Poor Estate Agents

[sunnysan]

F"£$%Ns

Fuxtons are ***** of the highest order. Not only are they *****, they are useless ***** (the worst kind of ****). I refuse to deal with them, either as a vendor or purchaser.

I would but I have a rental contract with them. I heard a good quip the other day

"Ahh F£$%^ns, everybody uses them. Only once though"

[expat]

Estate agents are in the private sector and thus are no burden on the taxpayer, they contribute absolutely Billions to Gordon's tax coffers by their efforts, in income tax, VAT and indirectly in stamp duty. Without their efforts, Gordon would have been in deep doo-doo long before now. No doubt, he is certainly missing the housing market contibution right now.

That's the agent fallacy, that just because something valuable passes through their hands, they are responsible for creating that value.

As with contract agents: "WE create the contracts" (no they don't).

So with estate agents: they don't create the turnover on which the tax goes to HMRC, it merely passes through their hands. whether it is a good or bad thing that it does so, is a different question; but certainly, they do not create that wealth, so they do not create the tax revenue.

[ratewhore]

If ever there was a "profession" that was disproportionately rewarded in relation to what it delivers, IT contractors are it.

Erm, I'm trying to think of an argument against that and I can't.

Still - who's the twat?

[expat]

Whatever intellectual snobbery you want to wrap your self importance up in, you like very other turd washed through the S bend are only as useful or valuable as what people are prepared to pay you.

If ever there was a "profession" that was disproportionately rewarded in relation to what it delivers, IT contractors are it.

Dodgy, if (sentence 1) we are "only as useful or valuable as what people are prepared to pay you" then (sentence 2) "disproportionately rewarded in relation to what it delivers" can not be true.

The reward is not disproportionate, because it is determined by the demand for what it delivers; it is proportionate by definition.

[Cyberman]

That's the agent fallacy, that just because something valuable passes through their hands, they are responsible for creating that value.

As with contract agents: "WE create the contracts" (no they don't).

So with estate agents: they don't create the turnover on which the tax goes to HMRC, it merely passes through their hands. whether it is a good or bad thing that it does so, is a different question; but certainly, they do not create that wealth, so they do not create the tax revenue.

They provide the means to the turnover by having shops and advertising in the press. If they did not exist HMG would not see as much tax as it gets, that's for sure, as you would not get anywhere near as many buyers matched to sellers, and consequently sellers would not get such good prices.

[Bob Dalek]

They provide the means to the turnover by having shops and advertising in the press. If they did not exist HMG would not see as much tax as it gets, that's for sure, as you would not get anywhere near as many buyers matched to sellers, and consequently sellers would not get such good prices.

They're doomed anyway. The online agencies/DIY sites will eventually kill 'em off. The vermin.

[sasguru]

Dodgy, if (sentence 1) we are "only as useful or valuable as what people are prepared to pay you" then (sentence 2) "disproportionately rewarded in relation to what it delivers" can not be true.

The reward is not disproportionate, because it is determined by the demand for what it delivers; it is proportionate by definition.

Don't confuse him, he's only an agent

[DodgyAgent]

Dodgy, if (sentence 1) we are "only as useful or valuable as what people are prepared to pay you" then (sentence 2) "disproportionately rewarded in relation to what it delivers" can not be true.

The reward is not disproportionate, because it is determined by the demand for what it delivers; it is proportionate by definition.

I am simply applying two different sets of logic to two different points, both of which conclude that contractors are no worse or better than anyone else.

[The Lone Gunman]

I am simply applying two different sets of logic to two different points, both of which conclude that contractors are no worse or better than anyone else.

If that is true then how do you explain this?

If ever there was a "profession" that was disproportionately rewarded in relation to what it delivers, IT contractors are it.

You do not seem to think much of us Dodgy? Why are you in the business and do you not think you are conning your clients by supplying them with what you think are a bunch of overpaid know nothings?

[DimPrawn]

If that is true then how do you explain this?

You do not seem to think much of us Dodgy? Why are you in the business and do you not think you are conning your clients by supplying them with what you think are a bunch of overpaid know nothings?

I wouldn't worry about it. Dodgy will be filing for bankruptcy next year.