Things you have recently learnt

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Modello beer, that Mexican beer I used to pay a fortune for to get hold of to have it with my Mexican, is now the highest selling beer in the US - higher even than bud light

Food?

Mestizo is an excellent option if you want something more than Tex-Mex. They sell your beer.

rick_chasey

Thanks. Tacqueria in Notting Hill is the best I’ve found in the UK.

Pacifico is my preferred accompaniment to Mexican food.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

I didn't miss the story, but the premium version of corona (as it was sold back in the day) and a Mexican beer, becoming the #1 US beer I think is an incredible story.

Though, 19% of the US population are Hispanic.

rick_chasey

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

I didn't miss the story, but the premium version of corona (as it was sold back in the day) and a Mexican beer, becoming the #1 US beer I think is an incredible story.

Though, 19% of the US population are Hispanic.

And 81% are not

pblakeney

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

I didn't miss the story, but the premium version of corona (as it was sold back in the day) and a Mexican beer, becoming the #1 US beer I think is an incredible story.

Though, 19% of the US population are Hispanic.

I'm surprised that it is that low.
May be more than a few unaccounted for. 😉

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Thanks. Tacqueria in Notting Hill is the best I’ve found in the UK.

Pacifico is my preferred accompaniment to Mexican food.

Mestizo is a bit different it sells proper dishes with mole sauce and the like. It is the only place I know that Mexican friends approve of.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Thanks. Tacqueria in Notting Hill is the best I’ve found in the UK.

Pacifico is my preferred accompaniment to Mexican food.

Mestizo is a bit different it sells proper dishes with mole sauce and the like. It is the only place I know that Mexican friends approve of.

Try Tacquaria. It's the go-to-place for Mexican film stars whenever they're in the hood (nor is it that spenny, considering).

I'll check Mestizo out - Euston is a little the arse-end of nowhere for me however so might have to make a special trip.

I love my tequilla anyway, so might be a good idea.

Pross

That James May went to the same primary school as my kids.

rick_chasey

If my mortgage repayments are at 6%, I am £780 a month poorer, or roughly £9k per year, which is roughly, what, as if I had a £13-14k paycut to my gross salary?

Glory days indeed.

focuszing723

I'm sorry for keep banging on about it, but I think it's a disgrace people were led Into believing near zero rates of interest was the new norm. Historically it just wasn't the case the exception was the last x years.

It's unfair on ordinary people trying to make the best of it. The cost of mortgages, the cost of a decling homes to live in price and possible negative equity.

Higher IR's, no cheap debt!

wavefront

Just learnt that the Scottish government are planning to raise council tax by up to 22.5%. And for bands E and above. Supposedly to make the burden of tax fairer.

They say rates will still be lower than England. Hmm. Not quite true given the huge house price differential between north and south.

I swapped a band E house in England, for a slightly cheaper house in Scotland which is in band G. So I’ll be paying close to £800 per year more in CT, despite being in a slightly cheaper house than I was. So the new tax won’t actually be cheaper than England like they say.

My income isn’t huge, but they assume it is because of the house value which was a legacy of living in south England and doing the house ‘swap’

Just livid.

shirley_basso

rick_chasey said:

If my mortgage repayments are at 6%, I am £780 a month poorer, or roughly £9k per year, which is roughly, what, as if I had a £13-14k paycut to my gross salary?

Glory days indeed.

Is that all? Lucky sh!t

First.Aspect

wavefront said:

Just learnt that the Scottish government are planning to raise council tax by up to 22.5%. And for bands E and above. Supposedly to make the burden of tax fairer.

They say rates will still be lower than England. Hmm. Not quite true given the huge house price differential between north and south.

I swapped a band E house in England, for a slightly cheaper house in Scotland which is in band G. So I’ll be paying close to £800 per year more in CT, despite being in a slightly cheaper house than I was. So the new tax won’t actually be cheaper than England like they say.

My income isn’t huge, but they assume it is because of the house value which was a legacy of living in south England and doing the house ‘swap’

Just livid.

The only way is up, with the SNP I'm afraid. And "progressive" just means more tax for higher earners, not less for lower earners, because they've got a huge black hole in the budget.

They spent what they had, lobbied hard to get more tax powers thereby losing the Barnett adjustment to income tax revenues and then spent more whilst taking in less.

If I move south, my take home is already over £3k more a year and that differential will grow. Since I'm moving house anyway, that's what I am going to do. Doubt I'll be alone.

I suspect whoever is in next would not take this any further, but by the same token I don't think they will be able to reverse it any time soon either.

surrey_commuter

focuszing723 said:

I'm sorry for keep banging on about it, but I think it's a disgrace people were led Into believing near zero rates of interest was the new norm. Historically it just wasn't the case the exception was the last x years.

It's unfair on ordinary people trying to make the best of it. The cost of mortgages, the cost of a decling homes to live in price and possible negative equity.

Higher IR's, no cheap debt!

is it not just a case of believing something that they want to?

What I find scary and irresponsible are the people predicting that rates will begin falling by the end of the year

focuszing723

surrey_commuter said:

focuszing723 said:

I'm sorry for keep banging on about it, but I think it's a disgrace people were led Into believing near zero rates of interest was the new norm. Historically it just wasn't the case the exception was the last x years.

It's unfair on ordinary people trying to make the best of it. The cost of mortgages, the cost of a decling homes to live in price and possible negative equity.

Higher IR's, no cheap debt!

is it not just a case of believing something that they want to?

What I find scary and irresponsible are the people predicting that rates will begin falling by the end of the year

It's a fair point, especially when they're at a normal level now, they aren't even high.

rjsterry

And still neither of you can say *why* you think ~4% is the same default level for wildly different economic situations. Why is it 4%, and not 6 or 3 or 10. If you think there is some equilibrium state then that suggests a mechanistic relationship with other measures: what evidence do you have for this?

wakemalcolm

What I find scary is that some people think the government will bail them out of the mess they've got themselves into, like they did with the fuel bills.

After seeing them take immediate action to protect the housing bubble during COVID, the even scarier thought is that the government might.

briantrumpet

Max Out to Help Out

Jezyboy

So close to mentioning avocado on toast and getting the full house.

Stevo_666

Jezyboy said:

So close to mentioning avocado on toast and getting the full house.

Oxo still makes a very valid point, avocados on toast or not.

kingstongraham

oxoman said:

What I find scary is people moaning about 6% rates now that still insist on having the latest mobiles foreign holidays meals out etc. What happened to common sense and living within your means, personally I remember being hit with interest rates double that and then annual council rates of 240 a yr being swapped for over 1k per person pr year poll tax.

But you never moaned about it.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

And still neither of you can say *why* you think ~4% is the same default level for wildly different economic situations. Why is it 4%, and not 6 or 3 or 10. If you think there is some equilibrium state then that suggests a mechanistic relationship with other measures: what evidence do you have for this?

I have never used the term “default level” and I have always talked about long run interest. Like the long run rate of growth it can go up and down or even get permanently reduced.

Anyway the BofE does not want it too low because they can not cut them in a recession and they don’t want them too high as raising them in a recession could do to much damage.

I believe my learned friend sees 4% as on the low end of “normal” and historically I would probably tend to agree with him. My own hunch is that people need to get used to that and the new normal could be in the 3-4% range but without external shocks we won’t see that for 5 years

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

oxoman said:

What I find scary is people moaning about 6% rates now that still insist on having the latest mobiles foreign holidays meals out etc. What happened to common sense and living within your means, personally I remember being hit with interest rates double that and then annual council rates of 240 a yr being swapped for over 1k per person pr year poll tax.

But you never moaned about it.

My take is that people refuse to learn from the past and think that their "normal" will remain in perpetuity.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

And still neither of you can say *why* you think ~4% is the same default level for wildly different economic situations. Why is it 4%, and not 6 or 3 or 10. If you think there is some equilibrium state then that suggests a mechanistic relationship with other measures: what evidence do you have for this?

I have never used the term “default level” and I have always talked about long run interest. Like the long run rate of growth it can go up and down or even get permanently reduced.

Anyway the BofE does not want it too low because they can not cut them in a recession and they don’t want them too high as raising them in a recession could do to much damage.

I believe my learned friend sees 4% as on the low end of “normal” and historically I would probably tend to agree with him. My own hunch is that people need to get used to that and the new normal could be in the 3-4% range but without external shocks we won’t see that for 5 years

I think the bold bit is probably fair at the moment. Until things change again.

I think claiming data from the 18th and 19th centuries (which actually trends downwards) shows that rates 'should' revert to 5% or whatever is statistically unfounded and seeing something that isn't there. It's just drawing a line across a graph - seeing a pattern where there is none.

TheBigBean

Assumptions:
1. Deflation is bad
2. High inflation is bad
3. Lending money should provide real returns

As a result of 1 and 2, the BoE targets inflation of 2%. As a result of this and 3, interest rates should be higher than 2% with 4% seeming sensible.

rick_chasey

So in the UK you need to earn roughly at least £160,000 to be in the top 1% of earners.

In California you need to be earning at least $844,000.

kingstongraham

oxoman said:

kingstongraham said:

oxoman said:

What I find scary is people moaning about 6% rates now that still insist on having the latest mobiles foreign holidays meals out etc. What happened to common sense and living within your means, personally I remember being hit with interest rates double that and then annual council rates of 240 a yr being swapped for over 1k per person pr year poll tax.

But you never moaned about it.

We did moan about it. For those on here old enough they should remember the poll tax riots.

Did you riot?

drhaggis

rick_chasey said:

So in the UK you need to earn roughly at least £160,000 to be in the top 1% of earners.

In California you need to be earning at least $844,000.

The tax rate difference essentially buys the 1% a 911 per year...

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

So in the UK you need to earn roughly at least £160,000 to be in the top 1% of earners.

In California you need to be earning at least $844,000.

Are you suggesting that the US isn't at the forefront of socialism?

drhaggis

wavefront said:

Just learnt that the Scottish government are planning to raise council tax by up to 22.5%. And for bands E and above. Supposedly to make the burden of tax fairer.

They say rates will still be lower than England. Hmm. Not quite true given the huge house price differential between north and south.

I swapped a band E house in England, for a slightly cheaper house in Scotland which is in band G. So I’ll be paying close to £800 per year more in CT, despite being in a slightly cheaper house than I was. So the new tax won’t actually be cheaper than England like they say.

My income isn’t huge, but they assume it is because of the house value which was a legacy of living in south England and doing the house ‘swap’

Just livid.

I pay £2500 for a definitely non-luxury flat in EH4 (but new-ish development), which I consider censoring outrageous. Especially given the shït roads, the shït pavement, and the hour it would take me to get to my office by public transport, a mere 5 mile away. To hell with it, in that time I can do a workout commute.