BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
I'm talking about a specific issues here, but this being Cake Stop it was inevitable that someone would try to broaden it out into a 'what about about everything else' point. Same question to you as to RJS above.super_davo said:The key thing for me is that there are so many actions and policies that serve no purpose other than to gain some pocket of votes, whilst being utterly incompatible with the big picture.
Cut taxes - how does that stand up Vs the triple lock?
Go for growth? - how does that stack up Vs the quest for the purest, most isolationist form for Brexit?
Global Britain? How does that stack up breaking international agreements and talk of withdrawing from ECHR
Levelling up? Whilst that would be hard to be compatible with the small state, low tax environment they're not actually doing it, it's all talk!
This is before you even get to the inhumane, ineffective policies like hostile environment to immigration, stop the boats etc, which just smack of desperation to me."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Depends where you think they will put the new LTA.Stevo_666 said:
Did any other party have the removal of the limit in their manifesto 4 years ago?rjsterry said:
It's odd that an active policy wasn't enough of an issue to change your vote four years ago, but the prospect of the same policy is now much more than an issue. The Conservatives have been talking about lowering taxes for years, but somehow it's never the right time. Sure they can bribe you with a tax break but there aren't nearly enough recipients to win an election, so it's a bit short-sighted as a policy.Stevo_666 said:
No, it was an issue, but not any more. Labour is the clear threat as they have stated that they will reintroduce it. And as mentioned, that is unlikely to be the only thing they do to damage my prosperity. But what do you expect from the enemy of success?Pross said:
It was only removed 6 weeks ago so we’re you happy when the Tories we’re going to rinse you or have you suddenly massively increased your pension pot despite knowing an incoming Labour government was likely?Stevo_666 said:
Talking of rinsing, if Labour reinstate the lifetime pension limit, it will cost me a six figure sum in tax if they are in power when I retire. And that's before anything else they are likely to come up with on income tax or wealth taxes. They can FRO.rjsterry said:
Obviously. Others would prioritise competence over political flavour. The tax regime affects different people differently. 'Success' means different things for different people - certainly not just financial. Proportionally, I am getting rinsed by the current government so the prospect of Labour taxing me even more seems less of a threat. That will be different for others. The draft proposals on employment law from Labour are much less appealing. We already put considerable effort into making our business somewhere people want to work but if you're an employee I imagine some of that sounds great.Stevo_666 said:
I would prefer a competent Labour party to be in opposition.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
And you haven't given me any positive reasons to vote Labour or any fringe party; your only rationale is 'they're not tories'. Consider me unconvinced.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
The point is about why people like you are so quick defend Labour. I'm flushing out the closet lefties I reckonbriantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:So few self consessed lefties on here but plenty people jumping in to defend Labour
Makes you wonder...
Your salesmanship for voting Tory is going to need a little more than that. Go on, try being positive about the Tories and their record and policies... anything will do. Persuade us.
If you can' persuade the reasonably well-off professionals most of the posters on CS seem to be, then it's going to be even harder for the Tory party to persuade the average voter in the country they've shafted right royally.
Saying that we don't think they will be as totally shït as the Tories have been ain't a great 'defence'. As it is, in East Devon, I suspect I'll be voting Lib Dem, if they've got the best chance of booting out the Tory.
I'm more amused that you've not even tried to give us positive reasons to vote Conservative.
Incidentally, the 'Guess the author' quiz I set was true-blue loopy Allister Heath in the Telegraph, and even he's given up on the Tories, so I probably ought to give you credit for being one of the last men standing proudly with your blue rosette.
That said, I have a pretty feeling that if Labour get in, they will try to shaft me.
I've done just that over on the appropriate thread, even though getting rid of the current Tories is enough for me as a first step. I'm not sure if you've taken it in, but I do want a decent & competent Tory Party to re-emerge: unlike you, I value the contribution of a good opposition that can both hold a government to account and to present a viable alternative when, as is inevitable, the ruling party eventually paddles itself up shït creek.
Fundamentally, I think the current Conservative party have become more interested in arguing with itself than governing, and that is reason enough to make way for someone more hungry for governance.
Look at it another way if it helps. Put yourself in my shoes, consider the pension tax issue above and ask yourself who you would vote for to best look after your future financial interests. It's not a difficult one to answer
If you are that far over then you could always crystallise it before the first Labour budget0 -
LTA was designed to stop super rich excessively benefitting from Pension tax exemption, it was Osborne that then used it as a tax grab.
I think you massively overestimate how Labour tax plans will hit all bar the top percent or two.
As a reasonably high earner, with plenty of years left till retirement, I would much rather vote for the party that is interested in getting the economy working. And there is much to like about the way Rachel Reeves is approaching that task. I might pay a bit more tax here, a bit less there, but I don't expect it to be transformational, just as it wasn't under Blair/Brown.
However if I was close to retirement I would definitely want a party that was going to resolve the ridiculous 90 days in Europe at a time rule, that would mess up loads of plans (though thankfully I am eligible for an Italian passport).0 -
I'm thinking about where I am likely to be by time I retire, although in any event not sure that works for a 'live' pension pot that is still receiving contributions from my employer (and from me). Also not sure if that's tax efficient if I do it whole still working, but good thought in any event.surrey_commuter said:
Depends where you think they will put the new LTA.Stevo_666 said:
Did any other party have the removal of the limit in their manifesto 4 years ago?rjsterry said:
It's odd that an active policy wasn't enough of an issue to change your vote four years ago, but the prospect of the same policy is now much more than an issue. The Conservatives have been talking about lowering taxes for years, but somehow it's never the right time. Sure they can bribe you with a tax break but there aren't nearly enough recipients to win an election, so it's a bit short-sighted as a policy.Stevo_666 said:
No, it was an issue, but not any more. Labour is the clear threat as they have stated that they will reintroduce it. And as mentioned, that is unlikely to be the only thing they do to damage my prosperity. But what do you expect from the enemy of success?Pross said:
It was only removed 6 weeks ago so we’re you happy when the Tories we’re going to rinse you or have you suddenly massively increased your pension pot despite knowing an incoming Labour government was likely?Stevo_666 said:
Talking of rinsing, if Labour reinstate the lifetime pension limit, it will cost me a six figure sum in tax if they are in power when I retire. And that's before anything else they are likely to come up with on income tax or wealth taxes. They can FRO.rjsterry said:
Obviously. Others would prioritise competence over political flavour. The tax regime affects different people differently. 'Success' means different things for different people - certainly not just financial. Proportionally, I am getting rinsed by the current government so the prospect of Labour taxing me even more seems less of a threat. That will be different for others. The draft proposals on employment law from Labour are much less appealing. We already put considerable effort into making our business somewhere people want to work but if you're an employee I imagine some of that sounds great.Stevo_666 said:
I would prefer a competent Labour party to be in opposition.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
And you haven't given me any positive reasons to vote Labour or any fringe party; your only rationale is 'they're not tories'. Consider me unconvinced.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
The point is about why people like you are so quick defend Labour. I'm flushing out the closet lefties I reckonbriantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:So few self consessed lefties on here but plenty people jumping in to defend Labour
Makes you wonder...
Your salesmanship for voting Tory is going to need a little more than that. Go on, try being positive about the Tories and their record and policies... anything will do. Persuade us.
If you can' persuade the reasonably well-off professionals most of the posters on CS seem to be, then it's going to be even harder for the Tory party to persuade the average voter in the country they've shafted right royally.
Saying that we don't think they will be as totally shït as the Tories have been ain't a great 'defence'. As it is, in East Devon, I suspect I'll be voting Lib Dem, if they've got the best chance of booting out the Tory.
I'm more amused that you've not even tried to give us positive reasons to vote Conservative.
Incidentally, the 'Guess the author' quiz I set was true-blue loopy Allister Heath in the Telegraph, and even he's given up on the Tories, so I probably ought to give you credit for being one of the last men standing proudly with your blue rosette.
That said, I have a pretty feeling that if Labour get in, they will try to shaft me.
I've done just that over on the appropriate thread, even though getting rid of the current Tories is enough for me as a first step. I'm not sure if you've taken it in, but I do want a decent & competent Tory Party to re-emerge: unlike you, I value the contribution of a good opposition that can both hold a government to account and to present a viable alternative when, as is inevitable, the ruling party eventually paddles itself up shït creek.
Fundamentally, I think the current Conservative party have become more interested in arguing with itself than governing, and that is reason enough to make way for someone more hungry for governance.
Look at it another way if it helps. Put yourself in my shoes, consider the pension tax issue above and ask yourself who you would vote for to best look after your future financial interests. It's not a difficult one to answer
If you are that far over then you could always crystallise it before the first Labour budget"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You say that but I've just given you an example of a likely six figure hit to my finances from the one tax policy that Labour have been clear about. Wealth tax is also looking likely and potentially very expensive. Who knows what else that will come up with - and as we know, higher taxes tend to hit growth.super_davo said:LTA was designed to stop super rich excessively benefitting from Pension tax exemption, it was Osborne that then used it as a tax grab.
I think you massively overestimate how Labour tax plans will hit all bar the top percent or two.
As a reasonably high earner, with plenty of years left till retirement, I would much rather vote for the party that is interested in getting the economy working. And there is much to like about the way Rachel Reeves is approaching that task. I might pay a bit more tax here, a bit less there, but I don't expect it to be transformational, just as it wasn't under Blair/Brown.
However if I was close to retirement I would definitely want a party that was going to resolve the ridiculous 90 days in Europe at a time rule, that would mess up loads of plans (though thankfully I am eligible for an Italian passport).
As regards Rachel Reeves 'getting the economy going', what is it you like about her proposed approach?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Meeting with business & industry leaders & asking what they want rather than being ideological. Going to Davos, talking to leaders about what to do to get investment in the UK. Fixing the bits of the Brexit deal that are hurting the most. Even the LTA declaration - basically saying to companies like mine you don't need pay to change your systems, hobble through another year, this lot only have 18 months left.
If you expect a c6 figure hit on your pension, you'll have a pot of about £1.3million upwards so you would have been fine under Brown's "pension tax grab" but not Osbornes. And almost certainly well below the levels of the people they are actually targeting.0 -
Don't we currently have the highest tax burden in decades? It doesn't really feel like the conservatives are good at low taxes.0
-
-
I'd like to see what she actually does about those things if she gets the chance. Listening to people doesn't achieve much. And she should know about some of those things already in her position.super_davo said:Meeting with business & industry leaders & asking what they want rather than being ideological. Going to Davos, talking to leaders about what to do to get investment in the UK. Fixing the bits of the Brexit deal that are hurting the most. Even the LTA declaration - basically saying to companies like mine you don't need pay to change your systems, hobble through another year, this lot only have 18 months left.
If you expect a c6 figure hit on your pension, you'll have a pot of about £1.3million upwards so you would have been fine under Brown's "pension tax grab" but not Osbornes. And almost certainly well below the levels of the people they are actually targeting.
As explained above, the tax position on pensions in the past is irrelevant. What matters is the future position when I come to be taxed on it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
You can put as much as you like in, you only pay tax on the value when you start drawing it.Stevo_666 said:
I'm thinking about where I am likely to be by time I retire, although in any event not sure that works for a 'live' pension pot that is still receiving contributions from my employer (and from me). Also not sure if that's tax efficient if I do it whole still working, but good thought in any event.surrey_commuter said:
Depends where you think they will put the new LTA.Stevo_666 said:
Did any other party have the removal of the limit in their manifesto 4 years ago?rjsterry said:
It's odd that an active policy wasn't enough of an issue to change your vote four years ago, but the prospect of the same policy is now much more than an issue. The Conservatives have been talking about lowering taxes for years, but somehow it's never the right time. Sure they can bribe you with a tax break but there aren't nearly enough recipients to win an election, so it's a bit short-sighted as a policy.Stevo_666 said:
No, it was an issue, but not any more. Labour is the clear threat as they have stated that they will reintroduce it. And as mentioned, that is unlikely to be the only thing they do to damage my prosperity. But what do you expect from the enemy of success?Pross said:
It was only removed 6 weeks ago so we’re you happy when the Tories we’re going to rinse you or have you suddenly massively increased your pension pot despite knowing an incoming Labour government was likely?Stevo_666 said:
Talking of rinsing, if Labour reinstate the lifetime pension limit, it will cost me a six figure sum in tax if they are in power when I retire. And that's before anything else they are likely to come up with on income tax or wealth taxes. They can FRO.rjsterry said:
Obviously. Others would prioritise competence over political flavour. The tax regime affects different people differently. 'Success' means different things for different people - certainly not just financial. Proportionally, I am getting rinsed by the current government so the prospect of Labour taxing me even more seems less of a threat. That will be different for others. The draft proposals on employment law from Labour are much less appealing. We already put considerable effort into making our business somewhere people want to work but if you're an employee I imagine some of that sounds great.Stevo_666 said:
I would prefer a competent Labour party to be in opposition.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
And you haven't given me any positive reasons to vote Labour or any fringe party; your only rationale is 'they're not tories'. Consider me unconvinced.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
The point is about why people like you are so quick defend Labour. I'm flushing out the closet lefties I reckonbriantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:So few self consessed lefties on here but plenty people jumping in to defend Labour
Makes you wonder...
Your salesmanship for voting Tory is going to need a little more than that. Go on, try being positive about the Tories and their record and policies... anything will do. Persuade us.
If you can' persuade the reasonably well-off professionals most of the posters on CS seem to be, then it's going to be even harder for the Tory party to persuade the average voter in the country they've shafted right royally.
Saying that we don't think they will be as totally shït as the Tories have been ain't a great 'defence'. As it is, in East Devon, I suspect I'll be voting Lib Dem, if they've got the best chance of booting out the Tory.
I'm more amused that you've not even tried to give us positive reasons to vote Conservative.
Incidentally, the 'Guess the author' quiz I set was true-blue loopy Allister Heath in the Telegraph, and even he's given up on the Tories, so I probably ought to give you credit for being one of the last men standing proudly with your blue rosette.
That said, I have a pretty feeling that if Labour get in, they will try to shaft me.
I've done just that over on the appropriate thread, even though getting rid of the current Tories is enough for me as a first step. I'm not sure if you've taken it in, but I do want a decent & competent Tory Party to re-emerge: unlike you, I value the contribution of a good opposition that can both hold a government to account and to present a viable alternative when, as is inevitable, the ruling party eventually paddles itself up shït creek.
Fundamentally, I think the current Conservative party have become more interested in arguing with itself than governing, and that is reason enough to make way for someone more hungry for governance.
Look at it another way if it helps. Put yourself in my shoes, consider the pension tax issue above and ask yourself who you would vote for to best look after your future financial interests. It's not a difficult one to answer
If you are that far over then you could always crystallise it before the first Labour budget0 -
Where does that (highly dubious) stat come from?rick_chasey said:Stevo proving that Tories have just become the party of the retired or retiring.
Needs reminding the incomes of the retired are higher than those of working age on average.0 -
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/as-time-goes-by-shifting-incomes-and-inequality-between-and-within-generations/Dorset_Boy said:
Where does that (highly dubious) stat come from?rick_chasey said:Stevo proving that Tories have just become the party of the retired or retiring.
Needs reminding the incomes of the retired are higher than those of working age on average.
Telegraph believes it’s happening next year.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/pensioners-will-better-workers-2024/
Here’s a fact checker:
https://fullfact.org/economy/are-pensioners-better-people-working-age/
Here’s a BBC fact checker.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38957903
So more accurate would be “after housing costs, pensioners are better off than workers” > no need to take out 35 year mortgages to buy houses and avoid renting eh?0 -
I think if the only reason to vote tory is to protect a massive pension pot, Labour would happily accept the loss of those votes.0
-
Spurious statistics.rick_chasey said:
So more accurate would be “after housing costs, pensioners are better off than workers” > no need to take out 35 year mortgages to buy houses and avoid renting eh?
You can't simply discount everyone's major cost just because it has been paid off.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I suspect you're right, but I also suspect that most of the people that are worrying about it won't be affected anyway.kingstongraham said:I think if the only reason to vote tory is to protect a massive pension pot, Labour would happily accept the loss of those votes.
All the evidence is the tax burden is no lower under the Tories that is was under Labour. It's just that money is diverted to things like triple lock and housing benefit over the NHS and public services.
Tories raise taxes by fiscal drag, which affects the majority of people. Labour tend to go for closing loopholes to minimise avoidance for the highest earners. That's what pensions LTA was supposed to do in the first place. But it was never supposed to be about catching high middle earners like Stevo, that was a Tory policy, and there is no evidence that it would be reinstated at a level it would affect him. If it's making doctors retire early, it's at too low a level.
A very high tax burden would hit growth, but not as much as the political instability we've had over the last 7 years. And it's also how those taxes are raised - fiscal drag and affecting large amounts of people would be far more detrimental than targeting people who probably wouldn't be spending that money in the first place.0 -
Why not? Not everyone owns houses.pblakeney said:
Spurious statistics.rick_chasey said:
So more accurate would be “after housing costs, pensioners are better off than workers” > no need to take out 35 year mortgages to buy houses and avoid renting eh?
You can't simply discount everyone's major cost just because it has been paid off.
Structure of housing markets impacts everyone’s lives and costs.
Current structure massively penalises people who buy houses later rather than earlier. So that is also a generational shift0 -
Old people have had the time to pay off their mortgage.rick_chasey said:
Why not? Not everyone owns houses.pblakeney said:
Spurious statistics.rick_chasey said:
So more accurate would be “after housing costs, pensioners are better off than workers” > no need to take out 35 year mortgages to buy houses and avoid renting eh?
You can't simply discount everyone's major cost just because it has been paid off.
Structure of housing markets impacts everyone’s lives and costs.
Current structure massively penalises people who buy houses later rather than earlier. So that is also a generational shift
Young people haven't. This is obvious.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Honestly, it boils my p!ss how much old people fail to understand how much more expensive (versus wages) houses are, either as rent or to buy.pblakeney said:
Old people have had the time to pay off their mortgage.rick_chasey said:
Why not? Not everyone owns houses.pblakeney said:
Spurious statistics.rick_chasey said:
So more accurate would be “after housing costs, pensioners are better off than workers” > no need to take out 35 year mortgages to buy houses and avoid renting eh?
You can't simply discount everyone's major cost just because it has been paid off.
Structure of housing markets impacts everyone’s lives and costs.
Current structure massively penalises people who buy houses later rather than earlier. So that is also a generational shift
Young people haven't. This is obvious.
It’s infuriating.0 -
Honestly, it boils my p!ss how much old people fail to understand how much more expensive (versus wages) houses are, either as rent or to buy.pblakeney said:
Old people have had the time to pay off their mortgage.rick_chasey said:
Why not? Not everyone owns houses.pblakeney said:
Spurious statistics.rick_chasey said:
So more accurate would be “after housing costs, pensioners are better off than workers” > no need to take out 35 year mortgages to buy houses and avoid renting eh?
You can't simply discount everyone's major cost just because it has been paid off.
Structure of housing markets impacts everyone’s lives and costs.
Current structure massively penalises people who buy houses later rather than earlier. So that is also a generational shift
Young people haven't. This is obvious.
It’s infuriating.
Those costs are compounded year after year. That adds to a vast amount of lost income.
Please for the love of god just recognise this.0 -
I know, but IIRC there are limitations that apply once you start drawing down on a DC scheme.surrey_commuter said:
You can put as much as you like in, you only pay tax on the value when you start drawing it.Stevo_666 said:
I'm thinking about where I am likely to be by time I retire, although in any event not sure that works for a 'live' pension pot that is still receiving contributions from my employer (and from me). Also not sure if that's tax efficient if I do it whole still working, but good thought in any event.surrey_commuter said:
Depends where you think they will put the new LTA.Stevo_666 said:
Did any other party have the removal of the limit in their manifesto 4 years ago?rjsterry said:
It's odd that an active policy wasn't enough of an issue to change your vote four years ago, but the prospect of the same policy is now much more than an issue. The Conservatives have been talking about lowering taxes for years, but somehow it's never the right time. Sure they can bribe you with a tax break but there aren't nearly enough recipients to win an election, so it's a bit short-sighted as a policy.Stevo_666 said:
No, it was an issue, but not any more. Labour is the clear threat as they have stated that they will reintroduce it. And as mentioned, that is unlikely to be the only thing they do to damage my prosperity. But what do you expect from the enemy of success?Pross said:
It was only removed 6 weeks ago so we’re you happy when the Tories we’re going to rinse you or have you suddenly massively increased your pension pot despite knowing an incoming Labour government was likely?Stevo_666 said:
Talking of rinsing, if Labour reinstate the lifetime pension limit, it will cost me a six figure sum in tax if they are in power when I retire. And that's before anything else they are likely to come up with on income tax or wealth taxes. They can FRO.rjsterry said:
Obviously. Others would prioritise competence over political flavour. The tax regime affects different people differently. 'Success' means different things for different people - certainly not just financial. Proportionally, I am getting rinsed by the current government so the prospect of Labour taxing me even more seems less of a threat. That will be different for others. The draft proposals on employment law from Labour are much less appealing. We already put considerable effort into making our business somewhere people want to work but if you're an employee I imagine some of that sounds great.Stevo_666 said:
I would prefer a competent Labour party to be in opposition.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
And you haven't given me any positive reasons to vote Labour or any fringe party; your only rationale is 'they're not tories'. Consider me unconvinced.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
The point is about why people like you are so quick defend Labour. I'm flushing out the closet lefties I reckonbriantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:So few self consessed lefties on here but plenty people jumping in to defend Labour
Makes you wonder...
Your salesmanship for voting Tory is going to need a little more than that. Go on, try being positive about the Tories and their record and policies... anything will do. Persuade us.
If you can' persuade the reasonably well-off professionals most of the posters on CS seem to be, then it's going to be even harder for the Tory party to persuade the average voter in the country they've shafted right royally.
Saying that we don't think they will be as totally shït as the Tories have been ain't a great 'defence'. As it is, in East Devon, I suspect I'll be voting Lib Dem, if they've got the best chance of booting out the Tory.
I'm more amused that you've not even tried to give us positive reasons to vote Conservative.
Incidentally, the 'Guess the author' quiz I set was true-blue loopy Allister Heath in the Telegraph, and even he's given up on the Tories, so I probably ought to give you credit for being one of the last men standing proudly with your blue rosette.
That said, I have a pretty feeling that if Labour get in, they will try to shaft me.
I've done just that over on the appropriate thread, even though getting rid of the current Tories is enough for me as a first step. I'm not sure if you've taken it in, but I do want a decent & competent Tory Party to re-emerge: unlike you, I value the contribution of a good opposition that can both hold a government to account and to present a viable alternative when, as is inevitable, the ruling party eventually paddles itself up shït creek.
Fundamentally, I think the current Conservative party have become more interested in arguing with itself than governing, and that is reason enough to make way for someone more hungry for governance.
Look at it another way if it helps. Put yourself in my shoes, consider the pension tax issue above and ask yourself who you would vote for to best look after your future financial interests. It's not a difficult one to answer
If you are that far over then you could always crystallise it before the first Labour budget"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I recognise it. I accept it. Can you?rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it boils my p!ss how much old people fail to understand how much more expensive (versus wages) houses are, either as rent or to buy.pblakeney said:
Old people have had the time to pay off their mortgage.rick_chasey said:
Why not? Not everyone owns houses.pblakeney said:
Spurious statistics.rick_chasey said:
So more accurate would be “after housing costs, pensioners are better off than workers” > no need to take out 35 year mortgages to buy houses and avoid renting eh?
You can't simply discount everyone's major cost just because it has been paid off.
Structure of housing markets impacts everyone’s lives and costs.
Current structure massively penalises people who buy houses later rather than earlier. So that is also a generational shift
Young people haven't. This is obvious.
It’s infuriating.
Those costs are compounded year after year. That adds to a vast amount of lost income.
Please for the love of god just recognise this.
Just think, you're not far off being an oldie now. How are you going to help the young?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Since we are doing double posts....rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it boils my p!ss how much old people fail to understand how much more expensive (versus wages) houses are, either as rent or to buy.pblakeney said:
Old people have had the time to pay off their mortgage.rick_chasey said:
Why not? Not everyone owns houses.pblakeney said:
Spurious statistics.rick_chasey said:
So more accurate would be “after housing costs, pensioners are better off than workers” > no need to take out 35 year mortgages to buy houses and avoid renting eh?
You can't simply discount everyone's major cost just because it has been paid off.
Structure of housing markets impacts everyone’s lives and costs.
Current structure massively penalises people who buy houses later rather than earlier. So that is also a generational shift
Young people haven't. This is obvious.
It’s infuriating.
Those costs are compounded year after year. That adds to a vast amount of lost income.
Please for the love of god just recognise this.
Happy to accept negative equity to resolve the issue?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Not objecting to housing develop nearby is really all I can do.
And in fairness to me, there has been quite a bit, and I’ve objected to none of it.
I’ll vote for any party that removes green belts.
But regardless, income after living costs being higher for retired vs working age is a ludicrous position to be in.0 -
Lol you’d have to see a ridiculous drop for that to happen as I’m financially sensible, but sure.pblakeney said:
Since we are doing double posts....rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it boils my p!ss how much old people fail to understand how much more expensive (versus wages) houses are, either as rent or to buy.pblakeney said:
Old people have had the time to pay off their mortgage.rick_chasey said:
Why not? Not everyone owns houses.pblakeney said:
Spurious statistics.rick_chasey said:
So more accurate would be “after housing costs, pensioners are better off than workers” > no need to take out 35 year mortgages to buy houses and avoid renting eh?
You can't simply discount everyone's major cost just because it has been paid off.
Structure of housing markets impacts everyone’s lives and costs.
Current structure massively penalises people who buy houses later rather than earlier. So that is also a generational shift
Young people haven't. This is obvious.
It’s infuriating.
Those costs are compounded year after year. That adds to a vast amount of lost income.
Please for the love of god just recognise this.
Happy to accept negative equity to resolve the issue?
I’d rather they all be cheaper so in the long run we all spend less on housing.
It’s such unproductive spending.0 -
The 'millennial whine' on housing will start to subside once they start inheriting their parents houses."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
-
I'd agree. There has to be a minimum hit of 50% to make the necessary difference.rick_chasey said:
Lol you’d have to see a ridiculous drop for that to happen as I’m financially sensible, but sure.pblakeney said:
Since we are doing double posts....rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it boils my p!ss how much old people fail to understand how much more expensive (versus wages) houses are, either as rent or to buy.pblakeney said:
Old people have had the time to pay off their mortgage.rick_chasey said:
Why not? Not everyone owns houses.pblakeney said:
Spurious statistics.rick_chasey said:
So more accurate would be “after housing costs, pensioners are better off than workers” > no need to take out 35 year mortgages to buy houses and avoid renting eh?
You can't simply discount everyone's major cost just because it has been paid off.
Structure of housing markets impacts everyone’s lives and costs.
Current structure massively penalises people who buy houses later rather than earlier. So that is also a generational shift
Young people haven't. This is obvious.
It’s infuriating.
Those costs are compounded year after year. That adds to a vast amount of lost income.
Please for the love of god just recognise this.
Happy to accept negative equity to resolve the issue?
I’d rather they all be cheaper so in the long run we all spend less on housing.
It’s such unproductive spending.
Can we agree that this is not going to happen so the whining may as well stop.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It’s all possible. Loosen regs enough housebuilders are incentivised to build where they are needed (not just where they can build) and eventually the house prices rises will slow versus wages and in the long run we’ll all spend less.pblakeney said:
I'd agree. There has to be a minimum hit of 50% to make the necessary difference.rick_chasey said:
Lol you’d have to see a ridiculous drop for that to happen as I’m financially sensible, but sure.pblakeney said:
Since we are doing double posts....rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it boils my p!ss how much old people fail to understand how much more expensive (versus wages) houses are, either as rent or to buy.pblakeney said:
Old people have had the time to pay off their mortgage.rick_chasey said:
Why not? Not everyone owns houses.pblakeney said:
Spurious statistics.rick_chasey said:
So more accurate would be “after housing costs, pensioners are better off than workers” > no need to take out 35 year mortgages to buy houses and avoid renting eh?
You can't simply discount everyone's major cost just because it has been paid off.
Structure of housing markets impacts everyone’s lives and costs.
Current structure massively penalises people who buy houses later rather than earlier. So that is also a generational shift
Young people haven't. This is obvious.
It’s infuriating.
Those costs are compounded year after year. That adds to a vast amount of lost income.
Please for the love of god just recognise this.
Happy to accept negative equity to resolve the issue?
I’d rather they all be cheaper so in the long run we all spend less on housing.
It’s such unproductive spending.
Can we agree that this is not going to happen so the whining may as well stop.0 -
Wtf has UK housing market pricing got to do with Brexshit?0
