of life. Yet there will be fewer people of working age to pay into the system. 
We have to look at a new kind of economy, one which is socially as well as economically productive. As any good businessperson knows, those two things are essential for a stable, long-lasting and prosperous business. Contented workers are loyal, reliable and produce a better quality product. I think it's time to look at insurance-based health care on the Canadian model, say, and possibly inurance-based pension schemes. Individuals would then pay less tax and have more money to spend on healthcare and retirement provision of their choice. I also believe that asset ownership, not just of bricks and mortar property, should be available to all through employee stakeholder schemes.

You mentioned 'productive' people and business. A productive enterprise as I see it is one which engages in a fair and positive way with all concerned: the workforce, management, clients/customers and the wider local and national community. It puts in as well as takes out. Its ethos is corporate and mutual and not competitive and individualistic. It's interesting to note that ethical or factors other than mere exchange value already play an important role in the economy.
People will avoid certain products for ethical or moral reasons such as, say, boycotting products of countries whose policies they dislike or on animal welfare grounds or merely reasons of personal preference such as brand loyalty or wanting to keep small shops in business. Fair Trade products form a substantial part of the market in the UK. Hybrids, businesses which combine profitmaking with regular donations for social purposes as agreed by shareholders,, are also gaining in consumer popularity.
This ethos of combining business with social responsibility is imo inevitable as a future business model.

As for the free market: it is a self-contradicting concept. The logic of 'free' competition is that it must end in monopoly. The rationale of the 'dynamic market competitor' is to crush all competition and corner the market, usually by racing to the bottom with low wages, low prices and poor quality product. Ryanair springs to mind. . Some freedom. 

Incidentally, I read today that Ryanair is now selling its planes as airborne advertising hoardings.....
Does anyone remember Laker Airways, the Ryanair and EasyJet of the 1970s?


----------



## ptrclvd

I remember Laker airways. I know they went bust on the 5th February 1982 because I got married on the 6th February and was due to go on a honeymoon with them on the 7th February.I had to spend the afternoon in the travel agents (Lunn Poly ...went bust..sold to Thompsons ) and managed to book a holiday with Horizon(went bust) and had to fly from the East Midlands at 6am instead of Manchester at 3pm. The airline was Air Europe which you can probably guess went bust!!! Good job its not like that today


----------



## baldilocks

ptrclvd said:


> I remember Laker airways. I know they went bust on the 5th February 1982 because I got married on the 6th February and was due to go on a honeymoon with them on the 7th February.I had to spend the afternoon in the travel agents (Lunn Poly ...went bust..sold to Thompsons ) and managed to book a holiday with Horizon(went bust) and had to fly from the East Midlands at 6am instead of Manchester at 3pm. The airline was Air Europe which you can probably guess went bust!!! Good job its not like that today


Out of interest and just so that we can be forewarned, who do you fly with now?


----------



## ptrclvd

baldilocks said:


> Out of interest and just so that we can be forewarned, who do you fly with now?


Sadly or perhaps not, it is usually Ryanair between Spain and the UK....out of necessity rather than choice. A few people might be happy if they went out of business . 
They would not be my first choice or even my 50th but they go between the airports I use regularly. Perhaps I should stop though just in case it leaves a few million other people in the lurch!!!!


----------



## mrypg9

Chopera said:


> Those who have retired with a private sector pension during the last 5 years will have found annuity rates to be dire. Many have delayed retirement. The investment fund industry is largely a scam, with the public forced into buying over complex products that inevitably contain hidden fees for the fund company. And that's on top of the additional taxes Brown introduced back in the 90s. It's no wonder so many people went into more tangible assets like property. We're going to have to find a way of enabling people to work longer, but in a more flexible way.


Do you still think property is a safe, tangible asset? 
Agreed, it is the only asset most people can aspire to.
Yet most people are not true property owners, they are property owers.
Therein lies the root of many economic problems, Spain and ROI springing to mind.
Not much of an asset when the value of your property drops dramatically but your mortgage remains the same or even increases if interest rates rise.


----------



## Madliz

Apparently _The Telegraph_ is suggesting that now's the time to buy in Spain. I can't read it on their site without a subscription but it's quoted in Spanish here:

http://www.idealista.com/news/archivo/2013/07/31/0648139-un-diario-britanico-cree-que-es-un-buen-momento-para-comprar-casa-en-espana?xtor=EPR-75-[esta_pasando_20130731]-20130731-[notinmo_1_titular]-[]-[]

The article is titled, "Spanish property - is the time finally right to buy?" and concludes that Spain WILL survive the crisis and that with prices now up to 50% below their peak and bottoming out, now's a pretty good time to buy.


----------



## Sirtravelot

Also says on there that prices won't hit bottom for another 2 to 3 years.

Lean back and enjoy the sun folks.


----------



## Madliz

Sirtravelot said:


> Also says on there that prices won't hit bottom for another 2 to 3 years.
> 
> Lean back and enjoy the sun folks.



Indeed, as I said, 'bottomING out'


----------



## A1sauce

mrypg9 said:


> Do you still think property is a safe, tangible asset?
> Agreed, it is the only asset most people can aspire to.
> Yet most people are not true property owners, they are property owers.
> Therein lies the root of many economic problems, Spain and ROI springing to mind.
> Not much of an asset when the value of your property drops dramatically but your mortgage remains the same or even increases if interest rates rise.


Sooo very true! It took me a long time to come to that realization.


----------



## baldilocks

There is nothing at all wrong with owning property instead of renting, it is just like any other asset (art, jewellery, precious metals, etc), its value goes up and down with the market, demand and the value of currency. The biggest mistake is to buy it with somebody else's money, e.g. on a mortgage. and the second biggest mistake is to keep buying and selling when you have no control over the market.


----------



## mrypg9

baldilocks said:


> There is nothing at all wrong with owning property instead of renting, it is just like any other asset (art, jewellery, precious metals, etc), its value goes up and down with the market, demand and the value of currency. The biggest mistake is to buy it with somebody else's money, e.g. on a mortgage. and the second biggest mistake is to keep buying and selling when you have no control over the market.


That is why I have never bought with a mortgage. 

But you can't ignore the fact that 99% of the population who buy bricks and mortar property do so by taking out some kind of loan which hangs round their necks to retirement and even beyond.

You NEVER have control over the market for ANYTHING. As Mrs T. famously said, perhaps one of the few instances when she was right:'You can't buck the market'.

We need to get away from this obsession with property as some kind of security ewhen it's anything but. It's a very British thing. In mainland Europe and North America buying and renting are equally valid options. 
As many immigrants here have found to their cost, renting allows instant mobility.
Ownership does not, not in these times.


----------

