2024 Election thread
Comments
-
Good to hear you are against high taxes though.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not per se, I'm against poor value for money. I also don't see why I should reward those that have made the trading environment progressively more difficult for small businesses.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
OK, so that said, which party would you vote for?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
TBC, but tactically.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Enjoyed this:
. Or perhaps they felt that if after fourteen — fourteen! — years in office, your plan is only just now starting to deliver, it might not have been a very good plan in the first place.
If that was how they felt, then the prime minister had a dire warning for them. “The alternative is Keir Starmer, who would just take us back to Square One.” Back to Square One, eh? This was presumably 2010, a time when you could see a doctor, send a parcel to France without filling in a form, and walk down the street without passing rough sleepers. Who would want to return to such a terrifying hellscape?
I’m not being fair. You’ll recall that the key issue in the election that cost Labour power was the exploding level of government borrowing. When Labour left office, Britain’s national debt had risen to a horrifying 76% of GDP. After 14 years of careful management, the Tories have got it up to a much easier to remember 100%. That plan really is starting to deliver.
......
Anyway, “stick with the plan” is the Conservative election slogan, and who knows, perhaps it still will be this time next week. It keeps changing, and they never settle on one, possibly because the slogan they really want to use is “Britain is Broken. Don’t Let Labour Fix It.”
0 -
Our economic performance relative to Germany would seem to have little relevance to domestic tax policy. The faltering of the largest member of the EU doesn't exactly fill me with glee, and anyway, the latest UK growth figures seem to suggest either anemic growth or a contraction.
I didn't think it was the right tax to increase, and I didn't think it was the right time to be doing so, I'm happy that it's being reduced. However, it seems crystal clear to me that if you genuinely think GDP to national debt needs to go down, then the country can scarcely afford tax reductions, without a period of sustained, high, economic growth. That isn't happening.
0 -
Slightly rose tinted version of 2010 there. Rough sleepers have been a problem for at least 30 years and the 2010 I remember was thousands losing their jobs, baling out banks to stop them failing, house repossesions and massive salary cuts. Whilst most of these were global issues and many things have since got worse I really don't see the point in trying to make out everything was brilliant when the Tories first came into power or that there was an absolute need to tighten things up fiscally at that time. Since 2016 though the Government has become an increasingly bad joke with no coherent policies or directions just populist soundbites that they're happy to reverse if their core shout loud enough.
0 -
Other way round in that improving economic performance allows some tax cuts to be made.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
So just the first bit to solve. Currently, improving means 'didn't shrink'. Demands on public finances are only going up:
Local authorities are either already broke or teetering on the edge.
NHS waiting times are a bomb site.
Government will soon need to bail out/renationalise the water authorities as they are also teetering on the edge, just as they've done with the railways.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
Yes it has. I can now shit in the sea off a public beach without fear of making anything worse.
1 -
It's a balancing act as sensible tax cuts can help stimulate the economy, which can improve the tax take. Às the saying goes, you can't tax your way to prosperity.
But if you think you've seen pressure on public finances, see what happens if Labour get in....
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I still think that if they scrapped the removal of the tax free allowance whilst dropping the intro for top rate to £100k it would not result in much lost tax.
I still can't see a better solution to the other one that scrapping CB altogether and plough the money into UC along with money saved from scrapping bus passes and winter fuel allowance
0 -
I'd argue reducing NIC a tiny bit after hiking Corporation tax is unlikely to be that sensible tax cut, nor stimulate investment. The ~£500/head is significantly less than the bonkers energy handouts the other year and that didn't move the needle.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
I might be missing something here but isn’t the whole idea of buying a house with a mortgage is that at some point in the future you own it outright. Or when you get that point where you’ve paid it off are you supposed to give the house away and take out another mortgage on something else.
0 -
The point they seem to be making is that most of those who own either own outright or have nearly finished paying off their mortgage so are not really impacted by difficulties in buying so the number concerned about housing is effectively everyone else plus a chunk of those who already own.
0 -
All that ownership is 100% transient.
0 -
For those with an FT subbie.
But in recent decades, that trend has not only stalled but reversed. In 1980, almost half of 18 to 34-year-olds in Britain and America lived in their own property with children of their own, making this the most common arrangement for young adults. Today that is true of only about one in five, and the most common set-up for 18 to 34-year-olds is now to be living with their parents
But while the housing affordability crisis gets a fair amount of airtime, it often feels secondary to other leading concerns of the day. The breakdown of a central aspirational belief across the wider Anglosphere is at risk of becoming background noise. One key reason for the lack of serious attention or action is age, which works in two ways. First, the people most acutely affected by this problem are from an age bracket that still exercises little political clout by voting. Second, few above the age of about 45 — ie virtually all key decision makers — appreciate what it’s like to have this particular key rite of passage postponed, sometimes indefinitely.
i bolder the last bit, as I think this forum is a good example of that.
To put the price-to-earnings ratio into more tangible terms, it now takes 13 years to save a deposit for the average UK property (up from three in the mid 1990s), and 30 years in London (up from four). To state the obvious, nobody spends 30 years saving for a house. The dream is over.
And finally, this bit which I’ve said for a while too:
The breakdown of the housing conveyor belt has huge and diverse impacts. Studies show that the inability to afford a home causes people to postpone starting a family or simply not have children at all. High housing costs also divert individuals away from productive places and activities, and dramatically increase inequality in wealth and between regions.
0 -
I’m slightly surprised by some of that. My recollection of the 80s was that most people lived with their parents until they got married (albeit people got married and had kids much younger) whereas now it feels like most go off to University and then never go back home either house sharing or renting / buying themselves. I don’t know many people in their 20s or 30s living with their parents.
0 -
I do wish the discussion would ignore the period 1995-2000
0 -
-
I thought the US was paradise.
0 -
Has anyone said that? I’m more surprised by how many had their own place in the 80s to be honest although my own experience (daughter and her friends plus quite a few in their 20s or early 30s at my previous job) bucks the reported trend.
0 -
-
Not sure how the lender’s risk in a 25 year fix is likely to be cheaper or why it would impact on the deposit needed.
0 -
Yeah I read through the tweets as I was wondering the same. Still not clear.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
The current 30 year fixed rates in the US are north of 6.5%. The house always wins.
I'd be interested to know if people can remortgage though. Presumable yea, but with a penalty, so with longer fixed periods, the banks will hoover up 4 figure arrangement and exit fees. The house always wins.
0 -
There is a fair bit of stuff in the article Rick, what has got you noooooooo-ing?
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0
