Scottish Independence Model Is Dead

[oaksoft]

Oaksoft. You're a businessman that's going to fail badly if you think you can run a business based on profits you might get in 40 years time.

People ALWAYS gamble on past performance. There are whole industries based on it including gambling, oil & gas, pharmaceuticals, pipefitting companies and the entire financial services industry. The entire world economy is built on this idea. ALL businesses work by risking the present in the hope of getting something bigger several years down the line. Without understanding past performance you cannot make ANY sort of prediction about the future and are destined to repeat mistakes. You trying your hand at basic arithmetic once again and failing once again would be a good analogy.

Business is ALWAYS a gamble you numpty. Most of them rack up debts in the short term hoping to make profits in the future.

It's the very essence of how our western civilisation works. Without it we'd be living in caves and hunting down our lunch.

You can't do basic arithmetic. We know that. We now know you don't undertsand basic business strategy either.

You are just embarassing yourself now.

Edited November 21, 2015 by oaksoft

[Reynard]

Aye doctors vote to strike (only 98% of them) in Englandshire but it's a bad week for SNP

Certainly a bad week for any lingering thoughts of independence the SNP supporters once had.

Deluded, was the word.

But still, the polls show that in May it will be the SNP exclusively getting to bite deeply into the massive shit sandwich the tories have served up to them. By the end of their next term that will have been 15 years they've been destroying Scotland and blaming everyone else.

I'm sure their support will be disappointed at the lack of social progress even if it hasn't dawned on the brain donor yet that they have been taken for absolute mugs by a bunch of Scottish politicians. Hey ho.

[cambiebud]

Certainly a bad week for any lingering thoughts of independence the SNP supporters once had.

Deluded, was the word.

But still, the polls show that in May it will be the SNP exclusively getting to bite deeply into the massive shit sandwich the tories have served up to them. By the end of their next term that will have been 15 years they've been destroying Scotland and blaming everyone else.

I'm sure their support will be disappointed at the lack of social progress even if it hasn't dawned on the brain donor yet that they have been taken for absolute mugs by a bunch of Scottish politicians. Hey ho.

Oh dear Reynard. What utter drivel. The present Scottish Government has done an excellent job with the crumbs from the Westminster table. The vast majority of the Scottish electorate agree and it looks like the SNP will get a thumping majority in May. Nice trolling though

[Stuart Dickson]

People ALWAYS gamble on past performance. There are whole industries based on it including gambling, oil & gas, pharmaceuticals, pipefitting companies and the entire financial services industry. The entire world economy is built on this idea. ALL businesses work by risking the present in the hope of getting something bigger several years down the line. Without understanding past performance you cannot make ANY sort of prediction about the future and are destined to repeat mistakes. You trying your hand at basic arithmetic once again and failing once again would be a good analogy.

Business is ALWAYS a gamble you numpty. Most of them rack up debts in the short term hoping to make profits in the future.

It's the very essence of how our western civilisation works. Without it we'd be living in caves and hunting down our lunch.

You can't do basic arithmetic. We know that. We now know you don't undertsand basic business strategy either.

You are just embarassing yourself now.

So why don't landlords rent out their home for free then Oaksoft? Surely all those wonderful business people haven't all got it wrong?

It's all about the yield and the yield has to be greater than the interest rate you'd get elsewhere.

Now if you want any more lessons in business I'm happy to help but next time it'll be for a fee.

[Stuart Dickson]

Oh dear Reynard. What utter drivel. The present Scottish Government has done an excellent job with the crumbs from the Westminster table. The vast majority of the Scottish electorate agree and it looks like the SNP will get a thumping majority in May. Nice trolling though

If you could read Reynard says he expects the SNP to win the Scottish Election and he expects the SNP to complete 15 years in government. He also expects as I do, that they'll continue to do f**k all with that power. People like you and Oaksoft have proven to be incredibly slow in the past but I'd imagine even you might catch on to the SNP con by 2021

I would have said Oaksoft too but he's especially stupid

Edited November 22, 2015 by Stuart Dickson

[oaksoft]

So why don't landlords rent out their home for free then Oaksoft? Surely all those wonderful business people haven't all got it wrong?

because then theyd be losing money you idiot.

interestingly many businesses are moving to a model of giving high quality stuff away for freein order to make money

have you missed the whole online games phenomenon?

Edited November 22, 2015 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

It's all about the yield and the yield has to be greater than the interest rate you'd get elsewhere.

that 5% isnt much better than a bank account because it doesnt take into account periods of time where the house is unoccupied.

neither does it include unplanned maintenance or a whole raft of other unplanned costs such as the rent not being paid.

add to that the upcoming tax changes and that yield will virtually vanish.

Edited November 22, 2015 by oaksoft

[Stuart Dickson]

because then theyd be losing money you idiot.

interestingly many businesses are moving to a model of giving high quality stuff away for freein order to make money

have you missed the whole online games phenomenon?

So landlords used to give free rent? I must have missed those happy days. Oaksoft you've made a fool of yourself stop digging

[Stuart Dickson]

that 5% isnt much better than a bank account because it doesnt take into account periods of time where the house is unoccupied.

neither does it include unplanned maintenance or a whole raft of other unplanned costs such as the rent not being paid.

add to that the upcoming tax changes and that yield will virtually vanish.

Send me money on PayPal and I'll continue your business education to include how landlords will maintain their profit margin.......

[oaksoft]

So landlords used to give free rent? I must have missed those happy days. Oaksoft you've made a fool of yourself stop digging

you are almost as hilarious as your other alias nosferatu.

[oaksoft]

Send me money on PayPal and I'll continue your business education to include how landlords will maintain their profit margin.......

lets do it on here for free.

i want to buy a 165k house for buy to let.

i will need 115k mortgage.

the house will rent at 750 per month.

this is a very typical scenario.

how much do YOU advise me that i should make in profit per year?

go on. devastate us with your mathematical wizardry.

Edited November 22, 2015 by oaksoft

[Stuart Dickson]

lets do it on here for free.

i want to buy a 165k house for buy to let.

i will need 115k mortgage.

the house will rent at 750 per month.

this is a very typical scenario.

how much do YOU advise me that i should make in profit per year?

go on. devastate us with your mathematical wizardry.

You do know that yield and profit are not the same thing.....don't you?

From your figures the yield is higher than 5% and running the mortgage figures through on Money Supermarket to look for the best Buy to Let mortgages on an interest only basis - £215.63 per month through the Nat West - there should be quite a considerable profit margin in it for you, even after paying the relevant insurances and taxes.

Even doing the mortgage on a Capital and Repayment basis would leave you with a profit.

Why would you think there is no profit in the scenario you've described?

Edited November 22, 2015 by Stuart Dickson

[oaksoft]

You do know that yield and profit are not the same thing.....don't you?

From your figures the yield is higher than 5% and running the mortgage figures through on Money Supermarket to look for the best Buy to Let mortgages on an interest only basis - £215.63 per month through the Nat West - there should be quite a considerable profit margin in it for you, even after paying the relevant insurances and taxes.

Even doing the mortgage on a Capital and Repayment basis would leave you with a profit.

Why would you think there is no profit in the scenario you've described?

You see it was quite a simple question and you cant answer it.

I didnt ask how much the mortgage would be.

Im not sure how to make it simpler.

I will try again.

How much profit per month is realistic given the figures I quoted you?

You have no idea how to think the problem through do you?

Edited November 22, 2015 by oaksoft

[Stuart Dickson]

You see it was quite a simple question and you cant answer it.

I didnt ask how much the mortgage would be.

Im not sure how to make it simpler.

I will try again.

How much profit per month is realistic given the figures I quoted you?

You have no idea how to think the problem through do you?

Profit would depend on loads of variables like the condition of the house, the need for improvements or maintenance, whether you have someone renting the property or not, your tax status etc, etc. Without that there is no way to calculate your actual profit. However one thing is for sure there isn't a single landlord who doesn't consider the yield and who instead waits on a supposed capital growth the provide their profit. Lets not forget either that you entered into this discussion with a claim that private rent was far too high. You're a fanny.

Now as I said previously, if you really want lessons in basic business I'm happy to help for a fee. I'll give you "mates rates" and keep it cheap if you like. I'm no expert but I'm certainly, obviously more clued up than you....

[Bud the Baker]

I suspect buy-to-rent must be extremely profitable at present otherwise we wouldn't have the glut of property porn on TV with, I suspect, many landlords milking the benefits system - such is the way of the world. In a way it reminds me of the '80's when Thatcher effectively gave large handouts were to her people in the form of discounts to council house buyers.

I've nothing against people taking advantage of what's on offer, you'd be a fool to do otherwise, but let's not pretend their anything virtuous about it.

[oaksoft]

Profit would depend on loads of variables like the condition of the house, the need for improvements or maintenance, whether you have someone renting the property or not, your tax status etc, etc. Without that there is no way to calculate your actual profit. However one thing is for sure there isn't a single landlord who doesn't consider the yield and who instead waits on a supposed capital growth the provide their profit. Lets not forget either that you entered into this discussion with a claim that private rent was far too high. You're a fanny.

Now as I said previously, if you really want lessons in basic business I'm happy to help for a fee. I'll give you "mates rates" and keep it cheap if you like. I'm no expert but I'm certainly, obviously more clued up than you....

so in other words, you have no idea how to break the problem down.

you could have saved us a shit load of time if you had just admitted that.

btw what have i said to contradict the fact that rental prices are too high and what does that have to do with the discussion on landlord profits?

Edited November 22, 2015 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

I suspect buy-to-rent must be extremely profitable at present otherwise we wouldn't have the glut of property porn on TV with, I suspect, many landlords milking the benefits system - such is the way of the world. In a way it reminds me of the '80's when Thatcher effectively gave large handouts were to her people in the form of discounts to council house buyers.

I've nothing against people taking advantage of what's on offer, you'd be a fool to do otherwise, but let's not pretend their anything virtuous about it.

you have answered your own question in the same sentence.

buy to let is morally repugnant and has caused a ludicrous spike in house prices which is having devastating social consequences for a generation of young peope who dont stand a chance of ever owning their own homes and are simultaneously being f**ked over by landlords who have to charge ridiculous rents simply to pay off their massive mortgages on a property they had no business owning in the first place.

[oaksoft]

Profit would depend on loads of variables like the condition of the house, the need for improvements or maintenance, whether you have someone renting the property or not, your tax status etc, etc. Without that there is no way to calculate your actual profit. However one thing is for sure there isn't a single landlord who doesn't consider the yield and who instead waits on a supposed capital growth the provide their profit. Lets not forget either that you entered into this discussion with a claim that private rent was far too high. You're a fanny.

Now as I said previously, if you really want lessons in basic business I'm happy to help for a fee. I'll give you "mates rates" and keep it cheap if you like. I'm no expert but I'm certainly, obviously more clued up than you....

whilst i am here i should let you know that i have discovered what is wrong with you.

your whiny posts about the police, the snp, our board of directors, the nhs and everything else in between?

Its called Tall Poppy Syndrome.

[Bud the Baker]

you have answered your own question in the same sentence.

buy to let is morally repugnant and has caused a ludicrous spike in house prices which is having devastating social consequences for a generation of young peope who dont stand a chance of ever owning their own homes and are simultaneously being f**ked over by landlords who have to charge ridiculous rents simply to pay off their massive mortgages on a property they had no business owning in the first place.

Um, you can demonize the profit motive but you can't deny it exists. What we need is government doing the best for the majority of the population, not one that is motivated to serve 40% of the population and create it's own hegemony.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Bud the Baker

[Stuart Dickson]

so in other words, you have no idea how to break the problem down.

you could have saved us a shit load of time if you had just admitted that.

btw what have i said to contradict the fact that rental prices are too high and what does that have to do with the discussion on landlord profits?

You didn't give me sufficient information for a calculation to be made. Do you work for SQA perchance? They've got the same reputation for setting questions with insufficient information to allow a solution too.

Anyway I've worked out what is wrong with you too. You are thick as f**k. You can't read, you can't follow a conversation and you've got such a remedial grasp of business that I'd be astounded to see you post with such arrogance and confidence if I hadn't read your pish for more than 10 years now over three different websites.

Anyway to help you out here, yet again, the conversation has been as follows. I said that I didn't believe landlords looking for a 5% yield was excessive. You retorted that they didn't give a f**k about yield and that it was all about capital growth. I laughed at you and pointed out that any website or TV programme on that even makes a small mention of buy to let refers specifically to yield. You then claimed, correctly if randomly, that a landlord would have to factor in periods where the property remained empty - this was supposed to back up your claim that the landlord was only interested in a prospective future value to the property in 25 years - 30 years time. I laughed at you and offered to give you advice for a fee. To deflect you then posed a question where you had clearly mixed up yield with profit - your figures offering a 5.4% yield rather than the 5% yield we'd talked about. I pointed this out to you. You claimed I didn't understand the topic....you then posed another question with insufficient information and asked me to tell you how much profit you'd make. I point out yet another failing in your line of questioning and you now claim that not only am I stupid I want to take you down for your genius only for you to again go back round to taking your line of claiming that landlords taking a 5% yield are ripping off their tenants.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Stuart Dickson

[Stuart Dickson]

Um, you can demonize the profit motive but you can't deny it exists. What we need is government doing the best for the majority of the population, not one that is motivated to serve 40% of the population and create it's own hegemony.

As I've said BtB I don't think a 5% yield is excessive for a property owner to look for in return for rent. If anything the problem that exists in social housing is that our Housing Associations and Local Authorities are under charging for the use of valuable publicly owned assets. Maybe if Housing Associations and Local Authorities charged the going rate for their rentals - like private landlords do - we'd see far more new homes being build and more properties being added to the nations housing stock.

[Stuart Dickson]

And back on topic here's what SNP MP's are up to

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/new-ayrshire-mp-lodges-expense-6868497

[salmonbuddie]

Anyway I've worked out what is wrong with you too. You are thick as f**k. You can't read, you can't follow a conversation and you've got such a remedial grasp of business that I'd be astounded to see you post with such arrogance and confidence if I hadn't read your pish for more than 10 years now over three different websites.

Self-awareness, maybe? After all this time? Well, it's getting close to Christmas, I suppose, miracle time apparently.

[oaksoft]

So to summarise.........

He doesn't know the answer to oaksoft's question.

no he doesnt lol. i will leave him to his rant.

[oaksoft]

You didn't give me sufficient information for a calculation to be made. Do you work for SQA perchance? They've got the same reputation for setting questions with insufficient information to allow a solution too.

Anyway I've worked out what is wrong with you too. You are thick as f**k. You can't read, you can't follow a conversation and you've got such a remedial grasp of business that I'd be astounded to see you post with such arrogance and confidence if I hadn't read your pish for more than 10 years now over three different websites.

Anyway to help you out here, yet again, the conversation has been as follows. I said that I didn't believe landlords looking for a 5% yield was excessive. You retorted that they didn't give a f**k about yield and that it was all about capital growth. I laughed at you and pointed out that any website or TV programme on that even makes a small mention of buy to let refers specifically to yield. You then claimed, correctly if randomly, that a landlord would have to factor in periods where the property remained empty - this was supposed to back up your claim that the landlord was only interested in a prospective future value to the property in 25 years - 30 years time. I laughed at you and offered to give you advice for a fee. To deflect you then posed a question where you had clearly mixed up yield with profit - your figures offering a 5.4% yield rather than the 5% yield we'd talked about. I pointed this out to you. You claimed I didn't understand the topic....you then posed another question with insufficient information and asked me to tell you how much profit you'd make. I point out yet another failing in your line of questioning and you now claim that not only am I stupid I want to take you down for your genius only for you to again go back round to taking your line of claiming that landlords taking a 5% yield are ripping off their tenants.

tl;dr yawn.