LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

1…884885887889890…1128

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Depends where you live. Renting’s getting more expensive by the day. Not everyone can afford that and live near enough to work
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,156
    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    £41,200 in 1989 adjusted for inflation is £101,702 in 2023.

    Yep, so a rate 15% higher and a threshold £25k lower than today. As I was saying...
    So you didn't like the tax burden in 1989. How's it looking now?
    Lower than in 1988 for an equivalent amount of income.
    So you’ve no interest in the overall tax burden.
    Why do you assume that?
    You ignored it.
    No, I just answered your question.
    Now that I have made you aware I was referring to the overall tax burden, would you try answering it again?
    Of course. I think it could and should be lower, as you already know. But there's no harm repeating myself :smile:
    How does it compare to the late 80s?
    Not sure, but it's not national quiz Stevo day, so go look it up...
    31% of GDP in 1988-9
    35% of GDP in 2021-2
    Forecast with current government plans to be 37% in 2027-8.

    Taxes are higher now than they were at the time when you thought young people would be horrified to hear about them.
    We were talking about taxes borne by that demographic, whereas your figures include taxes on everyone and on businesses.
    You forgot to mention student loan repayments and VAT, then.

    But still, good to know it's only personal taxes that are ultimately borne by people.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    I wonder if I’m the only one on here who got a 100% mortgage on their first house. Expensive it was at 18 grand.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Did you all take out 25-30 year terms too yeah?
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,334
    edited May 2023
    webboo said:

    I wonder if I’m the only one on here who got a 100% mortgage on their first house. Expensive it was at 18 grand.

    I did too. Except for a multiple of £18k.
    It did cost an extra 1/2% on the interest rate for a period though.
    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.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    rick_chasey said:

    Did you all take out 25-30 year terms too yeah?

    I did have more than 10% of the purchase price saved up, it was my go climbing in Australia for a year fund. But instead I got married and spent it doing up the house and buying furniture.
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,611
    Is it worth also complaining that the job market that many millennials entered was still shaken from the 2008 crash?

    Obviously you can rent and have a family. Although many landlords would rather not have families, and protection for renters is crap.

    I don't necessarily think it's helpful to have the game of one upmanship across generations, but it does look like the conservatives haven't a clue as to how they are going to generate a new cohort of conservative voters.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,156
    I was told in 1999 that I was brave to buy because prices were going to crash soon.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,432
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    £41,200 in 1989 adjusted for inflation is £101,702 in 2023.

    Yep, so a rate 15% higher and a threshold £25k lower than today. As I was saying...
    So you didn't like the tax burden in 1989. How's it looking now?
    Lower than in 1988 for an equivalent amount of income.
    So you’ve no interest in the overall tax burden.
    Why do you assume that?
    You ignored it.
    No, I just answered your question.
    Now that I have made you aware I was referring to the overall tax burden, would you try answering it again?
    Of course. I think it could and should be lower, as you already know. But there's no harm repeating myself :smile:
    How does it compare to the late 80s?
    Not sure, but it's not national quiz Stevo day, so go look it up...
    31% of GDP in 1988-9
    35% of GDP in 2021-2
    Forecast with current government plans to be 37% in 2027-8.

    Taxes are higher now than they were at the time when you thought young people would be horrified to hear about them.
    We were talking about taxes borne by that demographic, whereas your figures include taxes on everyone and on businesses.
    You forgot to mention student loan repayments and VAT, then.

    But still, good to know it's only personal taxes that are ultimately borne by people.
    Let's see your stats for the relevant tax burden you're trying to compare then.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,432
    rick_chasey said:

    Did you all take out 25-30 year terms too yeah?

    15 years for the first one and 12 years for the current one. Got shot of number 1 after 5 years and aim to pay off for the current one in 6.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,334
    edited May 2023
    rick_chasey said:

    Did you all take out 25-30 year terms too yeah?

    25 years originally, reduced to 18 by increasing my payments on a repayment mortgage. Sold after 9 to move in with the girlfriend (now wife), paid hers off 2 year later.

    Oh, and just to dispel any misconceptions I didn't make my first purchase till I was 33.
    Rented from 24.
    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.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    Ours was paid off after 34 years, we remortgaged 7 times in our 8 house purchases.
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,569
    25 year term was the standard in the 1980s and 1990s certainly, and for most subsequently too.
  • verylonglegs
    verylonglegs Posts: 4,023
    Jezyboy said:

    Is it worth also complaining that the job market that many millennials entered was still shaken from the 2008 crash?

    Obviously you can rent and have a family. Although many landlords would rather not have families, and protection for renters is censored .

    I don't necessarily think it's helpful to have the game of one upmanship across generations, but it does look like the conservatives haven't a clue as to how they are going to generate a new cohort of conservative voters.

    So many media articles across the board about how the Conservative party needs to attract new younger voters and how they can but why aren't there any written about maybe it is just that their time is up? Political parties have died before so it is not outrageous to suggest we are witnessing it right now.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,156
    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    £41,200 in 1989 adjusted for inflation is £101,702 in 2023.

    Yep, so a rate 15% higher and a threshold £25k lower than today. As I was saying...
    So you didn't like the tax burden in 1989. How's it looking now?
    Lower than in 1988 for an equivalent amount of income.
    So you’ve no interest in the overall tax burden.
    Why do you assume that?
    You ignored it.
    No, I just answered your question.
    Now that I have made you aware I was referring to the overall tax burden, would you try answering it again?
    Of course. I think it could and should be lower, as you already know. But there's no harm repeating myself :smile:
    How does it compare to the late 80s?
    Not sure, but it's not national quiz Stevo day, so go look it up...
    31% of GDP in 1988-9
    35% of GDP in 2021-2
    Forecast with current government plans to be 37% in 2027-8.

    Taxes are higher now than they were at the time when you thought young people would be horrified to hear about them.
    We were talking about taxes borne by that demographic, whereas your figures include taxes on everyone and on businesses.
    You forgot to mention student loan repayments and VAT, then.

    But still, good to know it's only personal taxes that are ultimately borne by people.
    Let's see your stats for the relevant tax burden you're trying to compare then.
    See above.

    You got any for the overall tax burden you're trying to compare?
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,432
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    £41,200 in 1989 adjusted for inflation is £101,702 in 2023.

    Yep, so a rate 15% higher and a threshold £25k lower than today. As I was saying...
    So you didn't like the tax burden in 1989. How's it looking now?
    Lower than in 1988 for an equivalent amount of income.
    So you’ve no interest in the overall tax burden.
    Why do you assume that?
    You ignored it.
    No, I just answered your question.
    Now that I have made you aware I was referring to the overall tax burden, would you try answering it again?
    Of course. I think it could and should be lower, as you already know. But there's no harm repeating myself :smile:
    How does it compare to the late 80s?
    Not sure, but it's not national quiz Stevo day, so go look it up...
    31% of GDP in 1988-9
    35% of GDP in 2021-2
    Forecast with current government plans to be 37% in 2027-8.

    Taxes are higher now than they were at the time when you thought young people would be horrified to hear about them.
    We were talking about taxes borne by that demographic, whereas your figures include taxes on everyone and on businesses.
    You forgot to mention student loan repayments and VAT, then.

    But still, good to know it's only personal taxes that are ultimately borne by people.
    Let's see your stats for the relevant tax burden you're trying to compare then.
    See above.

    You got any for the overall tax burden you're trying to compare?
    Your numbers aren't relevant to the specific situation. And I'm not trying to make a point, you are.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,156
    Stevo_666 said:

    Even allowing for inflation, that's a lot of tax. Millenials never had it so good...

    Looks like you're trying to make a point.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,334
    Who's going to say ATFQ first?
    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.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,156
    The more stevo explains why he is still supporting the Conservatives, the more confident I become about them losing the next election. It's good stuff.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,432
    edited June 2023
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Even allowing for inflation, that's a lot of tax. Millenials never had it so good...

    Looks like you're trying to make a point.
    Not any more, I'm bored and I know your game :)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    If you think a holiday is the difference between a deposit and not you’re underestimating how cheap holidays are and how expensive deposits need to be .

    And people are buying homes later and later in their lives and are having kids later and later, and that is primarily a cost issue. We're at a historic high for a century for how many grown ups live with their parents.

    But those 5 overseas holidays must have cost at least £500, then add in the loss of earnings and you have a £5k hole in your deposit. Over three years you have £15k and that is before you have foregone a few lattes.

    Iactually think the biggest problem with student loans is that it makes people comfortable with debt. If you already owe £30k and it is a choice of going skiing or working nights in a warehouse you are reaching for the salapettes.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited June 2023
    lol who gets enough annual leave for 5 holidays.

    Student loans aren't debt. They're a tax.
    _
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,569
    rick_chasey said:

    lol who gets enough annual leave for 5 holidays.

    4 weeks plus bank holidays is enough.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Dorset_Boy said:

    rick_chasey said:

    lol who gets enough annual leave for 5 holidays.

    4 weeks plus bank holidays is enough.
    Your lot are a lot more adventurous than the lot I know if they're going away more than twice a year.

    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,156
    The tax expert has spoken

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,334
    edited June 2023
    kingstongraham said:

    The tax expert someone doing their financial planning has spoken.

    FTFY. 😉
    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.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    lol 2nd richest man in parliament with a history of tax shenanigans and murky but well paid positions in dodgy kurdish oil & gas exploration companies wants to abolish inheritance tax shocker.

    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,189
    rick_chasey said:

    lol who gets enough annual leave for 5 holidays.

    Student loans aren't debt. They're a tax.

    I was wondering who can have a week's holiday for £500.
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,569
    rick_chasey said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    rick_chasey said:

    lol who gets enough annual leave for 5 holidays.

    4 weeks plus bank holidays is enough.
    Your lot are a lot more adventurous than the lot I know if they're going away more than twice a year.

    But that wasn't your question though!
    You questioned who has enough holiday entitlement to get away for 5 holidays a year.

    Affordability and willingness (or pressure to spend bank holidays with family) are likely to curtail that ability to go on 5 holidays though.

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,580
    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    kingstongraham said:

    £41,200 in 1989 adjusted for inflation is £101,702 in 2023.

    If only wages rose at the same rate as house prices eh?

    I mean, what about "house prices rising faster than wages" makes you think houses cost the same as they used to?

    It's just so f*cking moronic having to explain the same sh!t over and over.

    You've explained it over and over again, that we know. We await the magical solution.
    Get rid of the greenbelt and loosen up house planning rules so nimbys can't object to reasonable stuff and incentivise housebuilders to build houses where people will buy them.
    Good luck. Wonder why this hasn't been done already at any time in the last couple of decades?
    A cynic would suggest too many landlords in government.
    I'm not keen on the proposal and I'm not a landlord. Urban planning like they have in North America is thoroughly depressing.
    I'm not sure the sprawl of North American cities is related to a policy of deliberately restricting housing supply. I'm not just referring to the Green Belt - although that is an anachronism. It is a wider problem taking in the near collapse of the planning system due to underfunding and the removal of enforceable housing targets.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition

Categories