# Mortgage rates / interest etc



## baldkev (23 Oct 2022)

Hi all,
In February our mortgage deal ends... so we are currently trying to decide which way to jump...
We can remortgage at an increase of nearly 3% taking us to 5.94% ( 2 yr fix ) or 5 yr fix was a touch cheaper, or the mortgage advisor was suggesting a tracker.... or we can wait until February and see whats happening. If we remortgage with our current provider its a bit cheaper than other offers, but if we accept the deal now ( before November, before the b.o.e rates change ), we are locked in. I had hoped we would be able to bin it off in February if things had improved.

Based on Rishi Sunak being prime minister ( possibly not for long  ) im guessing everything will rise quicker including taxes, and interest etc but i am definitely not an economist!

What do you think is likely to happen??


----------



## johna.clements (23 Oct 2022)

The rates will be going up 1% on 3 November. maybe 1/4% less but more likely 1/4% more.


----------



## Jameshow (23 Oct 2022)

The only way is up baby!! 

Yeap deffo fixed but my financial sense is half that of yours!


----------



## johna.clements (23 Oct 2022)

Its a gamble. You are paying less than I did in the early 90s. There are many people here including me whose mortgage went up 3% in a day (was going to be 5% but they changed their mind in the evening after we left the ERM)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Oct 2022)

It went up 5% in a day from 10% to 15%. It went down again by lunchtime.


----------



## baldkev (23 Oct 2022)

Yep, my mum lost her house in the 90s when the rates went up beyond her ability to pay.... hard times ahead


----------



## johna.clements (23 Oct 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> It went up 5% in a day from 10% to 15%. It went down again by lunchtime.


Only went down 2%


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Only went down 2%


It went from 10% to 15% and back to 10%..


----------



## johna.clements (23 Oct 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> It went from 10% to 15% and back to 10%..


You are correct it went back down to 10% the following day. My mortgage for some strange reason did not go down for a while.


----------



## J-G (24 Oct 2022)

I would strongly recommend a 'Tracker' - it reflects the current situation and drops immediately when the base rate drops - ie. no 'inertia' - (waiting for the lender to condicend to drop the rate).


----------



## baldkev (24 Oct 2022)

I guess the question would be wether b.o.e interest rates are likely to exceed 5% for the majority of the next 2 years...... 
I'd like to think rates might be able to go down again, so a 5 year fix doesnt seem great to me, but then who knows, it might go to 6 and stay there for 4/5 years?


----------



## jcassidy (24 Oct 2022)

Interest rates are a monetary policy tool to control inflation. You have to ask, what is causing inflation and what is the gov (fiscal policy) doing about it?
The recent spike in UK interest rates is due to falling supply of good, most importantly, energy, but also other goods as a result of Covid and BREXIT. Same as the recent spike here in Ireland.

The Truss-enomics Budget added fuel to the fire (cutting taxes injects cash), leading to talk of 6% or more. Add to that, political instability leading to higher rates in international inter Bank lending... add to that, capping energy bills adding yet more cash...

A Sunak gov looks like a tax-and-cut austerity-style regime (??). If so, this will remove money from the economy and thereby limit inflation, reducing the need for monetary tools like interest rate hikes. 

It's tough to peer into the crystal ball but I would either wait or lock for 2 years, betting that a Sunak gov will bring more stability, secure energy supplies. I wouldn't rush into locking into 5% unless I had too. a tracker has a big downside obviously, so only valuable if you figure on a down ward trend to interest rates over the period you are traking.


----------



## Adam W. (24 Oct 2022)

Seriously, I think you need to brace yourself for some hard times ahead and do what you can to make sure that you stay living within your means.

Things are likely to get a lot more expensive in the short term as the energy situation doesn't look like it's going to be solved any time soon, this coupled with trade issues with the EU and high inflation means Britain is in for a bumpy ride.


----------



## whereistheceilidh (24 Oct 2022)

The problem is JC that betting a Sunak government will last 2 years. Listening to pro Johnson MPs this morning, they are not going to compromise and may push for a GE....or at least make a non BJ government unstable. That instability may mean a few more interest rate increases might be needed to calm things.... I cannot understand the Tory party mentality at present. Not only self destructive, but destructive to the UK.....while it lasts.


----------



## highwood122 (24 Oct 2022)

l lowest i ever paid was 8% from the 70s went up to 14% for a short time that was what you call the guts ache. managed to get through it never borrow ever again


----------



## Jameshow (24 Oct 2022)

whereistheceilidh said:


> The problem is JC that betting a Sunak government will last 2 years. Listening to pro Johnson MPs this morning, they are not going to compromise and may push for a GE....or at least make a non BJ government unstable. That instability may mean a few more interest rate increases might be needed to calm things.... I cannot understand the Tory party mentality at present. Not only self destructive, but destructive to the UK.....while it lasts.


Nuts I known. 

I cannot see Boris backed down without a cunning plan...

Perhaps he wants a full term rather than a half term..


----------



## Blackswanwood (24 Oct 2022)

Best thing to do imho is get proper advice from a mortgage broker who deals with the whole of market. You existing lender will presumably offer you another deal (referred to as a Product Transfer) so remortgaging may not be needed.

There are plenty of people predicting what will happen with interest rates. Given we have not seen who the new PM will be, what they propose to do and how the market will react no one can really give a fully informed view today.


----------



## deema (24 Oct 2022)

The hidden problem, of which the size of is unknown, is that there are a lot of small private landlords. These are people who saw an opportunity to take out very cheap buy to let mortgages, and in many cases pyramid their investment. They used the rapid increase in house prices to take out further loans against their buy to rent property to fund the deposits for another buy to lets. The increase in rates could cause a lot of these to collapse. You might say, serve them right! But, there is already a chronic shortage of rental property’s, if the private rental market shrinks, it will mean people don’t have anywhere to live. It’s a very insipid situation. Equally, if private landlords start to bale out of the market, there is a raft of new legislation that makes it far less attractive to be a landlord and with interest rates rising, the return is becoming negative in many instances. Again, the likely consequence is a chronic shortage of rental properties. 
To put this into perspective, my eldest son has an estate agents (yes, stop booing) after his staff have listed a rental property, within an hour they will have over 60 applicants and it often results in a bidding war on how much they will pay.


----------



## Spectric (24 Oct 2022)

Even a decent mortgage broker does not have a crystal ball so this is not a case of basing any decision on hard facts because no one really knows. If you fix for say two years then at least you have a known payment and can plan around it, if not then you do not know what you will or could be paying one month from another. For me having known expenditure makes financial planing easier because you are not going to suddenly get an unexpected higher bill.


----------



## johna.clements (24 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Even a decent mortgage broker does not have a crystal ball so this is not a case of basing any decision on hard facts because no one really knows. If you fix for say two years then at least you have a known payment and can plan around it, if not then you do not know what you will or could be paying one month from another. For me having known expenditure makes financial planing easier because you are not going to suddenly get an unexpected higher bill.


If mortgage brokers had a crystal ball they would not be mortgage brokers. They would be betting on the money markets where they could make far more money.


----------



## Jacob (24 Oct 2022)

jcassidy said:


> ....
> 
> The Truss-enomics Budget added fuel to the fire (cutting taxes injects cash), ....


Cutting taxes raises savings. Those paying top rate are not likely to go on a spending spree with the chancellor's gift. 
Raising taxes injects cash. Takes it from where it is not needed to where it is.


----------



## treeturner123 (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> The hidden problem, of which the size of is unknown, is that there are a lot of small private landlords. These are people who saw an opportunity to take out very cheap buy to let mortgages, and in many cases pyramid their investment. They used the rapid increase in house prices to take out further loans against their buy to rent property to fund the deposits for another buy to lets. The increase in rates could cause a lot of these to collapse. You might say, serve them right! But, there is already a chronic shortage of rental property’s, if the private rental market shrinks, it will mean people don’t have anywhere to live. It’s a very insipid situation. Equally, if private landlords start to bale out of the market, there is a raft of new legislation that makes it far less attractive to be a landlord and with interest rates rising, the return is becoming negative in many instances. Again, the likely consequence is a chronic shortage of rental properties.
> To put this into perspective, my eldest son has an estate agents (yes, stop booing) after his staff have listed a rental property, within an hour they will have over 60 applicants and it often results in a bidding war on how much they will pay.


The other problem with Private Landlords was that the government decided not to allow Mtge payments as an allowable expense!

So as a result, the supply is deminishing whilst demand increases. Do no governments have ANY IDEA of the laws of Supply & Demand? Clearly not!!

Phil


----------



## Jacob (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> ..... The increase in rates could cause a lot of these to collapse. You might say, serve them right!


Yes - that is what happens if you speculate!


deema said:


> But, there is already a chronic shortage of rental property’s, if the private rental market shrinks, it will mean people don’t have anywhere to live.


They don't demolish their properties when they stop being landlords, they tend to put them on the market. May even force prices down to everybodies benefit except the speculators.


deema said:


> It’s a very insipid situation. Equally, if private landlords start to bale out of the market, there is a raft of new legislation that makes it far less attractive to be a landlord and with interest rates rising, the return is becoming negative in many instances. Again, the likely consequence is a chronic shortage of rental properties.


No. The properties don't fade away.


deema said:


> To put this into perspective, my eldest son has an estate agents (yes, stop booing) after his staff have listed a rental property, within an hour they will have over 60 applicants and it often results in a bidding war on how much they will pay.


They'll pay less if landlords loosen their grip on property!


----------



## Jacob (24 Oct 2022)

treeturner123 said:


> The other problem with Private Landlords was that the government decided not to allow Mtge payments as an allowable expense!
> 
> So as a result, the supply is deminishing whilst demand increases. Do no governments have ANY IDEA of the laws of Supply & Demand? Clearly not!!
> 
> Phil


By and large landlords do not supply housing they buy what has already been supplied. Fewer landlords does not mean fewer houses.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (24 Oct 2022)

A fundamental economic proposition is that the current values - loans, shares, property etc - reflects the overall market assessment of its likely discounted future value.

Put another way - current interest rates reflect what the market expects to happen in the future. If the market thought that rates would fall, then interest rates for (say) 5-year mortgages would fall.

So, you have a choices:

back your judgement against that of market professionals. Although professionals will often get things wrong, they are almost certainly better informed than you (or this forum) 
accept the higher rate assuming you can afford it - removes risk (albeit at a cost)
if unaffordable, you either need to accept a risk (eg: a 2 year rather than 5/10-year fix) or other strategy (downsize, just hope etc)
Final point - your personal circumstances may be different to the broad market which could influence your actions. An example - you are 2 years away from expected retirement at which point you could take lump sum, downsize, decide to carry on working part time.


----------



## J-G (24 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> I guess the question would be wether b.o.e interest rates are likely to exceed 5% for the majority of the next 2 years......
> I'd like to think rates might be able to go down again, so a 5 year fix doesnt seem great to me, but then who knows, it might go to 6 and stay there for 4/5 years?


Yes it's a 'gamble' - My father secured a Fixed rate Mortgage @ 4% over the full 25 years - this was in 1941 on a property @£495  He was laughing when interest rates went into 2 figures!

My last Mortgage was a tracker @ 0.75% above base and it seemed eminently affordable when the base rate dropped below 0.25% but then I've never over-stretched my asperations!


----------



## julianf (24 Oct 2022)

Somthing that is so often overlooked with mortgages is the setup fee.

If you average the setup fee for a fixed rate over the lifespan of the fixed term, then you may find that it adds 1.5% to the cost of the loan (obviously this is highly dependant)

People so often overlook this.


We had a very odd situation with the deceased minibudget with fiscal and monetary policy pulling in entirely different directions, one attempting to reduce the supply of money and one trying to increase it. Hence the market reaction and it's rapid demise.

Sunak will go with austerity V2 as he will be too scared to tax the very wealthy (himself) and we will remain in a situation where the economy lacks stimulus whilst at the same time inflation rises (largely due to external factors) and the boe sucks cash out of the system with interest rates.

There is no way out for the conservatives. 

As for rates - so hard to tell. It's such a mess currently.



A side note -

People always talk about rates being higher in the past, seemingly as some sort of justification, whilst neglecting three wholly significant factors -

The cost of housing as a percentage of wages was way lower.
Wages, at the time, also rose. 

This makes any comparison using the interest rate in isolation somewhat naive.


----------



## johna.clements (24 Oct 2022)

treeturner123 said:


> The other problem with Private Landlords was that the government decided not to allow Mtge payments as an allowable expense!
> 
> So as a result, the supply is deminishing whilst demand increases. Do no governments have ANY IDEA of the laws of Supply & Demand? Clearly not!!
> 
> Phil


Why should a landlord get a subsidy to buy a house but not a owner occupier.


----------



## baldkev (24 Oct 2022)

Some great replies here everyone, thank you all


----------



## julianf (24 Oct 2022)

Re landlord tax relief on mortgage payments -

It should be noted that this applies to private landlords only.

As ever, it does not affect those higher up the food chain.


----------



## jcassidy (24 Oct 2022)

Well here's the ultimate expert; DG Monetary Policy at the BoE;

"Because they’ve depressed real incomes, that slowing in demand will to some degree follow from the very same rises in import costs that have pushed up headline inflation. Equally, if government support mitigates that effect, there is more at the margin for monetary policy to do. The MPC is likely to respond relatively promptly to news about fiscal policy. Whether official interest rates have to rise by quite as much as currently priced in financial markets remains to be seen."

The inflationary consequences of real shocks

This is all banker-speak, so let me translate;

If Downing St leaves well enough alone, the spike in import costs will suck money out of the economy by knobbling demand because people can't afford to pay for stuff anymore, thus counteracting inflation *over time*.

If the Gov put in place measures to counteract this (e.g. capping energy costs, increasing pensions, etc. etc.) then less money will be sucked out of the economy, and the BoE *won't hesitate to increase rates*. That's the warning to the Govt to not start messing about with basic economic realities.

(As the DG notes, govt intervention only displaces the loss; rather than hitting Joe Public in the pocket, it goes onto the national balance sheet).

It remains to be seen if the increases - if any - will be as bad as the markets are predicting. Which is banker-speak warning the markets not to go crazy pricing stupid increases into their yields because interest rates aren't going up that high.

As to the OP - I think with fair winds and good sailing, there's a good chance that the interest rates will stablise by Feb next year under a stable Sunak government. You may want to fix, as someone else said, just so you have some certainty, not forgetting to get any moves properly costed by your advisor.

To paraphrase Jack Reacher - it's always a 50/50. Either interest rates will go, up they won't. If you can make better odds than that, you should be a financial analyst.

FYI, I fixed for 5 years, 6 months ago, as I felt the ECB were on a long-term upwards trend (disclaimer, I am a central bank employee, but I don't work in Monetary Policy side of the Bank so all I know is what gets published on the website).


----------



## jcassidy (24 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Cutting taxes raises savings.



Not when there's a cost-of-living crisis, as we're all being told there is.


Jacob said:


> Those paying top rate are not likely to go on a spending spree with the chancellor's gift.



100% agree.



Jacob said:


> Raising taxes injects cash. Takes it from where it is not needed to where it is.


100% agree.
The BoE can neither *create* nor *destroy* wealth. That's what taxes are for. The BoE is not elected and cannot levy tax. Parliament is elected, and can levy tax.

You tax everything == basic income for the State
You tax undesirable activities more.
You tax desirable activities less.

Now, the question is, what makes an activity 'desirable'? Is it social considerations? Is it environmental? Is it for the long-term benefit of the State? What if an activity is desirable on one angle, but undesirable for the other? 

Like, smoking. 

Smoking kills, therefore we should tax it more, because it costs the NHS lots of money. But then again, smoking kills, so we should tax it less because we save on pension payouts... Oh the decisions!!!

So when you hear some politician say "Oh we're going to cut taxes on [n]", that's because the Govt think that [n] is a good thing to do. Build offices. Speculate on land. Accumulate vast wealth in shares. Whatever.


----------



## jcassidy (24 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Cutting taxes raises savings.



Not when there's a cost-of-living crisis, as we're all being told there is.


Jacob said:


> Those paying top rate are not likely to go on a spending spree with the chancellor's gift.



100% agree.



Jacob said:


> Raising taxes injects cash. Takes it from where it is not needed to where it is.


100% agree.
The BoE can neither *create* nor *destroy* wealth. That's what taxes are for. The BoE is not elected and cannot levy tax. Parliament is elected, and can levy tax.

You tax everything == basic income for the State
You tax undesirable activities more.
You tax desirable activities less.

Now, the question is, what makes an activity 'desirable'? Is it social considerations? Is it environmental? Is it for the long-term benefit of the State? What if an activity is desirable on one angle, but undesirable for the other? 

Like, smoking. 

Smoking kills, therefore we should tax it more, because it costs the NHS lots of money. But then again, smoking kills, so we should tax it less because we save on pension payouts... Oh the decisions!!!


----------



## julianf (24 Oct 2022)

The energy price cap is one of the craziest things. The economics of it are full on wealth redistribution once again. Windfall tax, great, subsidising (shifting tax payer money) to the energy companies is madness.

But plays right in to the hands of the people who funded Truss' campaign.


----------



## Jacob (24 Oct 2022)

jcassidy said:


> Not when there's a cost-of-living crisis, as we're all being told there is.
> 
> 
> .........


Cost of living crisis doesn't affect the better off so much, if at all. Taking a few more thousands from somebody who has millions is not going to affect their lifestyle, but quite the reverse for somebody on the edge.
It gets left out of taxation thinking that money is worth very much less to the better off. You can only eat one dinner, as they say.
Whereas for those on the edge just a few quid can make a huge difference.
Hence steeply "progressive" taxation can be quite equitable in terms of consequences, if not in cash.
Another thing which causes shock and horror is inflation. But it's good news for those with debts - the real value falls. It also can lead to painless price adjustments such as with houses; they can stay the same and hence lose relative value as prices rise, hence falling in price in real terms, but without dropping people into negative equity.
So, roll on tax rises and inflation, just what we need!


----------



## sploo (24 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> So, roll on tax rises and inflation, just what we need!


OK... as long as wages at least somewhat keep up with inflation - otherwise people are going to suffer.

I've watched my mortgage (a tracker) rise by nearly £300 per month this year already (and await the inevitable next big rise). Add to that the large rises in the cost of essential goods (food, fuel), and (for me anyway) being employed by a business that mostly has to buy in USD and sell in GBP (re the GBP getting "Trussed").

A perfect storm of Tory disaster capitalism, Brexit (see Tory disaster capitalism), post-Covid, and finally mad-Vlad invading the Ukraine... it's hardly a cheery picture for the plebs right now.


----------



## deema (24 Oct 2022)

Tax is a dreadful tool. If you increase taxes all that happens is that those at the top move their money, or themselves to a lower tax environment. The top 1% pay most of the personal taxes in the UK, so if you tax them out of the country, then the tax burden falls more heavily on those left. Equally, if you tax business too heavily you simply see businesses move to a more tax efficient environment. This reduces employment and tax revenue. If you want the largest tax income for the country you move to a single rate for everyone. Yes, it sounds counter intuitive, but there are enough studies to demonstrate that this is the best system. With a low rate of tax, tax sheltering becomes un-necessary, and in fact you attract more of the seriously wealth people to move their tax domicile to the UK. The stumbling block is that the left, who are adamant that this a folly, ‘it’s the rich getting richer’ (the problem with this argument is they do anyway, but not necessarily whilst paying tax in the UK) and it strikes a cord with the larger population. Higher taxes stifles a country, reduces economic activity, the wealthy move out and the less wealthy are worse off.

An example of a low tax environment is Singapore. The max personal tax is 22% for nine residents, and a graduated scale up to 22% for residents. I’ve avoided Monty Carlow that has no income tax at all, the government derives its income from VAT.


----------



## julianf (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Tax is a dreadful tool. If you increase taxes all that happens is that those at the top move their money, or themselves to a lower tax environment.



This is a line so very often repeated, but its a nonsense.

For example, do wealthy non-dom pay road tax on their cars in the uk? Of course they do. They're tangible objects that, whilst you can move them abroad, you cant both move them abroad AND use them to get around the M25 at the same time.

Or, say, council tax. You cant claim your building is abroad when its at the end of the road.

Income tax is all fuzzy. Tax the physical wealth.

And, if you think that will "limit investment", what will actually happen? Say the owners of Canary Warf have a tax on their physical assets, will they move Canary Warf away? No. Will they sell it? Maybe... Will they be more reluctant to decorate? I suspect not, as the ownership and maintenance will still present a profit. It will still earn money, just maybe not as much money as before (after tax).

The redistribution of wealth down the spectrum will stimulate the economy in compensation regardless.


We are at the stage now where wealth inequality is approaching feudalism. If the poor have no money to do much with at all, that is a massive cost to the economy. You cant stimulate things by simply giving the rich more money.

If you disagree, look at COVID. What was the government spend? 600 billion or something? I forget the numbers, but i think it works out about £15k for each human in the uk. So my 4yr old daughter should have £15k more in the bank... I should have. You should have. Your child, or grand child should.

But its not the case. So that money still exists. Its not vanished. Where is it though? Essentially its at the top of the wealth spectrum.

So we have just given "the rich" the lions share of £600 billion. And yet we are in this current situation. The proof is in the pudding. It just doesn't work giving out cash to the wealthy.


----------



## Flynnwood (24 Oct 2022)

When Truss et al announced that mini budget of a big supply of debt (tax cuts), the markets reacted.

It's so bizarre (incompetence?) that nowhere in Downing St thought - that would *not* happen and pressed on anyway.


----------



## Jameshow (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Tax is a dreadful tool. If you increase taxes all that happens is that those at the top move their money, or themselves to a lower tax environment. The top 1% pay most of the personal taxes in the UK, so if you tax them out of the country, then the tax burden falls more heavily on those left. Equally, if you tax business too heavily you simply see businesses move to a more tax efficient environment. This reduces employment and tax revenue. If you want the largest tax income for the country you move to a single rate for everyone. Yes, it sounds counter intuitive, but there are enough studies to demonstrate that this is the best system. With a low rate of tax, tax sheltering becomes un-necessary, and in fact you attract more of the seriously wealth people to move their tax domicile to the UK. The stumbling block is that the left, who are adamant that this a folly, ‘it’s the rich getting richer’ (the problem with this argument is they do anyway, but not necessarily whilst paying tax in the UK) and it strikes a cord with the larger population. Higher taxes stifles a country, reduces economic activity, the wealthy move out and the less wealthy are worse off.
> 
> An example of a low tax environment is Singapore. The max personal tax is 22% for nine residents, and a graduated scale up to 22% for residents. I’ve avoided Monty Carlow that has no income tax at all, the government derives its income from VAT.


I disagree....

The top 1% covers drs, lawyers, CEO and directors, etc etc. 

They cannot move out of the country! 

Those that I have contact with, were dead against the reduction from 45 -40% income tax. The situation as it stands now is fairly fair and I doubt Sunak will change it much. 

The benefits system needs to stop being a top up to low salaries and the multinationals need to start paying a living wage, then the tax burden will start reducing.


----------



## jcassidy (24 Oct 2022)

Seriously off topic now, maybe a new thread!


----------



## ajs (24 Oct 2022)

I think this proceeds from a false assumption, namely that you can outguess the markets. Our former Chancellor and soon-to-be former PM are evidence you can't. The "markets" are not a uniform body but are traders in various capacities making much the same forward looking analysis you attempt but they do that professionally and have far better information.

In view of this I don't think you can reasonably expect divine insight, except possibly on the behaviour of the markets themselves. History, even very recent history, has shown them to hate risk and uncertainty. They'll deal with it but at a margin above the risks involved. Now Sunak is confirmed as next PM hopefully the markets will settle down over the next couple of months. Once things are clearer you are likely to have better offers available. They won't be as good as the one you have now because we are in an inflationary economy, worldwide, not just the UK, but they hopefully won't have that risk premium attached.


----------



## julianf (24 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> The benefits system needs to stop being a top up to low salaries and the multinationals need to start paying a living wage, then the tax burden will start reducing.



Benefits scroungers -

All those hugely wealthy companies relying on the tax payer subsidising the wage of their workforce.


It's all about market economics until there's some cash to be had out of the tax payer. Then it's working tax credits and energy price subsidiaries.


----------



## D_W (24 Oct 2022)

There seems to be a huge notion from a few here who probably don't pay much in taxes that someone else is getting all of the benefits while they're paying pounds and they're taking it from the few who are getting pounds in paying benefits and paying taxes on the the order of a pence. 

You can do what a lot of states in the US have done - just keep raising taxes on the notion that nobody will care, and watch your tax base dwindle as those who can afford to leave and head somewhere else do. 

Or you could be more fiscally responsible. I think the former will happen - places in the northeast here, as well as some california municipalities seem to be learning the lesson very slowly. 

The loudest protests here come from people who pay little into society for what they take back out of it.


----------



## julianf (24 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> There seems to be a huge notion from a few here who probably don't pay much in taxes that someone else is getting all of the benefits



Again, i would ask for clarity -

The government spent £600 billion over covid. My 3 person family does not have an extra £45k in the bank, so where has that money gone?

Its a simple question.


----------



## deema (24 Oct 2022)

There are definitely areas of enterprise that can’t be moved abroad, however their head offices can be. A common tax havens are Eire, or Southern Ireland and Holland to name two. The head office simply applies a management charge on its satellite company’s, moving taxable profit to another low tax country. It’s costing the UK billions in lost tax opportunity. So take Amazon, whose European headquarters is based in tax efficient Luxembourg. Looking at Facebook, last years UK taxes were £29 million on £3.3 billion of sales. They are legally being tax efficient, and doing it only because the UK has a high level of tax. 

The top earners can live anywhere, and they do. They only pay the taxes they want to, by using the tax rules / moving to a favourable tax regime. For instance, if you reside in Portugal (dead easy if you have money even after the UK left the EU), you don’t pay death duty. If you invest in farm land in the UK you don’t pay death duty. If you don’t take a salary and instead get paid by dividends you pay capital gains at 10%, and don’t pay any national Insurance individually or your company on your salary. All perfectly legal and above board. These are simple tweaks anyone can make, not tax efficient structures that involve accountants and legals to create. When your earning millions, you put into place efficient structures. In general (there are always exceptions) Nobody willing pays any more tax than they think they have to, everyone would like to pay less tax. 

We live in a global economy not in an isolated island. When we look at UK wages, we have to compare what it costs to employ someone anywhere in the world. The trend towards home-working will only exacerbated the move to off shore jobs that were nice ‘safe in the UK’. If you have someone working from home in the UK, why not have someone doing the same job in a low labour cost country? The answer is, you would! Because if you don’t your competitor will. In the 70’s 25% of the UK GDP was from manufacturing, now we are down to around 11% and it keeps falling. 

The developed nations have a problem, is a problem nobody has an answer to. Employment in these countries requires high skills and education than our parents required. However, as we know, not everyone is made equal. Interact like everything has a distribution, those on the low spectrum will find it difficult if not impossible to find meaningful paid work. What as a nation do these countries do with these people? As the education requirement continually increases the number of people trapped in this position grows. 

So, the over riding conclusion which is well documented, is the higher the taxes go, the fewer actually pay it, the government throttles how much revenue it could actually achieve. The less there is for the country to spend on the bottom end of society. However, politically, to change the tax system is considered too toxic to touch, the left would scream its lining the pockets of the rich.


----------



## sploo (24 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> There seems to be a huge notion from a few here who probably don't pay much in taxes that someone else is getting all of the benefits while they're paying pounds and they're taking it from the few who are getting pounds in paying benefits and paying taxes on the the order of a pence.
> 
> You can do what a lot of states in the US have done - just keep raising taxes on the notion that nobody will care, and watch your tax base dwindle as those who can afford to leave and head somewhere else do.
> 
> ...


Whilst the "they get everything and we get nothing" attitude is a common human problem I'd have to greatly disagree with your final sentence. The groups who pay the least into society vs what they take out of it (in relative terms) are the massive multinationals that make - literally - billions of dollars in profit in a jurisdiction, but do not pay taxes there due to legalised tax avoidance mechanisms. Whether you're talking the road network, the health or education systems, or the rule of law, those organisations can literally only do business because of the taxpayer funded infrastructure present in those markets. Essentially, they eat the meal at a restaurant, but leave the bill to be paid by others.

Personally, having (at least at some previous times during my career) paid more in income tax in a year than the average UK national wage, I don't oppose taxation as it's vital for providing basic services that should be available to all (education, healthcare, transport etc). What I do oppose is those at the wealthiest end of society using their wealth to avoid paying into their society... and for what? Once you have multiple houses and a fleet of nice cars, does it really make a difference to have yet another mil' in the bank?


----------



## sploo (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> So, the over riding conclusion which is well documented, is the higher the taxes go, the fewer actually pay it, the government throttles how much revenue it could actually achieve. The less there is for the country to spend on the bottom end of society. However, politically, to change the tax system is considered too toxic to touch, the left would scream its lining the pockets of the rich.


Or (and I appreciate it could never happen in reality) have a tax system whereby you're taxed regardless of where you are; such that the wealthy are free to use their wealth to live wherever they want, but you can't avoid paying a fair percentage on profits by moving legal ownership to a tax haven, or taking up some special status (e.g. non-dom) in order to avoid paying tax.


----------



## Jacob (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> ......
> 
> So, the over riding conclusion which is well documented, is the higher the taxes go, the fewer actually pay it, .......


If true (how would we know?) it's surely not beyond the wit of HMRC to collect more effectively. Would mean investing more in HMRC and pursuing cases more forcefully. Even if not profitable it would act as a deterrent.
Too many people just trotting out mantras about how they'd all go offshore and/or action would be counter productive etc. Well they would say that wouldn't they?
I don't believe it!


----------



## deema (24 Oct 2022)

sploo said:


> Or (and I appreciate it could never happen in reality) have a tax system whereby you're taxed regardless of where you are; such that the wealthy are free to use their wealth to live wherever they want, but you can't avoid paying a fair percentage on profits by moving legal ownership to a tax haven, or taking up some special status (e.g. non-dom) in order to avoid paying tax.


Well, that’s simply not true. In fact one of my last jobs was helping to reorganise the structure if a company to reduce significantly taxes in high tax countries, one of which was the UK. We off shored it. 
Income is taxed where it is generated in general, so you just organise where your income is generated, it’s not titslky dependant in where you are physically.


----------



## sploo (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Well, that’s simply not true. In fact one of my last jobs was helping to reorganise the structure if a company to reduce significantly taxes in high tax countries, one of which was the UK. We off shored it.
> Income is taxed where it is generated in general, so you just organise where your income is generated, it’s not titslky dependant in where you are physically.


I guess it depends on the definition of where it was "generated"; I'm talking about the dodges of selling an item in one country but accounting it such that the profit appears to have been made elsewhere (i.e. a low tax jurisdiction). Which kinda sounds like what you're describing above (unless I've misunderstood).


----------



## deema (24 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> If true (how would we know?) it's surely not beyond the wit of HMRC to collect more effectively. Would mean investing more in HMRC and pursuing cases more forcefully. Even if not profitable it would act as a deterrent.
> Too many people just trotting out mantras about how they'd all go offshore and/or action would be counter productive etc. Well they would say that wouldn't they?
> I don't believe it!


Again, simply not true. Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is perfectly legal. A more efficient HMRC will only catch more tax evasion……like taking cash for doing a job and not declaring it…..rather than perfectly legal tax avoidance which the wealthy can setup.
So, Jacob, let’s imagine your super wealthy, can live anywhere in the world, take your private jet to anywhere, afford multiple properties in different countries. Are you really saying that you cannot see the attraction of living in a warm barmy climate right now rather than facing winter in the UK? Especially as living their reduces the taxes you have to pay? 

I totally understand and agree that we should try to find away for everyone to have a better life, it’s just nobody had come up with a workable system. Socialism kills millions and degrades living standards, capitalism creates larger and Larger inequalities, however, everyone becomes wealthier…..just not at the same rate.


----------



## sploo (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Again, simply not true. Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is perfectly legal. A more efficient HMRC will only catch more tax evasion……like taking cash for doing a job and not declaring it…..rather than perfectly legal tax avoidance which the wealthy can setup.
> So, Jacob, let’s imagine your super wealthy, can live anywhere in the world, take your private jet to anywhere, afford multiple properties in different countries. Are you really saying that you cannot see the attraction of living in a warm barmy climate right now rather than facing winter in the UK? Especially as living their reduces the taxes you have to pay?
> 
> I totally understand and agree that we should try to find away for everyone to have a better life, it’s just nobody had come up with a workable system. Socialism kills millions and degrades living standards, capitalism creates larger and Larger inequalities, however, everyone becomes wealthier…..just not at the same rate.


I was with you on that until "everyone becomes wealthier…..just not at the same rate". I'm not sure people using foodbanks and watching their real income drop would agree.

Also, surely you could live wherever you wanted (as a wealthy individual) but also not engage in legal (but immoral) tax avoidance that strips money out of the areas whose resources you used to generate your profit? Ultimately, services have to be funded (education, healthcare etc); so either everyone else ends up picking up the tab, or paying privately - either way, not exactly making those at the bottom wealthier.


----------



## deema (24 Oct 2022)

sploo said:


> I guess it depends on the definition of where it was "generated"; I'm talking about the dodges of selling an item in one country but accounting it such that the profit appears to have been made elsewhere (i.e. a low tax jurisdiction). Which kinda sounds like what you're describing above (unless I've misunderstood).


Exactly. Now, Eire has a low rate of corporation tax, it’s been the subject of a lot of debate within the EU. The Irish government get a seriously increased cash generation on company corporation tax compared with if they increased corporation tax to the ‘normal’ around Europe. If they did, their revenue would fall……low level of tax is a win for them. They are adamant they are sticking to a low level of tax, otherwise company’s would simply move their head offices to other low tax counties. The UK as well as other countries within the EU miss out on billions on tax revenue as a consequence.


----------



## sploo (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Exactly. Now, Eire has a low rate of corporation tax, it’s been the subject of a lot of debate within the EU. The Irish government get a seriously increased cash generation on company corporation tax compared with if they increased corporation tax to the ‘normal’ around Europe. If they did, their revenue would fall……low level of tax is a win for them. They are adamant they are sticking to a low level of tax, otherwise company’s would simply move their head offices to other low tax counties. The UK as well as other countries within the EU miss out on billions on tax revenue as a consequence.


Agreed. Sadly the only solution would be worldwide agreements to not offer such low rates (unlikely) or some system whereby larger (financially) nations prevented companies from doing business in their jurisdiction if that company engages in such behaviour. I wouldn't hold my breath though.


----------



## deema (24 Oct 2022)

sploo said:


> I was with you on that until "everyone becomes wealthier…..just not at the same rate". I'm not sure people using foodbanks and watching their real income drop would agree.
> 
> Also, surely you could live wherever you wanted (as a wealthy individual) but also not engage in legal (but immoral) tax avoidance that strips money out of the areas whose resources you used to generate your profit? Ultimately, services have to be funded (education, healthcare etc); so either everyone else ends up picking up the tab, or paying privately - either way, not exactly making those at the bottom wealthier.



There is always much talk of the poverty line, but not much understanding of what it is. It’s actually what is considered the minimum income level in a specific country to live. So, it’s different for the UK to say a third world country. The international poverty line is set at $2.15 / person / day. On that basis, which we wouldn’t want to be compared with, nobody in the UK is in poverty! What I’m trying to highlight, is that the threshold of what is considered poor in the UK keeps increasing, it’s far higher than most of the world. To out it another way, it now considered necessary for everyone to be have access to the internet. Something in say 1980 it wasn’t.


----------



## julianf (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> There are definitely areas of enterprise that can’t be moved abroad, however their head offices can be. A common tax havens are Eire, or Southern Ireland and Holland to name two. The head office simply applies a management charge on its satellite company’s, moving taxable profit to another low tax country. It’s costing the UK billions in lost tax opportunity. So take Amazon, whose European headquarters is based in tax efficient Luxembourg. Looking at Facebook, last years UK taxes were £29 million on £3.3 billion of sales. They are legally being tax efficient, and doing it only because the UK has a high level of tax.
> 
> The top earners can live anywhere, and they do. They only pay the taxes they want to, by using the tax rules / moving to a favourable tax regime. For instance, if you reside in Portugal (dead easy if you have money even after the UK left the EU), you don’t pay death duty. If you invest in farm land in the UK you don’t pay death duty. If you don’t take a salary and instead get paid by dividends you pay capital gains at 10%, and don’t pay any national Insurance individually or your company on your salary. All perfectly legal and above board. These are simple tweaks anyone can make, not tax efficient structures that involve accountants and legals to create. When your earning millions, you put into place efficient structures. In general (there are always exceptions) Nobody willing pays any more tax than they think they have to, everyone would like to pay less tax.
> 
> ...





Money is a token that is related to assets. Money without physical assets is akin to me having a bundle of monopoly cash in my pocket. Its the relationship that the token has to the assets that gives it worth.

So, forget about the very mobile token, and tax the asset that it relates to, as they are, generally, considerably less mobile.

My car example was maybe confusing, as cars seem somewhat mobile. Here in the uk, a significant part of our countries "wealth" is in real estate. The clue for that is, quite literally, in the name - REAL ESTATE, not intangible assets.

That's not going anywhere at all.

The bottom line is that, sure, you get things like facebook or whatever that seem like they are ethereal but the money always ends up, somewhere along the line, being tied to actual "stuff", rather than just being a number on a computer monitor. The actual stuff isn't as easy to move to tax havens as the numbers on the screen.


This thread was about mortgages - 

A couple of generations ago, people owned their own homes, with one person working and one person normally staying at home. Working fairly standard jobs.
Then it was two people working fairly standard jobs.
Now we have seen massive price inflation in the property market, such that most people working "standard" jobs, without some cash hand-out from their parents, are excluded from home ownership.

Again, the uk, even more so than other countries, holds its "wealth" in real estate. With spiralling wealth inequality, an increasing amount of the bricks and mortar is being held by a smaller and smaller number of people.

It's not easy to move it to Portugal.


As a closing point, if you have doubts about wealth being held in real-estate, id remind you of the 2008 issue, and what caused that. Real estate is not just a little bit of nothing. Its significant. And not very mobile.


----------



## deema (24 Oct 2022)

sploo said:


> Agreed. Sadly the only solution would be worldwide agreements to not offer such low rates (unlikely) or some system whereby larger (financially) nations prevented companies from doing business in their jurisdiction if that company engages in such behaviour. I wouldn't hold my breath though.


Let’s follow that through. So, say, Microsoft and Apple wouldn’t be allowed to trade in a country…….well that simply wouldn’t work. That’s just two, and I would suggest every major company engages in tax efficiency. So, in other words the country that went down this road would simply stop. 

I can’t remember the details, but the EU did start going down the road of trying to set minimum corporation tax rules, it wasn’t if I recall that successful.


----------



## D_W (24 Oct 2022)

sploo said:


> Whilst the "they get everything and we get nothing" attitude is a common human problem I'd have to greatly disagree with your final sentence. The groups who pay the least into society vs what they take out of it (in relative terms) are the massive multinationals that make - literally - billions of dollars in profit in a jurisdiction, but do not pay taxes there due to legalised tax avoidance mechanisms. Whether you're talking the road network, the health or education systems, or the rule of law, those organisations can literally only do business because of the taxpayer funded infrastructure present in those markets. Essentially, they eat the meal at a restaurant, but leave the bill to be paid by others.
> 
> Personally, having (at least at some previous times during my career) paid more in income tax in a year than the average UK national wage, I don't oppose taxation as it's vital for providing basic services that should be available to all (education, healthcare, transport etc). What I do oppose is those at the wealthiest end of society using their wealth to avoid paying into their society... and for what? Once you have multiple houses and a fleet of nice cars, does it really make a difference to have yet another mil' in the bank?



I guess if they have other options, what you really need to ask is if your society is better off with them or without them. This is often the claim here in the states, too - that they are not paying enough corporate taxes. They distribute their earnings, and their employees pay payroll taxes. The earnings are distributed to things like private and public pension funds (city government, etc), health benefit funds, etc. The evidence for the real effect here in the states is how fast property values increase when there is a big corporate location being established in a locality. In my opinion, the incentives offered to land these things are problematic, because if they weren't offered, the groups would still establish themselves somewhere. But the cities willing to throw deferrals of costs at them are betting that it won't be them. 

All that said, the net effect locally is a benefit, or state wise, or nationally.


----------



## sploo (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> There is always much talk of the poverty line, but not much understanding of what it is. It’s actually what is considered the minimum income level in a specific country to live. So, it’s different for the UK to say a third world country. The international poverty line is set at $2.15 / person / day. On that basis, which we wouldn’t want to be compared with, nobody in the UK is in poverty! What I’m trying to highlight, is that the threshold of what is considered poor in the UK keeps increasing, it’s far higher than most of the world. To out it another way, it now considered necessary for everyone to be have access to the internet. Something in say 1980 it wasn’t.


I think it's about being able to afford a roof over your head, food, and heating; something that a terrifyingly significant percentage of the UK population now cannot do. I get some exposure to this in my current line of work and it's sobering. Rich countries should not have poor people. Not at that level anyway.


----------



## D_W (24 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> Money is a token that is related to assets. Money without physical assets is akin to me having a bundle of monopoly cash in my pocket. Its the relationship that the token has to the assets that gives it worth.
> 
> So, forget about the very mobile token, and tax the asset that it relates to, as they are, generally, considerably less mobile.
> 
> ...



The error here is blaming corporations for the increase in residential housing. It is an increase related to the individual. You (not you specifically, but the average citizen) don't live frugally like a one income household a couple of generations ago nor do you live like one a generation ago with two incomes, and the housing quality structurally may have been fine, but it would've been smaller and with much less comfort let alone decoration inside. 

Borrowing on top of that and decreasing the housing supply and making it harder to build doesn't help, either. 

When individuals stop caring about whether or not they ever own their house, the price will go up - due to the individuals, not someone victimizing them. Once you decide that paying the interest on a loan is just as good as paying off the loan, then the price of the item being bought without unlimited supply will tend toward being set where the price of paying the interest is. 

It's no difference here vs. there. 

60 years ago, the average house was 2x income. It's not that the houses were so much more affordable, it's that they had almost nothing in them and were smaller. at one point before 2008, that had risen to 11. Houses were probably twice as big on average by then and everyone thinks they need to be a lot nicer with more amenities, and the idea that it's no longer sensical to pay off a loan just drives up the price further because the bogey is being able to make a payment, not to pay with the goal of not making a payment.


----------



## sploo (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Let’s follow that through. So, say, Microsoft and Apple wouldn’t be allowed to trade in a country…….well that simply wouldn’t work. That’s just two, and I would suggest every major company engages in tax efficiency. So, in other words the country that went down this road would simply stop.
> 
> I can’t remember the details, but the EU did start going down the road of trying to set minimum corporation tax rules, it wasn’t if I recall that successful.


Absolutely. It would need a level of international cooperation that would be staggeringly unlikely to work. Until it is eradicated though, we just continue to see massive corporations use resources in countries to make large profits, and then drain those profits out without paying back their fair share.


----------



## deema (24 Oct 2022)

@julianf ,let’s think about taxing property. Your suggestion is along the lines of either the bigger the property the more tax you pay, or the value of the property determines how much tax you pay. So, taking the first, taxing the size of a property. If you have a family you need a larger property than if you are single. But we need children as a society, so we are taxing those who are young and starting out in life as adults as opposed to the elderly whose family’s have flown the nest. The incentive is to live in as small a property as possible. The 1% richest, don’t have a very large proportion of the assets in property. That’s what we the normally people have. You would move the burden of tax on to people with families. 

Let’s tax property value. Great, you can either live in say a bed sit in London or a castle in remote part of the UK, both will probably have the same value (a bit tongue to cheek, but you get the idea). Well, that doesn’t work either. As I said the 1% have a very small amount of their wealth tied up in property.


----------



## deema (24 Oct 2022)

sploo said:


> Absolutely. It would need a level of international cooperation that would be staggeringly unlikely to work. Until it is eradicated though, we just continue to see massive corporations use resources in countries to make large profits, and then drain those profits out without paying back their fair share.



Exactly, but remember the ‘PIGS’ Portugal, Ireland, Grease and Spain, well Ireland’s economy has a dependency on its tax structure to support its citizens. It’s hardly going to vote for a change that affects its citizens adversely. 

The problem with changing corporation tax is that in the short term tax revenues decrease, only when company’s see that a tax regime is embedded will they start to change their structures to take advantage of it. In the medium term tax revenues increase. A country has to get through the short term to benefit, equally other countries may react by lowering their corporation tax rates to ‘protect’ their tax revenues.


----------



## julianf (24 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> It is an increase related to the individual. You (not you specifically, but the average citizen) don't live frugally like a one income household a couple of generations ago nor do you live like one a generation ago with two incomes, and the housing quality structurally may have been fine, but it would've been smaller and with much less comfort let alone decoration inside.



Its all Netflix and avocados now. Without them, we would all live like kings.

Joking apart, you know that some people do actually blame the current generation's gap between earnings and housing costs on Netflix subscriptions.

Actually, hang on a moment. Isn't that what you just did?


----------



## sploo (24 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> I guess if they have other options, what you really need to ask is if your society is better off with them or without them. This is often the claim here in the states, too - that they are not paying enough corporate taxes. They distribute their earnings, and their employees pay payroll taxes. The earnings are distributed to things like private and public pension funds (city government, etc), health benefit funds, etc. The evidence for the real effect here in the states is how fast property values increase when there is a big corporate location being established in a locality. In my opinion, the incentives offered to land these things are problematic, because if they weren't offered, the groups would still establish themselves somewhere. But the cities willing to throw deferrals of costs at them are betting that it won't be them.
> 
> All that said, the net effect locally is a benefit, or state wise, or nationally.


They don't (really) distribute their earnings though; which is the problem. They (large multinationals, and the individuals who run them) rack up levels of wealth so high they could never realistically spend. They are (understandably) vested in paying employees the lowest salaries possible for the market; whilst avoiding taxation on their personal and corporate income. The very fact we see (in the UK, the US, and some other countries) such incredible ratios of the net work of the wealthiest to the poorest shows the fallacy of the ideas of trickle down economics and that funding the rich helps make the poor better off.

A quick bit of "google math" tells me that Elon Musk could theoretically give every single citizen in the US over $700. Or, more sensibly, he could have been taxed only half his wealth (he'll have to muddle by on the remaining $120 billion), and give the bottom 10% of the US population $3500 in financial support (either directly, or through better social services). Point being: Musk would still be one of the world's richest people, and 33 million people would be significantly better off.


----------



## sploo (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Exactly, but remember the ‘PIGS’ Portugal, Ireland, Grease and Spain, well Ireland’s economy has a dependency on its tax structure to support its citizens. It’s hardly going to vote for a change that affects its citizens adversely.
> 
> The problem with changing corporation tax is that in the short term tax revenues decrease, only when company’s see that a tax regime is embedded will they start to change their structures to take advantage of it. In the medium term tax revenues increase. A country has to get through the short term to benefit, equally other countries may react by lowering their corporation tax rates to ‘protect’ their tax revenues.


I assume the 'PIGS' acronym isn't accidental (in terms of the reference to greed)?


----------



## julianf (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> @julianf ,let’s think about taxing property. Your suggestion is along the lines of either the bigger the property the more tax you pay, or the value of the property determines how much tax you pay. So, taking the first, taxing the size of a property. If you have a family you need a larger property than if you are single. But we need children as a society, so we are taxing those who are young and starting out in life as adults as opposed to the elderly whose family’s have flown the nest. The incentive is to live in as small a property as possible. The 1% richest, don’t have a very large proportion of the assets in property. That’s what we the normally people have. You would move the burden of tax on to people with families.
> 
> Let’s tax property value. Great, you can either live in say a bed sit in London or a castle in remote part of the UK, both will probably have the same value (a bit tongue to cheek, but you get the idea). Well, that doesn’t work either. As I said the 1% have a very small amount of their wealth tied up in property.



Where is that 1%'s wealth tied up then? Stocks and shares.... Shares of what? At the end of it all, it comes down to something physical.

I'm a "home owner" but the bank owns a significant portion of the property. And who owns the bank? Investors in the stock market....

You're entirely missing my point if you're counting bedrooms and children in some sort of "council tax" way.

What I'm trying to explain is that the markets are all, ultimately, tied to "stuff". At the end of the long and complex chain there is a "something" that is generally less mobile than some numbers on a screen.


----------



## deema (24 Oct 2022)

The world is getting far more complicated to navigate. Unfortunately, about 5.6% of the population has an IQ of 70 or less, they are considered intellectually disabled. They are highly unlikely to ever hold down really well paid job, acquire wealth, or participate fully in society. The division of wealth has many factors that affect it, some of which have no answer, it’s not all about greed.


----------



## deema (24 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> Where is that 1%'s wealth tied up then? Stocks and shares.... Shares of what? At the end of it all, it comes down to something physical.
> 
> I'm a "home owner" but the bank owns a significant portion of the property. And who owns the bank? Investors in the stock market....
> 
> ...



It could be physical, and taking shares in your example, a balanced portfolio of shares (to mitigate risk) would see shares being acquired in company’s based in say America, Far East, and Europe. Not in a specific single country. You don’t put all you eggs in one basket to coin a phrase. People also speculate on currency fluctuations and also in say Bitcoin which is definitely intangible. Not everything you can invest in is physical.


----------



## D_W (24 Oct 2022)

I guess I'm not getting my point across - if the multinational has a local presence, whether it's headquarters or not, and no matter how much their ceo is paid, is it worse for the area for the M-N to have operations there. 

For example, let's assume it's walmart in the US and they want to put in a distribution center. None of the taxes will be paid locally other than payroll taxes and property taxes. 

My brother in law lives near an interstate. Some giant property fund wanted to establish a distribution center - which meant a lot of truck traffic. They are between routes that go west and NYC and New Jersey and Philly are to the east. 

Most people would say "we don't want all of the trucks there". I think those facilities are garish, too. However, they employ at least several hundred people and the deal on the real estate is that the taxes for the facility are so high that ever resident is seeing an offset to their property taxes of around $500 a year. 

I'm sure the facility is profitable. None of that profit will be distributed locally. The local economy is still far better off due to property taxes paid and payroll taxes paid by the employees working. 

This is a fairly complex thing because often the choice locally isn't whether or not you get a slice of everything, it's whether or not you get something more like my BIL's township. His is also relatively simple because the center is right next to an interstate, so the traffic on the interstate is increased, but other than a connector, nobody else notices. 

it becomes more complex, for example, when a lower income borough in NY is looking at getting in something like an amazon distribution center, the local population is heavily taxed, and the borough decides to throw enormous amounts of incentives at amazon to locate there. I don't know for sure what I just said there is perfectly accurate, but my city was in the running to get some mega distribution center vs. just something more typical away from the city, and the amount that amazon was demanding didn't make sense to me in combination with the nature of the jobs and the fact that just by its size, it would drive up some local property values. 

That was a case where the city or county still made an absurd offer, but still, fortunately, lost out.


----------



## Spectric (24 Oct 2022)

jcassidy said:


> Smoking kills, therefore we should tax it more, because it costs the NHS lots of money. But then again, smoking kills, so we should tax it less because we save on pension payouts... Oh the decisions!!!


A complicated equation is this one, whilst smoking they pay a high rate of duty to the government, if they die before pensionable age then no problems as you have the duty and no pension payout but the stumbling block is that many will reach pensionable age along with COPD and other related illnesses so now you are paying out pension and the cost of keeping them alive. So they need to smoke more to pay more duty and die sooner to be an all round winner for the treasury.


----------



## D_W (24 Oct 2022)

I think you guys are in trouble not because you can't get enough tax out of the multinationals, but if you try to, they will leave, and you will be even worse off. The north central part of my state is like that - HQ of companies wasn't generally there, but there was manufacturing and sometimes development there. The areas are really dead, with declining population, loss of business services (like retail) to those remaining, and what's left is mostly older folks with increasing property tax rates because of the lack of income taxes from the loss of jobs. 

I think the east and west in the US will be seeing the same thing, and there will be decline in the NYC corridor and LA area, just the same as what we saw in the rust belt here in the US where spending was done based on an expectation of future business, and much of the business ended or went to the southern US where the taxes and public costs are a lot lower.


----------



## D_W (24 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> A complicated equation is this one, whilst smoking they pay a high rate of duty to the government, if they die before pensionable age then no problems as you have the duty and no pension payout but the stumbling block is that many will reach pensionable age along with COPD and other related illnesses so now you are paying out pension and the cost of keeping them alive. So they need to smoke more to pay more duty and die sooner to be an all round winner for the treasury.



In most countries, smokers cost less over their lifetime than non-smokers. This is absolutely true in the US where public benefits are highly tilted toward later in life and much of the pre-65 health costs are insured, but I saw a study and posted it here not that long ago for Denmark or somewhere else in continental europe where it was also true despite public health benefits. 

The fact that people think Smokers are a burden on society financially doesn't make sense - their life is generally shortened for a period while they're on benefits but not affected before then. But it persists despite reality, anyway, because almost nobody looks at the entire picture. that' makes them a convenient target for additional product or sin taxes.


----------



## julianf (24 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> People also speculate on currency fluctuations and also in say Bitcoin which is definitely intangible. Not everything you can invest in is physical.



I've snipped part of your reply, as i really feel that i need to focus on this point.

You mention bitcoin -

Bitcoin is a token. The £5 note in my pocket is a token. One is printed on a bit of plastic, and the other is not. That is the ONLY difference. They're both just tokens.

....and those tokens are tied to real world things. 

This is the think that i keep saying, in different ways, but it seems that you are finding difficulty with.

Maybe if i put it another way -

What would be the point of a bitcoin if it was not linked to the physical world? I fear mentioning my monopoly money again, but i will - that is a "token" that is not linked to real "stuff" so it is without value. My point is that the token is always linked to something physical in the end. If it wasn't, really, why would it have value? 

"Because you can buy other tokens with it..."

That pushes the question along one more step, but the question remains - why would anyone want any of the tokens, if they couldnt, at some point, be exchanged for real world items?

There is always "stuff" at the end of it all.

Your NFT is just another bitcoin type thing. Its value is always related to the physical world.


...and its that physical world that cant just be whizzed about between tax havens in the same way.


I know this is all seeming very conceptual now, but say we swing an axe and say that any company holding over £100m of UK real estate gets taxed 1% of the estate value, what happens then?


----------



## johna.clements (24 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> I guess I'm not getting my point across - if the multinational has a local presence, whether it's headquarters or not, and no matter how much their ceo is paid, is it worse for the area for the M-N to have operations there.
> 
> For example, let's assume it's walmart in the US and they want to put in a distribution center. None of the taxes will be paid locally other than payroll taxes and property taxes.


If a multi national is not paying the same taxes as a local business it can out compete the local company. 

It is perfectly possible to tax the export of profits from a locality and payment of fees to outside bodies.


----------



## deema (25 Oct 2022)

@julianf I fully understand what your saying, but, your assuming that everyone uses their tokens within a short period to accumulate real world things. They don’t. Most people will have some savings in a bank account, it’s a collection of tokens. Most people will be putting money into a pension, they can’t access it until a certain age. It’s not realisable / locked away. Now, let’s assume you have a billion pounds. Just how much will you spend of that in say a life time? Just how many physical assists will you have? 
If I own one share in say Apple, just how much physical assets do I have? In reality none. I can’t point to a brick, in an Amazon building and say I own it. If I own 10,000 shares, again the same applies, it’s an intrinsic ownership, it’s not physically real. Now, you may say, the company is real, so you own part of that, let’s tax that. OK, but Amazon is listed on the New York Stock exchange, not within the UK tax regime as a physical entity, so that doesn’t help the UK Tax collectors. 

Let’s look at moving any amount of money between two bank accounts that anyone may have. If I move £1 from the HSBC to say NatWest, the bank in the old days would physically move paper money. Now it’s just an electronic transfer of Tokens, it’s not real world stuff. If I’m cleaver, I can move money between say a bank account in Europe, the USA and say the UK and if I do it at the right time in the right order increase the value of the money exponentially due to currency exchange fluctuations. I don’t need to own anything physical to make unimaginable levels of wealth. I can also take positions (in essence betting) on what is going to happen to the value of certain shares without ever owning a share and make money on the fluctuations of those shares. You simply don’t have to own anything to increase your wealth. When you have enough wealth, you will never spend it as it’s more than you will ever need, and you don’t have to have it as physical stuff for it to continue to increase in value.


----------



## johna.clements (25 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> @julianf
> If I own one share in say Apple, just how much physical assets do I have? In reality none. I can’t point to a brick, in an Amazon building and say I own it. If I own 10,000 shares, again the same applies, it’s an intrinsic ownership, it’s not physically real. Now, you may say, the company is real, so you own part of that, let’s tax that. OK, but Amazon is listed on the New York Stock exchange, not within the UK tax regime as a physical entity, so that doesn’t help the UK Tax collectors.


As I stated above it is perfectly possible to tax the export of profit and fees.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (25 Oct 2022)

Multi-nationals can locate wherever suits them in terms of tax, regulation, labour cost etc. Digital services can be delivered from anywhere at close to zero cost, and the costs of container freight low (pandemic impacts excepted)

Even were tax subject to global regulation (unlikely for a few decades), the non-tax differentials would still exist.

The solution may be to change the tax and regulatory regime to minimise the competitive advantage of offshore locations - eg:

increased sales tax (VAT) offset by reduced corporate taxes
free trade zones with more limited regulation
taxing energy consumption, limiting PAYE and taxes on income
increased import duties to favour local production (risk of retaliation)
The above presupposes that freedom of choice exists for consumers, and that market forces drive corporate and individual behaviours. Policy should be reality driven, not based upon dogma no matter how attractive that may superficially be.


----------



## julianf (25 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> @julianf your assuming that everyone uses their tokens within a short period to accumulate real world things.



No, not at all. What i am, however, saying is that all these tokens are eventually linked to real world assets.

Take again bitcoin. It has no value other than what you can swap it for. You might swap it for an NFT. You might swap it for a bit of plastic with a picture of the queen on it. You might swap around in circles for ever.

But, ultimately, its the link to the real world assets that you can swap them for that makes them "worth" anything. Its the "i will pay the bearer on demand" aspect.

The BOE will not pay the bearer their pound of gold or whatever. But, ultimately, someone will give you some physical thing for your token. I'm not saying you want that to happen. But its the ability that it will, in some way or other, that gives the token "value".

What I'm saying is ignore the token, and tax the physical asset. If anyone thinks they can store all their "wealth" as NFTs or bitcoin and somehow escape the physical world, so be it.

Or, put another way, say i become king tomorrow, and impose my tax on wealth by going after the physical assets, rather than the tokens, do you think that no one will want houses any more, but everyone will want bitcoin?


----------



## baldkev (25 Oct 2022)

Dont mind me, im just hanging out


----------



## johna.clements (25 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Multi-nationals can locate wherever suits them in terms of tax, regulation, labour cost etc. Digital services can be delivered from anywhere at close to zero cost, and the costs of container freight low (pandemic impacts excepted)
> 
> Even were tax subject to global regulation (unlikely for a few decades), the non-tax differentials would still exist.
> 
> ...


Yes "Multi-nationals can locate wherever suits them in terms of tax, regulation, labour cost etc". You could headquarters Terry Wood Working Tools in the Caymans but if you wanted to sell your tools in the UK you would have to do it mail order and pay duties or set up a store in the UK. Terry Wood Working Tools UK could pay a fee to Terry Wood Working Tools Cayman so that it does not turn a profitand pay tax. To stop this the UK could tax the fee paid to the Caymans.


----------



## Marcusthehat (25 Oct 2022)

I am not in the least religious, but the Bible does contain some pithy distilled wisdom,
"the poor will always be with us"
Which, despite our generous welfare/benefits society of the past 60 years, has unfortunately proved to be all too true.
No matter how much money you provide.
There are those who simply cannot cope.
They will always be poor.
But others with less will still make good. Stalin called them Kulacks.
I imagine we all see evidence of this sad fact every day. But some deny the evidence.
Good night,
Marcus


----------



## bryan267 (25 Oct 2022)

Always makes me laugh when Keir Starmer asks a conservative MP what they are going to do about the £500 increase in the average mortgage cost. It's not conservative policy, its the global policy of quantities easing that's been in place since the banking crisis. 

I run investment portfolios for clients and I have been betting on rising interest rates for over 5 years. Sold the last of our fixed interest and index linked holdings in February. None of us know why it's taken this long to start. But look at interest rates in other countries, we are comparatively low and will end up with a bank run if we don't keep pace. Which could devalue the pound. Why the defending conservative politicians don't call Starmer out on his accusations I don't know.

I'm qualified to do mortgages but don't, lot of mortgage guys will be short of work soon. In short, last years 1.1% fixed for 5 years were great offers. If I was deciding again today, I would go for 5 years again, even at 6%. To expect interest rates of 1% again on borrowing is extremely risky. But I and no one here can make any promises they're sure about if they know how complicated the markets are. There will be more interest rate rises, but the mortgage market has already factored in a lot more than those we can currently see on the horizon. There is a chance if BOE stop increasing rates that mortgage fixed rates might drop below where they are now. But it's a slim chance. 

People have lost their houses in a similar environment before. I recall the politicians of the day promising it will happen again. Lenders will offer fixed and discount rate deals you can afford, then refuse your application on affordability leaving you the variable rate you can't afford. Good luck, hope you make the right call.


----------



## deema (25 Oct 2022)

We’ve been talking about moving profit to a tax efficient locality, what we’ve not touched in is how it’s done. It’s not just moving ‘profit’, wha5 needs to happen is that the tax efficient place provides a legitimate service or goods that are charged for. The amount of this charge is managed to be roughly the expected profit for the company 8n the tax inefficient location. There is a lot of legislation to tip toe around, but whilst trade is allowed between different locations, a solution can be found. So, for instance simple examples could be. These are real simple things and nit moving to more complex methods.
License to be paid for the use of the company brand. 
Centralising accountancy functions to the tax efficient country and charge for the service
Centralising legal or HR functions
Distributing the cost of running head office through a management charge.
All cash is lent from the head office at an inter company interest rate. 

What I’m trying to highlight that it’s relatively easy to move profits, it’s almost impossible for governments to prevent it. The focus therefore should be creating an environment where company’s don’t try to need to deploy these strategies. For instance, Ireland doesn’t worry about these problems, it has a tax efficient environment for business.


----------



## deema (25 Oct 2022)

Locking up on the bible quote. In the UK there is a definition of being poor. This is taken from Poverty definitions and thresholds | Trust for London that’s just a reference, it’s a generally accepted threshold.

‘Households are considered to be below the UK poverty line if their income is 60% below the median household income after housing costs for that year.’

The definition means that no matter what happens there will always be those who are considered poor.


----------



## Jacob (25 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Locking up on the bible quote. In the UK there is a definition of being poor. This is taken from Poverty definitions and thresholds | Trust for London that’s just a reference, it’s a generally accepted threshold.
> 
> ‘Households are considered to be below the UK poverty line if their income is 60% below the median household income after housing costs for that year.’
> 
> The definition means that no matter what happens there will always be those who are considered poor.


Only if we stick to that definition. It's not an excuse for asserting that poverty is unavoidable, it's just a rule of thumb.


----------



## J-G (25 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Only if we stick to that definition. It's not an excuse for asserting that poverty is unavoidable, it's just a rule of thumb.


But that 'Rule of Thumb' is used by many to assert that 'poverty' is rife - which it is not (in this country)


----------



## Jacob (25 Oct 2022)

J-G said:


> But that 'Rule of Thumb' is used by many to assert that 'poverty' is rife - which it is not (in this country)


Is it not? What are all these food banks for?









The Trussell Trust - Stop UK Hunger


The Trussell Trust is working to stop UK hunger and poverty. Our network of foodbanks provides emergency food and support to people in crisis.




www.trusselltrust.org












State of Hunger


94% of people at food banks are in destitution. This isn't right.



www.stateofhunger.org






https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8585/




https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/


----------



## deema (25 Oct 2022)

There are two aspects to your comment @Jacob. Firstly, I’m sure everyone would agree that it’s a good thing to always increase the living standards of everyone in society, to raise the bar so to speak. In the UK that has, and is happening, perhaps not as quickly as people would like, but it is happening. Secondly, it’s a definition, we talk of Rich and Poor. We say the super wealthy are the top 1% of the population, well, we will always have the top 1% irrespective, so they there will always be the ‘super rich’. In the same way we have a definition of poor, that’s also a percentage of the population. The trouble is that people get mixed up with a label and actual living standards. Now, poor is relative to a society / country. The poor in the UK would be considered rich in other societies, where people are struggling to earn $2.14 / day / person.


----------



## Jacob (25 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> ..we talk of Rich and Poor. We say the super wealthy are the top 1% of the population, ....so there will always be the ‘super rich’.


Always be a top 1% but they won't necessarily always own more than 50% the wealth, or even be "super" rich for that matter, in an ideal world.
You've confused yourself with the figures, easily done!





The Scale of Economic Inequality in the UK | The Equality Trust


The UK has the 7th most unequal incomes of 30 countries in the developed world, but is about average in terms of wealth inequality. While the top fifth have nearly 50% of the country's income and 60% of the country's wealth, the bottom fifth have only 4% of the income and only 1% of the wealth.




equalitytrust.org.uk


----------



## deema (25 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Is it not? What are all these food banks for?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is just so much about those reports that needs to be critically considered. Firstly, there will always be people who find it difficult to manage money, or for what ever reason find themselves financially compromised. However, as an example, let’s take the report on State of Hunger, one of their big headlines is that people using food banks have £50 / week to live on AFTER housing costs. Well, the UK full state pension is presently £195 a week. I’m suggesting that after typical housing and no other sources of income they will have around £50 to live off if not less. Their needs are totally different to say a family with a couple of kids, or a single working age person. That’s why, almost all studies classify the minimum monetary requirements of people based on age, how many dependants they have and exactly where they live. Central London has a different cost of living than say the North of the UK.


----------



## Jacob (25 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> There is just so much about those reports that needs to be critically considered. ...


Yes undoubtedly. They certainly shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.


----------



## deema (25 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Always be a top 1% but they won't necessarily always own more than 50% the wealth, or even be "super" rich for that matter, in an ideal world.
> You've confused yourself with the figures, easily done!
> 
> 
> ...



The focus again is what the top 1% have. What I’d like you to consider is, what difference does it make? Let’s instead focus on what the bottom have, and is it sufficient to have a decent life? If the answer is they do, then the super rich can have as much wealth as they want. This keeps changing, and the definition keeps getting broader. I’m in my fifties, but as a boy, not everyone had an inside toilet, a fridge, a freezer, a car, a television, a telephone in the house, a washing machine, or a computer. A lot never had a holiday or even ventured outside the local area. That was ‘normal’, now if you don’t have access to these you are considered deprived, and I would agree.


----------



## Jacob (25 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> The focus again is what the top 1% have. What I’d like you to consider is, what difference does it make? ....


Good question. It is an indication of what the bottom 50% *could* have, if things were different.
PS and the good news of course is that it takes relatively little to radically improve the quality of life of those at the bottom


----------



## thetyreman (25 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> There is just so much about those reports that needs to be critically considered. Firstly, there will always be people who find it difficult to manage money, or for what ever reason find themselves financially compromised. However, as an example, let’s take the report on State of Hunger, one of their big headlines is that people using food banks have £50 / week to live on AFTER housing costs. Well, the UK full state pension is presently £195 a week. I’m suggesting that after typical housing and no other sources of income they will have around £50 to live off if not less. Their needs are totally different to say a family with a couple of kids, or a single working age person. That’s why, almost all studies classify the minimum monetary requirements of people based on age, how many dependants they have and exactly where they live. Central London has a different cost of living than say the North of the UK.



the north of the UK is actually very expensive as well, especially manchester city centre, it's getting worse in terms of prices, not like it used to be.


----------



## D_W (25 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> Dont mind me, im just hanging out


I think you started this thread talking about real problems and looking for a solution, and then everyone got idealistic and political. Which doesn't solve problems. You might have to start a thread about interest rates


----------



## johna.clements (25 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> We’ve been talking about moving profit to a tax efficient locality, what we’ve not touched in is how it’s done. It’s not just moving ‘profit’, wha5 needs to happen is that the tax efficient place provides a legitimate service or goods that are charged for. The amount of this charge is managed to be roughly the expected profit for the company 8n the tax inefficient location. There is a lot of legislation to tip toe around, but whilst trade is allowed between different locations, a solution can be found. So, for instance simple examples could be. These are real simple things and nit moving to more complex methods.
> License to be paid for the use of the company brand.
> Centralising accountancy functions to the tax efficient country and charge for the service
> Centralising legal or HR functions
> ...



You keep saying it is relatively easy to move profits but when I state that new laws and taxes could be introduced you ignore it and just state again that it is relatively easy to move profits with no justification of the statement.

"License to be paid for the use of the company brand."
Tax licence fees at 10% of turnover.



"Centralising accountancy functions to the tax efficient country and charge for the service
Centralising legal or HR functions"
There are legal duties on directors of companies to try to turn a profit. If the directors are trying to loose money by using a service that is more expensive then they could be criminally prosecuted for misuse of the companies funds. They would have to demonstrate that they could have not purchased that service somewhere else for a lower fee.



"Distributing the cost of running head office through a management charge."
Tax turnover depending on the size of the management charge and size of the company.


"All cash is lent from the head office at an inter company interest rate."
Tax the interest paid on intre company lending when the interest rate is substantially higher than that from banks. The directors would also have to demonstrate why they had to borrow from the offshore company and not another source or possibly face penalties for misuse of company funds.


----------



## akirk (25 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> Again, i would ask for clarity -
> 
> The government spent £600 billion over covid. My 3 person family does not have an extra £45k in the bank, so where has that money gone?
> 
> Its a simple question.


And sadly a flawed question...
It is not as simple as saying that £600B spent is somehow distributed as £600B extra sitting in bank accounts... it wasn't barrow loads of cash handed around...
You only have to consider the high number of people who worked before covid but were then furloughed to realise where a lot of money went - those people won't be seeing extra money in the bank because in effect they have already traded it for not working, so they have had their extra in the form of paid holiday - that was an estimated £60-70B handed out as free cash to allow people to not work - very nice for those who got it... and let's be clear, that was mainly to those who are at lower ends of income.
Not sure where you get your headline £600B figure from - the National Audit Office lists it as £376B:
£147B support for businesses - difficult to quantify who benefited, there are certainly a number of fraud cases in there, but most of this will have been to keep businesses running - and much of that money ends up with employees being paid (e.g. the hospitality businesses)
£89B for health care
£75B for public services and emergency responses
£60B for individuals (e.g. furlough)
£5B for other support etc.

Costs vary from supply of more medical equipment to propping up businesses -> investing to then reduce backlog as we come out of covid (e.g. backed up court cases etc.)

it would be wrong to see it as simplistically as x was spent where is my share - I have no idea of your personal circumstances, e.g. whether you were furloughed etc. - if you were, then that is where your share went, if not, then in the balance of how government works you helped others so that we could have the best possible exit from Covid with businesses and services still running - and to keep that going when basically normal money has stopped circulating is very expensive...

-----------------

regarding your other points on taxation - I think that @deema is very perceptive in the comments being made... I understand your belief that everything comes back to something tangible, but...

a) it really doesn't - there are plenty of examples of bubbles (from the Tulip bubble of the 1600s to the South Sea Bubble to modern crypto bubbles) to realise that you can see wealth being created and destroyed with nothing tangible behind it.
b) the biggest issue is that the taxation powers of authorities doesn't match the patterns their 'subjects' can deploy - the simplest being geography - If I set up a business abroad, and use that as a shell to transact - who gets to tax it? I could be 'poor' in this country - but wealthy on an international basis - e.g. Philip Green who famously owned very little in the UK - his wife, domiciled abroad owned it. I can still enjoy the lifestyle - my 'abroad' company can buy a jet and I can use it to fly me around the world - it can buy me clothes / jewellery / stays in nice hotels / great holidays / expensive boats and cars - yet none of it taxable in the UK. I can fly my car into the UK and drive it here, with zero taxes (other than petrol) - if the car is in the UK for less than 6 months a year I can run it on foreign number plates and it needs no taxing or registration.

So, for the wealthy (who do own a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth) they get to choose where their money will be taxed and where it will be used, and the two do not need to be the same. There will always be a country happy to give the uber wealthy residence - the rules for the wealthy are different.

So, ideally you want our country to be the place where that wealth resides - as then more is spent there and you are taxing (albeit at a lower rate) from a vastly larger pot, which is still more than otherwise. That means being a country of low taxation. And yes that might arguably help the richer people, but they are the ones with alternatives who will help themselves anyway, so it is about setting up an approach which ultimately helps the poorer and high taxation does not help the poor.

Low taxation can make it tricky to balance the books - but a big part of that is to do with spending, not taxation. The media and commentators get it wrong when they keep commenting (e.g. about the Truss budget) that it is unfunded cuts - actually, you can't have an unfunded cut in taxes as you are simply not taking money off people, so it is totally funded as they already have the money and simply keep it - the issue in balancing the books when lowering tax is that you end up with unfunded spending - therefore the big issue is actually government spending, not taxes and that is something the government needs to tackle - we live in an era of ridiculous costs of spending - numbers of civil servants / HS2 / etc.

Ultimately the ideal is low tax - encourage the wealthy in - and then compassion towards those at the poorer end - with a more rigorous understanding of whether they should or should not be getting support (ie try to tackle the abuse of the benefits system)...

We also need to re-visit what actually is essential and what is not - as is noted above, our minimum standards of living are vastly different now to what they used to be - but we can perhaps challenge some of them - it is not necessary if you are struggling to feed your children to have a car, or an expensive computer / phone as priorities - we need to resource public transport and local access to the internet so that there are free or cheap options. We need to re-visit the housing market and the balance of types of properties from shared ownership to council, private to rented etc.


----------



## akirk (25 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> You keep saying it is relatively easy to move profits but when I state that new laws and taxes could be introduced you ignore it and just state again that it is relatively easy to move profits with no justification of the statement.
> 
> "License to be paid for the use of the company brand."
> Tax licence fees at 10% of turnover.
> ...



Isn't the problem with it all, that you are taxing in the wrong location...

Company A has outlets making £10m in the UK
Company B is parent company in Ireland where taxes are lower

Company B licences brand to Company A - who are you taxing in the UK?
You don't get to tax Company B who are in Ireland, and you don't get to tax the transaction which takes place in Ireland (or somewhere else in the world depending on the legislative framework of the agreement), so as the UK government, exactly what are you taxing?

The issue with all of these ways of moving the money out of your domain - i.e. in this example, out of the UK is that they are transactions held outside the UK - they are costs on Company A - and you don't get to tax costs!

So, Company A has £9m of costs elsewhere in the world, so now instead of making £10m it is making £1m, and its overheads in the UK are a further £950,000 - so it has only made £50,000 profit in the UK - it won't even be taxed at the higher rate of corporation tax!

Meanwhile £9m has moved to Ireland as valid expenses where it is taxed at 12.5% instead of the soon to be relevant 25% in the UK and the company saves over £1m. The UK has received tax on £50k at 19% which is £9,500.

If the UK instead encouraged those monies to stay in the UK - e.g. they reduced the corporation tax to match Ireland's 12.5%, they would receive tax of £1,131,250 or 120x as much tax


The fundamental flaw is that governments are geographically limited and therefore can not control what happens outside their boundaries.
Companies are not, and so can play games across those boundaries - and it is not possible to stop them without all governments agreeing to do the same - and where is the incentive there for smaller countries like Ireland who can simply choose to opt out and lower rates and make lots of money!


----------



## johna.clements (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> Isn't the problem with it all, that you are taxing in the wrong location...
> 
> Company A has outlets making £10m in the UK
> Company B is parent company in Ireland where taxes are lower
> ...


Company A, which is in the UK would be taxed by the UK. If Company A is paying a licence for the brand to Company B based in Ireland then Company A would have to pay tax at 10% of £10m or £1m. The location of Company B is irrelevant because it is not taxed. 

Company A is in the UK.. The money it makes is in the UK. The transaction to transfer the money out of the UK is undertaken by Company A takes place in the UK. The transaction can therefore be taxed in the UK when the transfer takes place.

Why can't you get to tax costs. What do you think VAT is.

Company A should have to demonstrate that the costs are legitimate. If it could not demonstrate that the costs were legitimate then the directors of Company A would be prosecuted for the misuse of Company A funds. Company A would also be liable for the tax it had evaded.

In your example Company A transfers £9m but can not demonstrate that it was the cheapest place to get those services. The UK tax authorities decide that the services were worth £3m therefore Company A is liable for corporation tax on £6m. 


The fundemental flaw in your argument is the ability of countries to enact laws to change the tax laws. It is perfecly possible to tax money that was produced in the UK when it is moved.


----------



## deema (25 Oct 2022)

@johna.clements As @akirk has highlighted, and I will try to expand further, the legal agreements may take place outside the UK, they are therefore governed by the laws of the country in which they take place. The UK has no legal jurisdiction over the agreements made. 

The other issue, as I think you might come back on the above is what constitutes good value? Let’s take legals. A company employ a sole legal practitioner in some very small village in the UK. They are fully qualified, perfectly able to provide a legal service, and they may charge say £500 a day. But, the company chooses to use say Eversheds, one of the very big legal company’s, with offices around the world, a huge array of expertise in all sorts you are ever likely to get involved in. Now, they charge an awful lot more that £500 a day. So, the level of service is different, company’s often need legals that can span the world and ensure all of their entities in each geographic location is abiding by the local laws as well as intentional laws. Ie. If you are owned by an American company there is a lot of legal obligations on the company to ensure it’s subsidiaries around the world also are compliant in certain aspects with American rules. Something the sole practitioner cannot provide. Now who gets to decide what the company needs are, and what is good value for money. If we are talking about good value for money for the shareholders, then ensuring the overall company has minimised legally its tax burden, then they have fulfilled their obligations. It’s only illegal to over trade (trade when you have no idea how to pay your bills) there cannot be logically any law that requires a certain level of profit to be made.


----------



## Jacob (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> .....
> 
> Ultimately the ideal is low tax - encourage the wealthy in - and then compassion towards those at the poorer end -


 and pigs will fly!


akirk said:


> with a more rigorous understanding of whether they should or should not be getting support (ie try to tackle the abuse of the benefits system)...
> .....


abuse at the benefits end is trivial compared to tax evasion/avoidance and in any case is already pursued very thoroughly. It's almost a non issue but is very popular with the Daily Mail. "Single mother's on benefits" used to be their favourite enemies of the state but its shifted to boat people in the channel. I wonder if they draw lots on who to hate most? Or just ring the changes perhaps.


----------



## johna.clements (25 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> @johna.clements As @akirk has highlighted, and I will try to expand further, the legal agreements may take place outside the UK, they are therefore governed by the laws of the country in which they take place. The UK has no legal jurisdiction over the agreements made.
> 
> The other issue, as I think you might come back on the above is what constitutes good value? Let’s take legals. A company employ a sole legal practitioner in some very small village in the UK. They are fully qualified, perfectly able to provide a legal service, and they may charge say £500 a day. But, the company chooses to use say Eversheds, one of the very big legal company’s, with offices around the world, a huge array of expertise in all sorts you are ever likely to get involved in. Now, they charge an awful lot more that £500 a day. So, the level of service is different, company’s often need legals that can span the world and ensure all of their entities in each geographic location is abiding by the local laws as well as intentional laws. Ie. If you are owned by an American company there is a lot of legal obligations on the company to ensure it’s subsidiaries around the world also are compliant in certain aspects with American rules. Something the sole practitioner cannot provide. Now who gets to decide what the company needs are, and what is good value for money. If we are talking about good value for money for the shareholders, then ensuring the overall company has minimised legally its tax burden, then they have fulfilled their obligations. It’s only illegal to over trade (trade when you have no idea how to pay your bills) there cannot be logically any law that requires a certain level of profit to be made.


The UK has and can enact laws that govern the actions actions taken by individuals and companies overseas. As you note "If you are owned by an American company there is a lot of legal obligations on the company to ensure it’s subsidiaries around the world also are compliant in certain aspects with American rules". Why do you think that the UK can not take similar actions.

If Eversheds has fees that a similar to other multi jurisdictional law firms then it would be good value. If Eversheds charged three times as much as similar companies (not Mr Straw who has an office in the high street) then an investigation would happen and the company would have to justify the expenditure.

I do not know why you can not logically have a law that imposes penalties when you incur costs that can not be justified.


----------



## akirk (25 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Company A, which is in the UK would be taxed by the UK. If Company A is paying a licence for the brand to Company B based in Ireland then Company A would have to pay tax at 10% of £10m or £1m. The location of Company B is irrelevant because it is not taxed.
> 
> Company A is in the UK.. The money it makes is in the UK. The transaction to transfer the money out of the UK is undertaken by Company A takes place in the UK. The transaction can therefore be taxed in the UK when the transfer takes place.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I think there is a misunderstanding here... 

If Company B is licensing something to Company A - there is nothing on which you can tax Company A - it is an expense.
Fundamental of business taxation - you do not tax expenses - admittedly, a country could completely change the principles of business taxation, but they would probably lose all businesses...

Your concept is that you tax the business on gross income (the £10m they make) not on the current approach of nett income (the £50k they make after expenses) - no business would accept that and ultimately a government can not force a business to operate in it's territory.

The middle ground is that you can and governments do decide to make some things allowable / not for tax purposes - but underlying the tax regulations is that anything germain to the running of the business is allowable - so they might for example not allow entertaining / personal expenses above a certain level - effectively taxing it at gross not nett, but that is because it is argued to not be needed for the business...


your other argument that the government can prosecute directors for misuse of funds - not a chance of that ever happening!
who decides what is appropriate - for example brand value can easily be demonstrated to be worth a very high % of turnover - without the brand you licence the business might not even operate - for a government to arbitrarily decide that it is worth x not y would be government interference in the markets which would not be accepted. And ultimately the director's legal responsibility is to their shareholders - minimising tax is to the benefit of the shareholder - the direct opposite to your implication.

your comments seem to imply that government has full choice over what they can do and businesses will quietly comply - not a chance, and aptly displayed in the recent loss of Liz Truss as PM primarily because the markets did not accept what she wanted to do - that was totally driven by business / the markets - they have a lot more power than the public realise.


----------



## Spectric (25 Oct 2022)

Taxation should not be complicated, you just pay tax at the point where it is made so all the arguments are no longer.


----------



## deema (25 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Taxation should not be complicated, you just pay tax at the point where it is made so all the arguments are no longer.


That’s exactly the principle that is used. It just that company’s can and do determine where the profit is actually made. 
If this were an easy thing to ‘fix’ it would already be fixed.


----------



## D_W (25 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Taxation should not be complicated, you just pay tax at the point where it is made so all the arguments are no longer.



This would be OK if every country did it, but the HQ location of the parent is going to want to tax the same item, too. 

I don't have a great answer for all of this stuff, either, though.


----------



## akirk (25 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Taxation should not be complicated, you just pay tax at the point where it is made so all the arguments are no longer.


And exactly what happens...
In my example above Company A in the UK has made £50k and is taxed on it... the UK gets its bit of tax.
The spare £9m for licensing the brand was a charge to Company B - so Company B has 'made' that piece of money and that is taxed in Company B's location - Ireland at half the tax.

I think a big issue is how media reports on company finances...
just because a company has a turnover of £10m does not mean it has 'made' £10m

the hoardes are whipped up into thinking that £10m is vanishing out of our country, but the company never made £10m...

perhaps the best answer is to legislate that no media can report on anything financial without having some evidence of financial training / understanding first?


----------



## johna.clements (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> Sorry, I think there is a misunderstanding here...
> 
> If Company B is licensing something to Company A - there is nothing on which you can tax Company A - it is an expense.
> Fundamental of business taxation - you do not tax expenses - admittedly, a country could completely change the principles of business taxation, but they would probably lose all businesses...
> ...



As I noted expenses are taxed in the UK by things like VAT. VAT is a fundamental part of the UK tax system. As you note "for example brand value can easily be demonstrated to be worth a very high % of turnover". There is no logical reason why you can not tax that value that is demonstrated in the licence.

As you state "but underlying the tax regulations is that anything germain to the running of the business is allowable". Charging inflated fees is not for the benefit of Company A. The directors of Company A should run it to make money for Company A. If the directors agree inflated fees for HR etc from Company B they are not working for the benefit of Company A but for Company B.

It is not unknown for directors to be prosecuted for the misuse of company funds. 
_Re City Build (London) Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 364 (Ch)
_
You are correct that the government are not completely free to make laws. The markets want certainty. If multinationals have to pay the same amount of Tax as UK based companies they can live with that. What they do not like is an changes with no notice and unfunded changes.


----------



## akirk (25 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> As I noted expenses are taxed in the UK by things like VAT. VAT is a fundamental part of the UK tax system. As you note "for example brand value can easily be demonstrated to be worth a very high % of turnover". There is no logical reason why you can not tax that value that is demonstrated in the licence.
> 
> As you state "but underlying the tax regulations is that anything germain to the running of the business is allowable". Charging inflated fees is not for the benefit of Company A. The directors of Company A should run it to make money for Company A. If the directors agree inflated fees for HR etc from Company B they are not working for the benefit of Company A but for Company B.
> 
> ...



VAT is value added tax - it is only charged on the additional value added - where would that sit in the example of licensing a brand?
You can only charge VAT on items being sold within the scope of the geography you control - Company A is licensing brand from Company B in a contractual deal sat outside the UK - the UK government therefore has no control over any single aspect of that deal - it is all off-shore. The only thing they could do would be to somehow tax any funds leaving the country to make a purchase abroad - open to all sorts of issues...

If Company A buys something physical from Company B - e.g. a computer or a desk or some clothing - then the government can tax it on the basis of the physical import - but taxing the acquisition of IP is very difficult - it is non-tangible and therefore not easy to tax - equally, we have a reputation internationally around IP in the UK - starting to tax it could kill that and a lot of inward investment...

regarding misuse of funds - your implication is that the directors are serving shareholders of Company A - but in this example, Company A is owned by Company B (or even Company C somewhere else), and it is their shareholders they are serving - so by directors of Company A maximising the overall profit across Companies A & B they are correctly carrying out their duties to their shareholders...

Companies of this nature have an international outlook, not a regional one.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (25 Oct 2022)

There may be two issues:

*VAT is basically a sales tax. * It can be applied to all sales in the UK at whatever rates the UK government choses to charge. 

One not so small gremlin - assume (for instance) as a UK resident you employ a New York company to do some legal work. It may be with a lot of bureaucracy and admin be possible to identify the payment made if it comes from the UK and tax it accordingly. Avoidance would be rife.

Taxes need to be easy and cheap to collect - taxes which are costly to collect and easily avoided are not a clever idea. 

*A sales tax does not deal with multinationals *who manipulate transfer pricing etc to limit tax. As other posters have noted, the UK has no jurisdiction overseas. The only way to raise tax to offset their manipulation is by way of an import duty.

This can lead to reciprocal action - the general international consensus is that tariffs act as a drag on trade and should be avoided. We may not like Facebook or Microsoft offshoring profits - but neither would not we like (say) US imposing tariff barriers on UK businesses exporting to the US.

*Conclusion -* in the absence of a global agreement on taxation (an unlikely prospect) the best strategy may be to create a business, regulatory, legal and tax environment which encourages multinationals to the UK. It not only generates some tax income which would otherwise go offshore but provide local employment and boost local economies.


----------



## Jameshow (25 Oct 2022)

So does Baldkev fix his mortgage or not?!


----------



## sploo (25 Oct 2022)

With apologies to baldkev for being part of this thread swinging way off topic... this is quite an interesting discussion 

On the whole "company A, company B" thing; there should be a ban on the dodge of being able to do business in one jurisdiction while pretending you don't make a profit there (due to - legally - manipulating costs via expenses and debts in the area where you're making the money).

I've previously come across Customs and Excise rules on the lines of "if we think you've lied about the value of an item for taxation purposes, we have the right to charge you based on what we think it's worth". There surely must be some level at which a tax office could look at a company's sales vs claimed profit (and realistic costs) and basically call BS on lowballed profit figures.

I assume there would then be a continued cat and mouse game of multinationals making up new "legitimate" costs (to reduce apparent profit), but it'd be a start at least.


----------



## jcassidy (25 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> I've snipped part of your reply, as i really feel that i need to focus on this point.
> 
> You mention bitcoin -
> 
> Bitcoin is a token. The £5 note in my pocket is a token. One is printed on a bit of plastic, and the other is not. That is the ONLY difference. They're both just tokens.



Cash is a token backed by a government.
Bitcoin is a token backed by no-one.

Exchange rates are a reflection on how likely it is that the government in question will devalue their token.



julianf said:


> That pushes the question along one more step, but the question remains - why would anyone want any of the tokens, if they couldnt, at some point, be exchanged for real world items?
> 
> There is always "stuff" at the end of it all.



There is always "taxes" as the end of it all.

The ultimate use of a currency is to pay.... taxes!

Yes, you heard correctly! Taxes are the mechanism used by the government to enforce their particular token - the national currency.

You can invest in Yen, USD, Euros, Bitcoins, Non-fungible-assets, rare cars, fine wines, and expensive racehorses. You can think that STG is a mickey mouse currency, and walk around all day with gold bars in your pocket. But at the end of the day, His Majesty's Revenue want Pounds Sterling, and only Pounds Sterling will do, and you'd better convert some of those things into STG quickety-quick, or else another exclusive power comes into play - that of incarceration!!


----------



## Richard_C (25 Oct 2022)

*BALDKEV*

(Shouting I know, but much of what has gone before doesn't help with your question. I could go on for hours about tax, fairness, transfer pricing, brand licencing etc but I won't, I will try to bring it back to your question. Its a long post but hopefully moves you towards an answer)

I think there is a general assumption expressed in earlier replies that interest rates will go up in the short term and fall back in maybe 3 years ish - but there are so many variables none of us can really know. The Ukraine war, behind the oil and gas price increase, doesn't look to be ending soon and even if it does I doubt Russian gas will be back on the menu any time soon.

As background, I paid my mortgage off, but I am 70, never kept moving for a bigger and bigger house and once saw rates of 17% in the laten1970s. I don't think fixed rate was a thing back then - most lenders were mutuals and most were within 1/4% of each other. As part of my HR director job I also managed a big DB pension fund in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Our very wise and experienced trustee Chairman said "its not out job to be the smartest investors, its our job to make sure we can meet our liabilites and keep the promise to pensioners". That has stuck with me - always ask "what is my objective here?"

Retail fixed rate offers will be based on what the lenders' actuatries and economists think might happen, and they know more than we do. They will price in a bit of risk premium - overcharge if you like to call it that - and limit their own risk by rationing product and arranging finance at fixed rates from the wholesale market. They will vary a bit, some small mutuals might be more risk averse than multinational banks so will price up a bit because a mistake will cot them a lot so even though they don't have shareholders to satisfy they must look after the safety of their members depisits and pay their creditors. Rates are likley to be very similar though, a 'market rate'* emerges and if retail lender step too far away from it they won't get the business. Sometimes a silly high rate is deliberate - its less controverisal to overprice a product that you don't really want to sell than it is to withdraw the product.

The important part of this is the 'risk premium' they build in: chances are it may cost you more than sticking with standard variable rate if you are able to shop around and always get the best rates. BUT, and this is the important BUT, the rate fixers are taking all the market uncertainty risk, not you. Even if you pay a bit more over the 5 years, you can forget about it and sleep soundly at night. Unless you enjoy wheeling and dealing, its not a bad option. A parallel is the drawdown vs annuity argument when you take a DC pension: some people just want to take £xxx a month, guaranteed, and never have to think about it again. It's not about intelligence or ability with numbers - our research Director ("brain the size of 2 planets") retired and took the most conservative pension option he could, he said he didn't want to manage his money and worry about investment decsions every few weeks.

So whatever the markets may or may not do, your own preferences and situation play a big part in the decision. We will never know that, and we don't need to know. Just reflect on the fact any decsion has 2 sides to it - financial markets and your preferences.

If you can afford the fix and if you value certainty, that's fine. You may pay a bit more but may not, but you know where you are. You may kick yourself in 5 years time or give yourself a gold star, who knows. That certainty - £xxx a month come what may - has a value, not measured in £££ but in wellbeing/peace of mind. If you like the idea of a chance of getting the best deal you can and don't mind a bit of work and a bit of risk then variable rate might be the answer.

I am risk averse, I want to know I can meet my liabilities. I like to sleep at night. Someone I know locally, ex insurance sales manager, is a born wheeler dealer** who enjoys trading in all sorts. Neither of us is right or wrong, we are different.

Gather up the information then proudly then give yourself permission to take your own "its right for me" decision.n nDon't let anyone tell you that it was wrong.


_* market rates can be a self fulfilling prophesy. I still do some freelance work in pay and reward advice. If the BoE, OBR and few independent forecasters say average earnings will go up by X% next year, they tend to, That's not prescient forecasting, its because all the big employers look at the same forecasts and plug X% into their budgets give or take half a percent. If the mortgage market is converging on rates over 5 years, its likley (but not certain) to come true.

** want to buy a very recent slightly used Mercedes 320 for a a few £k more than he paid for it new? He ordered it when it was clear there might be a new car shortage becsause of components. That sort of thing. Potential big return, potential big loss. That's him, the 'deal' is what he enjoys._


----------



## akirk (25 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> So does Baldkev fix his mortgage or not?!


no - set up an international company and make obscene profits and then he won't care about his mortgage!



sploo said:


> With apologies to baldkev for being part of this thread swinging way off topic... this is quite an interesting discussion
> 
> On the whole "company A, company B" thing; there should be a ban on the dodge of being able to do business in one jurisdiction while pretending you don't make a profit there (due to - legally - manipulating costs via expenses and debts in the area where you're making the money).
> 
> ...



I think your view - and that of many comes from an inherent Britishness or fairness where we want it to be fair, and therefore something must be possible -I agree it is not fair, but equally not much is possible - International corporations have more disposable money than governments - they could collapse governments if they wish! They employ brighter / more able people than the government - they will win this battle...

So, rather than going after them in a punitive fashion (i.e. back to the childhood cry of 'I want it to be fair' and 'he is being unfair, so should be punished') why not instead take a more open approach and make the climate good for corporations, and remove the issue - exactly what other nations have done...

the reason we don't is because much of our media and public voice - and many of our MPs driven by a chip on their shoulder of 'it is not fair' and therefore have this punitive approach against anything / anyone they disagree with - the wealthy have more money, punish them / take it off them (let's conveniently ignore that many of those people can't perform to the same level / have no desire to work so hard) - inequality -> tax them

there are two ways of looking at equality:
- everyone gets the same (communism)
- everyone gets the same opportunity (capitalism)

this well known image:





sums it up well

giving everyone the same doesn't lead to equality of result - communism doesn't work.
giving everyone the same opportunity - or removing barriers (equity / liberation) does work - capitalism.

If someone doesn't like Amazon running in the UK and exporting profits untaxed elsewhere - two options:
- communism says that is not fair, we will penalise them, even though it is legal (Amazon will simply move elsewhere)
- capitalism says start your own competitor and pay UK taxes on it.

Ultimately though (as your competitor will probably fail due to over-taxation) the issue is the government is not building a climate which is good for business - if they change that many of the issues will go


----------



## D_W (25 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> So does Baldkev fix his mortgage or not?!



coin flip


----------



## Jacob (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> ............
> 
> there are two ways of looking at equality:
> - everyone gets the same (communism)
> - everyone gets the same opportunity (capitalism)


"Equality" isn't the issue and is just another red herring for the right.
"Fairness" isn't the issue either.
It's about problem solving and how to ensure that everybody has a reasonable quality of life


akirk said:


> this well known image:


Never seen it before!


akirk said:


> sums it up well


Sums what up?


akirk said:


> giving everyone the same doesn't lead to equality of result - communism doesn't work.
> giving everyone the same opportunity - or removing barriers (equity / liberation) does work - capitalism.


I guess by "capitalism" you mean free-market economics etc etc. It can mean many different things. 
Non of them have much to do with equal opportunity. They tend more to be about desperately hanging on to privilege, wealth and the right to accumulate even more. Feeble attempts are made to justify it, such as the trickle-down ideology recently argued so persuasively by Truss and Kwazi wossisname.


----------



## johna.clements (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> VAT is value added tax - it is only charged on the additional value added - where would that sit in the example of licensing a brand?
> You can only charge VAT on items being sold within the scope of the geography you control - Company A is licensing brand from Company B in a contractual deal sat outside the UK - the UK government therefore has no control over any single aspect of that deal - it is all off-shore. The only thing they could do would be to somehow tax any funds leaving the country to make a purchase abroad - open to all sorts of issues...
> 
> If Company A buys something physical from Company B - e.g. a computer or a desk or some clothing - then the government can tax it on the basis of the physical import - but taxing the acquisition of IP is very difficult - it is non-tangible and therefore not easy to tax - equally, we have a reputation internationally around IP in the UK - starting to tax it could kill that and a lot of inward investment...
> ...



You stated "you do not tax expenses". I noted expenses are taxed in the UK by things like VAT. I assume that you accept that taxes are paid on expences so it is quite possibe to introduce more taxes on expences. 

I tax like VAT is not VAT, it would have its own rules on how it taxes expences.

If Company A pays Company B a fee the amount of IP is quantified for the taxman. it is no longer intangible, it is a line on the balance sheet.

If the directors are working for the benefit of another company than the one that employs them I think it is very dubious.


----------



## akirk (25 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> You stated "you do not tax expenses". I noted expenses are taxed in the UK by things like VAT. I assume that you accept that taxes are paid on expences so it is quite possibe to introduce more taxes on expences.
> 
> I tax like VAT is not VAT, it would have its own rules on how it taxes expences.
> 
> ...


no - in accounting terms you do not pay *corporation tax* on expenses - to most businesses (and the ones we are discussing) - VAT is a neutral tax - you supply a chair to me at £100 + VAT, I pay you £120 and I reclaim the £20 - so the VAT is neutral. If you are referring to VAT on expenses - that is always reclaimable if Company A is VAT registered.

besides - VAT is charged on supply, not on purchase - so, the UK government would have no ability to put VAT onto the supply from another country.

Company A will have the payment for brand / IP on their accounts, and it will be visible, but it can't be directly taxed as you don't tax expenses - you tax the company that receives the payment not the one making the payment - and Company B is not in the UK's area, so can not be taxed by them.

Directors work for their shareholders (the company is simply the mechanism) - if Company A is owned by Company B, then Company B is the shareholder of Company A - and the directors must work for the benefit of their shareholders, so in this case MUST work for the benefit of Company B - that is the law!

If both are owned by a third party Company C, then that is the shareholder, so they must work for the benefit of Company C - same outcome.

Ultimately I am not sure this is a discussion worth continuing unless all concerned actually understand how companies work 
What Amazon and other multinationals are doing is not illegal - it is fully compliant with all British legislation - anyone can shout loudly that they want them to be taxed more and lots will agree - but it is a meaningless desire unless there is an environment in which the UK government has a right to tax them!

Get the environment right first and you will be seeing far more tax - but put simply that means making your country a low taxation area - as Ireland have done, and many others, and not surprisingly International companies who can choose where to do transactions / where to establish / where to base contracts, choose those countries... So, there really is no logic based in simply increasing corporation tax - all you will do is hurt the small national companies - a very naive approach to building support for business - low taxation will end up with more money in the coffers, and more employment - it is really that simple and proven time and time again...


----------



## Jacob (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> ......
> 
> Get the environment right first and you will be seeing far more tax - but put simply that means making your country a low taxation area .....


This comical Alice Through the Looking Glass fantasy crops up a lot! 
Charging less tax brings in more tax? Hmm. What about a diagram it doesn't make sense to me?


----------



## Sean33 (25 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> Again, i would ask for clarity -
> 
> The government spent £600 billion over covid. My 3 person family does not have an extra £45k in the bank, so where has that money gone?
> 
> Its a simple question.


May be a dumb reply but that money was spent on Furlough payments, covid drugs, PPE etc etc I can’t see how you can figure that you are each £15,000 worse of. Yes at some stage in theory the government will want to reduce the public debt but can you show me any country on planet earth that hasn’t spent fortunes because of the pandemic.
Going back to the original thread, base rates, if the Bank of England had acted like the fed £ would be at a whole different level and inflation would still be high but not as bad as it currently is. That being said if you follow the dots in the US rates are near there peak for now, rates I think will go up in the UK and Euro area as they should have done months and weeks ago but this will lead to strength in both currencies that will lead to a lower inflation point. We have seen a big move in gilts over the last 2 weeks, funny enough our ever scaremongering news outlets have not really highlighted the significance of this and what it actually means but that doesn’t fit there remit!
Personally think we are at or near peak, if the system was working rates should be circa 4% and mortgage rates between 5&6%.


----------



## Jacob (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> ........ So, there really is no logic based in simply increasing corporation tax - all you will do is hurt the small national companies - .....


It doesn't hurt companies at all. It hurts profits in the short term, and bonuses and dividends, but it encourages re-investment in the company and perhaps even higher wages, rather than seeing it spirited away into offshore accounts


----------



## Dibs-h (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> no - in accounting terms you do not pay *corporation tax* on expenses


Only on Allowable Expenses. Those that HMRC deem as non-allowable - effectively get "added" back onto your taxable profits and taxed as if you never had those expenses.

HMRC could easily alter the CT600 (Corporation Tax Return) by adding 1 or 2 fields and force the declaration of IP\Licensing\similar costs being paid to another company (UK based or abroad) above a certain threshold.

Whether it should be done etc- is another question, but the technicalities of it are straightforward.

HMRC's Connect system would then spit out cases for "closer examination" once accounts are filed.


----------



## Dibs-h (25 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> It doesn't hurt companies at all. It hurts profits in the short term, and bonuses and dividends, but it encourages investment in the company e.g. higher wages, rather than seeing it spirited away into off shore accounts


I'm somewhat with Jacob on the above. Increasing Corporation Tax doesn't hurt anyone other than the shareholders. It does not affect the company investing in itself (see below).

Capital Allowances (the purchases of kit\machinery etc) and R&D allowances - used to be you could only claim tax relief for a portion, or only available for niche sectors\industries. Now IIRC - it's 100% (or thereabouts) and in Year 1. And not limited to niche sectors\industries. Although they may have additional ones.


----------



## Jacob (25 Oct 2022)

Occasionally someone pops up and says something intelligent! CBI this time. CBI warns Rishi Sunak against ‘doom loop’ of public spending cuts


----------



## julianf (25 Oct 2022)

Sean33 said:


> May be a dumb reply but that money was spent on Furlough payments, covid drugs, PPE etc etc



Yes. The money was spent on all sorts of things.

And then maybe it got sucked into a wormhole, and no longer exists....


You have water in a dish. It evaporates. That doesn't mean its vanished. Its still somewhere. Someone has it. Unless you have [total money spent / uk population] then its either a) gone overseas, or b) someone else has it.

It really is that simple. The whole exercise was, once again, a vast re-distribution of wealth, up the spectrum, with the additional cost that of inflation.

Money does not vanish. I mean, i guess you can have a bonfire, and just throw cash on it, but in general...

Next someone will be along to claim that the Tulips that the Tulip craze was centred around were not physical items either.


----------



## sploo (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> I think your view - and that of many comes from an inherent Britishness or fairness where we want it to be fair, and therefore something must be possible -I agree it is not fair, but equally not much is possible...


Qualified "yes". But my desire to see multinationals prevented from engaging in tax avoidance isn't so much about being fair; it's about not stealing from the society in which they operate.

Now, yes, I know, it's legal, therefore it's not stealing. However, ultimately (as already noted) they are only able to do business (and make profit in the first place) as a result of the taxpayer funded infrastructure that exists in their target markets. By then using tax avoidance schemes they leave those remaining (smaller companies, and individual taxpayers) to pick up the costs of maintaining that infrastructure. I'm sure they'd refer to that as "tax efficiency" (or some other buzzword). I call it theft.

It is also, of course, unsustainable - as if everyone did it then the infrastructure collapses; and even the multinationals have no roads on which to deliver goods and services, no police to protect their places of business, no education services to provide them with (hopefully) competent workers, and no healthcare services to patch up their workers and keep them producing.


----------



## sploo (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> - everyone gets the same opportunity (capitalism)


Only just noticed the above. So... how exactly does modern capitalism give everyone the same opportunity? As Vaush's Coconut Island analogy rather crudely points out; it's not a level playing field. Or to put it another way, there's a great quote I heard (in reference to the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg); "Born three-nil up and think they scored a hat trick".

We all inevitably try to do the best for our families and friends; so of course any privilege we have, any resources, any contacts; we're going to use to give "our" people a leg up in life - nothing nefarious about that. The problem is the level of disparity in many countries (and the ability of those at the top to maintain those disparities) means that capitalism (at least as far as I see it today) definitely does not give everyone the same opportunity.

I'm not suggesting communism either; that doesn't work - just in different ways. Maybe "capitalism but once you're so rich you run out of space to park your Ferraris maybe you pay a bit more tax"?


----------



## baldkev (25 Oct 2022)

@Richard_C 
Thank you for your reply / comprehensive answer. Ultimately, pick 1 and forget about it, is probably very wise 

@everyone else, CARRY ON!


----------



## akirk (25 Oct 2022)

Proper capitalism looks after others in the pile as it is long term more beneficial - tread on everyone and you become the top of a heap of dead bodies - not very exalted - but support those who need help and you build a good work force, educated people, and open the doors to all - but you don’t need to stop the opportunities at the top to do it - so true capitalism should have a socialist element to it but sadly often doesn’t- however true socialism shouldn’t be the current embittered mess that tries to bring everyone down

So for me our current version of capitalism is better than our current version of socialism and then I do what is possible to help others (as indeed have my ancestors over the centuries demonstrating a strong commercial value in doing so)


----------



## Sean33 (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> no - in accounting terms you do not pay *corporation tax* on expenses - to most businesses (and the ones we are discussing) - VAT is a neutral tax - you supply a chair to me at £100 + VAT, I pay you £120 and I reclaim the £20 - so the VAT is neutral. If you are referring to VAT on expenses - that is always reclaimable if Company A is VAT registered.
> 
> besides - VAT is charged on supply, not on purchase - so, the UK government would have no ability to put VAT onto the supply from another country.
> 
> ...


Absolutely correct


julianf said:


> Yes. The money was spent on all sorts of things.
> 
> And then maybe it got sucked into a wormhole, and no longer exists....
> 
> ...


sorry but I must be having a brain fart as I just don’t get where you are coming from, can you explain to me where or how it was a redistribution of wealth?


----------



## Sean33 (25 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> It doesn't hurt companies at all. It hurts profits in the short term, and bonuses and dividends, but it encourages re-investment in the company and perhaps even higher wages, rather than seeing it spirited away into offshore accountsI


I am sorry but in 30 odd years of business I have never ever seen that happen. What I have seen is due to higher taxation is below or zero wage inflation, if that doesn’t work loss of headcount, delay or cancellation of upgrades to equipment


----------



## Jacob (25 Oct 2022)

Sean33 said:


> I am sorry but in 30 odd years of business I have never ever seen that happen. What I have seen is due to higher taxation is below or zero wage inflation, if that doesn’t work loss of headcount, delay or cancellation of upgrades to equipment


Wages are allowable expenses and not taxed. Wage rises means less profit and lower corporation tax.








How much is corporation tax & what are the reliefs? | unbiased.co.uk


Who pays corporation tax, the rate of corporation tax, corporation tax reliefs and allowances, the corporation tax deadline.




www.unbiased.co.uk


----------



## julianf (25 Oct 2022)

Sean33 said:


> Absolutely correct
> 
> sorry but I must be having a brain fart as I just don’t get where you are coming from, can you explain to me where or how it was a redistribution of wealth?



If the government borrows a whole bunch of cash, and gives half the population £100 each, and the other half £50 each, are the ones who get the £50 -

A) richer 
B) poorer

?


----------



## Spectric (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> VAT is a neutral tax - you supply a chair to me at £100 + VAT, I pay you £120 and I reclaim the £20 - so the VAT is neutral.


Never really got my head round VAT, always advised to avoid getting involved. Looks like a case of findingthe missing £20!

I sell you a chair for £100 + vat so you give me £120, you then get the £20 back from government which means I must pay the government £20 so why bother, it is like that tenner that goes back and forth in a birthday card where there is no gain.


----------



## Spectric (25 Oct 2022)

Depends if the split was random or targeted, if the lesser well off all got the £100 then they will feel richer, even getting £50 would help some but £100 is neither here or there to most people these days.


----------



## Jameshow (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> Proper capitalism looks after others in the pile as it is long term more beneficial - tread on everyone and you become the top of a heap of dead bodies - not very exalted - but support those who need help and you build a good work force, educated people, and open the doors to all - but you don’t need to stop the opportunities at the top to do it - so true capitalism should have a socialist element to it but sadly often doesn’t- however true socialism shouldn’t be the current embittered mess that tries to bring everyone down
> 
> So for me our current version of capitalism is better than our current version of socialism and then I do what is possible to help others (as indeed have my ancestors over the centuries demonstrating a strong commercial value in doing so)


But I only think that works with a strong moral compass something increasing lacking in politics, business and society in general!


----------



## Sean33 (25 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> If the government borrows a whole bunch of cash, and gives half the population £100 each, and the other half £50 each, are the ones who get the £50 -
> 
> A) richer
> B) poorer





julianf said:


> If the government borrows a whole bunch of cash, and gives half the population £100 each, and the other half £50 each, are the ones who get the £50 -
> 
> A) richer
> B) poorer
> ...


Your argument makes sense but where and when did the government do this? Are you talking about the 3m excluded from furlough etc of which I was one ?


----------



## Flynnwood (25 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Never really got my head round VAT, always advised to avoid getting involved. Looks like a case of findingthe missing £20!
> 
> I sell you a chair for £100 + vat so you give me £120, you then get the £20 back from government which means I must pay the government £20 so why bother, it is like that tenner that goes back and forth in a birthday card where there is no gain.


If I, (or a business) as the purchaser of your chair at £120 are not VAT registered, the VAT cannot be reclaimed and so you send the £20 into GOV with your VAT return.


----------



## Sean33 (25 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Wages are allowable expenses and not taxed. Wage rises means less profit and lower corporation tax.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I said, in 30 yrs I have never ever seen a business do this, unfortunately apart from probably a very few businesses the bottom line is all that matters


----------



## julianf (25 Oct 2022)

Sean33 said:


> Your argument makes sense but where and when did the government do this? Are you talking about the 3m excluded from furlough etc of which I was one ?



I'm saying that, if you inject a whole bunch of cash into a system, it doesn't matter if "everyone gets some". Sure, everyone may get some numbers on their bank account, but unless there is more "stuff", all the existing "stuff" just has increased demand (costs more).

So if i give you a tenner, and everyone else a million quid, im actually making you poorer. Even though the numbers on your bank account show an extra tenner.

Over the covid period, the government injected vast sums of money into the economy. Wormholes and bonfires aside, that cash (still) exists.

Unless you have [total money injected / population of the uk] extra in your bank account, then someone else has it in theirs. If you don't have the approximately extra £15k per individual in your household, then you have got poorer. And someone else has gotten richer. Which is wealth redistribution.


----------



## Misterdog (25 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> If you disagree, look at COVID. What was the government spend? 600 billion or something? I forget the numbers, but i think it works out about £15k for each human in the uk. So my 4yr old daughter should have £15k more in the bank... I should have. You should have. Your child, or grand child should.






julianf said:


> So we have just given "the rich" the lions share of £600 billion. And yet we are in this current situation. The proof is in the pudding. It just doesn't work giving out cash to the wealthy.



Indeed your local hairdresser, pub, sports club, all needed financial support to remain solvent during Covid. - 'The Rich' as you call them or the lifeblood of our communities.

Once people manage to see beyond the shores of our land, you can see that all countries in the world, yes including Europe, are in the fiscal mire.









Analysis: Decade of central bank largesse haunts taxpayers as losses loom


For more than a decade since the global financial crisis, central bankers pumped trillions of dollars of cheap money into the financial system to keep the economy afloat. Now that largesse is coming back to haunt them - and taxpayers.




www.reuters.com





Though with lazy uniformed economics it is easy to just blame it all on the Tories.

Remember it was the oil crisis in the 1970's which caused 24% inflation and interest rates of 14%. Then we were in such deep trouble we had to take out the biggest loan ever from the International Monetary Fund.
As I recall someone called James Callaghan was prime minister at the time at the head of the Labour Party.

Some interesting links for those who wish to be informed on a non political basis.









Britain's new winter of discontent - Economics Help


In 1974, the National Institute for Economic & Social Research made a report about the UK economy, concluding: “It is not often that a government finds itself confronted with a possibility of a simultaneous failure to achieve all four main policy objectives: adequate economic growth, full...




www.economicshelp.org







Joe Bloggs, blog (above) is very informative for the novice.


----------



## sploo (25 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> Proper capitalism looks after others in the pile as it is long term more beneficial - tread on everyone and you become the top of a heap of dead bodies - not very exalted - but support those who need help and you build a good work force, educated people, and open the doors to all - but you don’t need to stop the opportunities at the top to do it - so true capitalism should have a socialist element to it but sadly often doesn’t- however true socialism shouldn’t be the current embittered mess that tries to bring everyone down
> 
> So for me our current version of capitalism is better than our current version of socialism and then I do what is possible to help others (as indeed have my ancestors over the centuries demonstrating a strong commercial value in doing so)


I'd be quite happy with a model whereby the successful do well, but are taxed (and actually pay it) at a rate that means those at the bottom of society (who often are the plebs doing the work) are not in poverty. Whether that's capitalism with a dose of socialism I don't know. Put more simply; I don't care if one man has a Fiat and another has a Ferrari; what I object to is a society in which some have to decide between putting food on the table or paying the rent, and others have to decide which of their homes they're living in this weekend. Something very broken about that.


----------



## D_W (25 Oct 2022)

really? When a poor person pays a wealthier person something voluntarily, that's redistribution?

i'd bet that there's a whole lot of correlation between people who save money continuing to work and putting that money in retirement accounts vs. spending it. Those who don't and maybe don't ever work more than they have to do as sean said - they bought time with the money, or purchased the ability to not work. 

Some would have done that by choice. 

I put every stimulus penny in my retirement accounts. I didn't have the choice to work less - my workplace got busier rather than the other way around. I suppose I could've stopped working, but that wouldn't have been a good idea. 

My neighbor who makes about $1000 a week as a tradie found that he could receive about that with the bolstered unemployment and he didn't work until the plus unemployment stipend went away. We are still dealing locally with union trades having employees who just don't want to work full time and especially not OT. It's across the board. They have willingly traded earnings for time - to the extent that many are going on medical leave. Half of some work crews. 

I think I received about $8k over two years. My neighbor received about that less the amount that was provided per child (his one child is grown). He also collected an enormous amount of unemployment that he probably shouldn't have been able to collect (you have to make yourself available for work to get UC here - he didn't do that. When his spouse responded to a UC office caller that he wasn't available for work, they didn't check his steward, but rather called him back a day or two later and were "double checking" and of course, he said he was available. 

They also advised him that there was some additional legislation passed that funded eligible prior UC from weeks before the first program so that all of it could be trued up. 

if you're following this, they knew he wasn't available for work, but called so he could change the answer that his spouse gave, and then gave him another $7K. 

This kind of thing was rampant. He's back to work now and made the comment that it's not money-safe to be at home with nothing to do (meaning he blew all of the money). 

In your model, received something as an individual like about 8 times what my household of four received, and since I put my money in my retirement account, and he spent his, that's wealth redistribution. 

Really bonkers.


----------



## julianf (25 Oct 2022)

Misterdog said:


> Indeed your local hairdresser, pub, sports club, all needed financial support to remain solvent during Covid. - 'The Rich' as you call them or the lifeblood of our communities.
> .



My local hairdresser has two kids, so a four person family.

I wonder if they have an extra £60k in the bank?

If not, someone else has that money. 

I wonder who - do you know?


----------



## Blackswanwood (25 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> My local hairdresser has two kids, so a four person family.
> 
> I wonder if they have an extra £60k in the bank?
> 
> ...


I doubt it. The financial support distributed during the pandemic will have been spent by most self employed recipients on their living expenses and covering the fixed costs of their business (rent etc). Undoubtedly not all with have done so and some people defrauded the taxpayer with false claims which due to mixture of inefficient implementation and a desire to get money to those who needed it quickly were not spotted at the time.


----------



## Sean33 (25 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> I'm saying that, if you inject a whole bunch of cash into a system, it doesn't matter if "everyone gets some". Sure, everyone may get some numbers on their bank account, but unless there is more "stuff", all the existing "stuff" just has increased demand (costs more).
> 
> So if i give you a tenner, and everyone else a million quid, im actually making you poorer. Even though the numbers on your bank account show an extra tenner.
> 
> ...


I’m sorry but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.


----------



## julianf (25 Oct 2022)

Sean33 said:


> I’m sorry but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.



Oh, I thought you were asking genuine questions. More fool me.


----------



## Jameshow (25 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> Oh, I thought you were asking genuine questions. More fool me.


Why cannot he agree to disagree?!


----------



## D_W (25 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> My local hairdresser has two kids, so a four person family.
> 
> I wonder if they have an extra £60k in the bank?
> 
> ...



Did someone take it from them, or did they spend it? My neighbor spent his, I didn't spend mine. Nobody took anything from either of us. He doesn't plan ahead a whole lot and things that should be relatively minor in life (car unexpectedly not passing inspection) really knock him off of his stool for a while. 

There may not be a human right to be a hairdresser and save $60K if you're supporting a family of four. If you'd like to tell me that a married hair dresser with a blue collar employed husband can't save that much money, you'd have to meet a now-deceased uncle of mine. His wife was a hair dresser all her life. He worked in a manufacturing plant as an assembler. They retired on a 115 acre farm and had a second house. 

My parents were both college educated teachers. My hair dresser aunt and my factory worker uncle got turned on to squeezing pennies and putting money into the stock market back in the 1980s. Maybe you wouldn't have been able to accept the lifestyle they lived on the amount they didn't save, but they chose to be fine with it. 

We're not talking about a fine hair dresser or someone assembling lamborghinis, either. My aunt had a salon - her price was below the cost of the franchise places that employ marginal beauty school graduates and cut and color hair for everyone (kids and all), and she worked a day a week cut rate cutting hair at a nursing home. 

What I think is missing is the chance for a lot of people to observe why they may want to put aside 10-20% of their income and if they can't, work either more or at something different so they can. 

perhaps 10% of the crowd that doesn't do this will have life circumstances that prevents them from being able to do it. To tell the whole group that it can't be done leads to people claiming wealth is redistributed because they spent their money.


----------



## D_W (25 Oct 2022)

My uncle and aunt didn't have two kids, by the way, they had three. They didn't pay for college for any of them, so none of their kids went to college - but these days, on their level of income and low amount of kept accessible money (retirement assets are usually not counted when it comes to financial aid needs), they could probably have a good student pay little for private college.

They lived really stingy, I guess. I didn't notice it when I was a kid because they were never out of money and they didn't complain about it and I don't think they felt like they were socially beneath a two income white collar household just because the latter would've had more income. Personally, I don't think they were, either.

Neither do I resent my neighbor for taking advantage of the system here and practicing *actual* wealth redistribution. The system was set up for him to walk by and pull the fruit off, I guess. I don't think I could handle being off of work for half of the year - it would be hard to come back from being idle like that.


----------



## julianf (25 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> Did someone take it from them, or did they spend it? My neighbor spent his, I didn't spend mine. Nobody took anything from either of us. He doesn't plan ahead a whole lot and things that should be relatively minor in life (car unexpectedly not passing inspection) really knock him off of his stool for a while.
> 
> There may not be a human right to be a hairdresser and save $60K if you're supporting a family of four. If you'd like to tell me that a married hair dresser with a blue collar employed husband can't save that much money, you'd have to meet a now-deceased uncle of mine. His wife was a hair dresser all her life. He worked in a manufacturing plant as an assembler. They retired on a 115 acre farm and had a second house.
> 
> ...



You missed my earlier query about netflix and avocados?


----------



## julianf (25 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Why cannot he agree to disagree?!



He can, and evidently does. My comment was that I thought, by his questions, that he was genuinely interested, and then the "agree to disagree" comment implied that he had solidified to a position, of which I was previously unaware.

The curiosity is that the comment that he eventually "agreed to disagree" on was not even opinionated economics, but simple maths.


----------



## Marcusthehat (25 Oct 2022)

D.W. et. al. (especially Jacob)
Your Aunt and Uncle sound not disssimilar to the wife and I.
Synopsis, what you earn is not as important as what you do NOT spend.
Simples.
Which does not mean it is easy.
But it is simple.
Seriously.


----------



## Dibs-h (25 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Wages are allowable expenses and not taxed. Wage rises means less profit and lower corporation tax.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes and no. LOL

Yes that they (and other things) are deducted from income to arrive (eventually) at Profits Subject to Tax.

No - you have to pay Employers NI, so a tax of a kind.

Although if you have 2+ employees (and you meet other conditions) there is something called Employment Allowance that gets you the 1st 5K off, so to speak.






Employment Allowance


Claim up to £5,000 off your employer's National Insurance (NI), who is eligible, how to claim using your payroll software




www.gov.uk


----------



## Richard_C (25 Oct 2022)

*BALDKEV*

(he shouted again)

Looks to me like this topic might end up in the invitaion only 'controversial subjects' forum - rightly as its so far off topic and people are starting to be rude. If there is anything you want to keep hold of, a few good thoughts from various contributors early on, maybe copy it soon before it goes into that black hole.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (25 Oct 2022)

*Where did the Covid money go*

The government borrowed ~£400bn from banks, pension funds etc for a furlough scheme, business support, PPE. vaccines etc. It gave cash to businesses, individuals etc to spend on supplies - food, raw materials, labour costs etc. Some may even eventually be repaid (business loans).

Shared across a UK population of ~70m is ~£6000 per person. This is not owed by individuals - it is a government obligation incurred on our behalf, upon which interest charges will accrue, until the loans are repaid. Repayment will be through total tax revenues raised by the Treasury.

The cash borrowed has simply been redistributed, ultimately to food producers, track and trace systems, pharmaceutical companies etc. This is not some gigantic fraud - cash (and credit) is the means of exchange without which developed economies could not function.

At an individual level, furlough payments were effectively a gift - rightly underpinned by a policy of providing support to limit hardship and job losses. No work was done for the cash received with no obligation for individual repayment.

To a material extent this will have driven inflationary pressures - cash chasing a reduced supply of goods and services has only one outcome - increased prices. Inflation devalues savings effectively placing part of the burden of repayment on those with cash assets.

*Taxation*

In many ways tax is just a business expense. Business seeks to minimise tax costs, as they do with all others - labour, energy costs, raw material, rents, communications etc. Suppliers compete to provide the best value - not just cost but quality, reliability etc.

Tax only differs from all other expenses in that it is imposed and collected by government. 

Governments compete to provide the most attractive location for businesses with a mix of policies related to tax, regulation, infrastructure, stability, labour force etc.

Companies may exhibit social responsibility - building brand, compliance with best practice, even personal charitable initiatives (Cadbury, Gates etc). This would be short lived without profit which drives shareholder wealth, job security, decent pay, further investment etc. It is no surprise that:

companies arrange their affairs to maximise profitability/reduce costs
prioritise which markets they address based on strategic and tactical imperatives
invest in locations offering the best investment returns
may choose to exit markets which erect barriers to trade


----------



## baldkev (25 Oct 2022)

@Richard_C 
I wanted to rename the thread, but sadly i dont have that ability.... i thought maybe 'buying advice: gimp mask or furry handcuffs?'


----------



## J-G (26 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Never really got my head round VAT, always advised to avoid getting involved. Looks like a case of findingthe missing £20!
> 
> I sell you a chair for £100 + vat so you give me £120, you then get the £20 back from government which means I must pay the government £20 so why bother, it is like that tenner that goes back and forth in a birthday card where there is no gain.


A very poor explaination of how V.A.T. works!

I buy a chair at £80 and pay £16 VAT. Because I'm registered for VAT I can claim that £16 back so my nett cost is £80. I then sell you that chair for £100 + VAT (£120), you (not being VAT registered) cannot claim the £20 back. I now have to pay the £20 I've charged you to the VAT Man. The value that has been added to the chair is £20 and the VAT due on that amount is £4 - which is the net amount that the VAT Man gets - £20 charged and £16 reclaimed.

Simples!

The manufacturer of the chair will also have increased it's value (taken a profit) and will have accounted for the VAT on that as well.


----------



## akirk (26 Oct 2022)

And because it is value added tax, effectively at each point along the process vat is charged and reclaimed, but generally as things go up in value through a manufacturing process, there is a nett gain to the government each time…

So manufacturer charges 10 vat and reclaims 8
Wholesaler charges 14 vat and reclaims 10
Distributor charges 18 vat and reclaims 14
Retailer charges 20 vat and reclaims 18

They effectively pay the government:
2 / 4 / 4 / 2 a total of 12 which reflects a tax on the value being added at each stage - ultimately the non registered punter pays all of the vat but it is paid to the government in stages…

(The difference of 8 between the incremental payments of 12 and the final punters payment of 20 is vat charged by the raw material suppliers before the chair is made - screws / timber / etc - so that is also paid by them at the front of the chain…)

Of course it is far more complex in reality as there can be different vat rates and not every company is vat registered or even on the same vat process, so it is a principle not a fixed formula

Eg if my company produces a website for a client abroad VAT is variable - if their audience includes the UK then we charge VAT (and they probably can’t reclaim it), but if for local use only it is zero rated…


----------



## Jacob (26 Oct 2022)

Dibs-h said:


> Yes and no. LOL
> 
> Yes that they (and other things) are deducted from income to arrive (eventually) at Profits Subject to Tax.
> 
> No - you have to pay Employers NI, so a tax of a kind.


But you don't pay corporation tax on it, which is what we are talking about, so it's a yes. It counts as another allowable expense


----------



## johna.clements (26 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> Money does not vanish. I mean, i guess you can have a bonfire, and just throw cash on it, but in general...


I would not recommend trying this as you are not supposed to deface the currency but

From Bank of England

"In a very small number of cases, we may be able to reimburse you if you have less than half of the banknote but there is clear auditable evidence that genuine banknotes have been damaged or destroyed. This typically only applies to businesses, for example when the damage has been caused by a fire in an ATM."


----------



## deema (26 Oct 2022)

Final attempt using an analogy. 
You open a new restaurant. You can charge anything you like obviously for the food you serve. Your choice is to either go top end for the area, and charge an average of £25 per meal, or to charge £12 a meal. You know your competition locally who serve just as good food as you, are charging an average of £12 a meal. 

If you charge £25 a meal, you will make more money per customer, but have fewer customers. If you charge £12 a meal, you will make less money but have more customers. 

Your a bit canny and decide to charge £11 on average a meal. Your still making money, but now you get a lot of customers, in fact the place is swamped when ever your open. Your very happy, your making a lot of money. You can pay your staff more, and encourage them to do better by offering a percentage of the takings as a bonus. Business is brilliant, everybody is happy.

A restaurant near to you, who is charging £25 on average a meal catches up with you in the pub, they complain that business is poor, they don’t have many customers. They need to increase wages and they think the only option is to increase prices, but, they recognise to do so will mean they will lose more customers to you. 

Why’s it an analogy, well the UK corporation tax rate is 25% and Ireland has £12%. Which business do you want to own? Where would you eat?


----------



## johna.clements (26 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> no - in accounting terms you do not pay *corporation tax* on expenses - to most businesses (and the ones we are discussing) - VAT is a neutral tax - you supply a chair to me at £100 + VAT, I pay you £120 and I reclaim the £20 - so the VAT is neutral. If you are referring to VAT on expenses - that is always reclaimable if Company A is VAT registered.
> 
> besides - VAT is charged on supply, not on purchase - so, the UK government would have no ability to put VAT onto the supply from another country.
> 
> ...



As I have stated on a number of occasion the UK has the ability to make law. Some will be bad law, some good, but that is a different thing.

John posts "I only have a small workshop with a benchsaw. I can not feed sheet goods through the saw and and am thinking of getting a track saw. Thoughts
kirk posts. "You will just have to use the benchsaw"
John "Why can't I get a tracksaw"
kirk "You will just have to use the benchsaw"

Arguing that because a law has not been passed it can not be passed is a bit strange. It is like arguing that I can not buy another tool (law) because I already have a tool (law).


----------



## johna.clements (26 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Final attempt using an analogy.
> You open a new restaurant. You can charge anything you like obviously for the food you serve. Your choice is to either go top end for the area, and charge an average of £25 per meal, or to charge £12 a meal. You know your competition locally who serve just as good food as you, are charging an average of £12 a meal.
> 
> If you charge £25 a meal, you will make more money per customer, but have fewer customers. If you charge £12 a meal, you will make less money but have more customers.
> ...


This is a false analogy.

The new restaurant charging £11 is not competing against the restaurant charging £25. The restaurants are after different sectors of the market. 

The £11 restaurant is competing against the £12 restaurant.


----------



## johna.clements (26 Oct 2022)

People who think that taxes can not be applied to either party in a transaction should read the thread Sauter Shop and import taxes.


----------



## Keith 66 (26 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> This is a false analogy.
> 
> The new restaurant charging £11 is not competing against the restaurant charging £25. The restaurants are after different sectors of the market.
> 
> The £11 restaurant is competing against the £12 restaurant.



Nobody wins the race to the bottom.


----------



## Jacob (26 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Final attempt using an analogy.
> You open a new restaurant. You can charge anything you like obviously for the food you serve. Your choice is to either go top end for the area, and charge an average of £25 per meal, or to charge £12 a meal. You know your competition locally who serve just as good food as you, are charging an average of £12 a meal.
> 
> If you charge £25 a meal, you will make more money per customer, but have fewer customers. If you charge £12 a meal, you will make less money but have more customers.
> ...


Some confusion here!
Any of your examples could be just ticking over and breaking even, or even making a loss, in which case it pays no corporation tax.
Or could be making a profit and hence taxable.
But has the alternative of reducing the profit by increasing wages (including your own if you work there) or reinvesting in the company (buying new kit, building improvements, whatever) and paying less tax. 
Could reinvest all the profits and pay no corporation tax at all.
The downside is less payout of dividends, but a smart investor might spot a growing business with the promise of greater profits/dividends in the future, and still buy shares.
Hence corporation tax is an incentive to grow and improve your business.


----------



## johna.clements (26 Oct 2022)

Keith 66 said:


> Nobody wins the race to the bottom.


That is debatable. The argument is that the £12 restaurant would close and open as something else.

My argument that all the resturants should be subject to the same rules.


----------



## akirk (26 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> As I have stated on a number of occasion the UK has the ability to make law. Some will be bad law, some good, but that is a different thing.
> 
> John posts "I only have a small workshop with a benchsaw. I can not feed sheet goods through the saw and and am thinking of getting a track saw. Thoughts
> kirk posts. "You will just have to use the benchsaw"
> ...



Of course government can change law - but some changes may be foolish - and as Liz Truss has recently seen, messing with the markets too dramatically can have some interesting consequences!

However, there is a fundamental basis that you don't charge tax on expenses - i.e. you don't tax the purchaser directly, simply because you need to collect that tax and some purchasers are members of the public with no mechanism for being taxed in that way. e.g. As a business I buy insurance, I can buy from anywhere in the world, so will buy from Ireland as it is cheaper... the government thinks, I want a bit of that and will tax the transaction:
- taxing the seller - there is a mechanism to do that and collect tax, but the Irish seller is out of the government's reach...
- taxing the buyer - maybe fine for a commercial buyer, but now fred bloggs also wants some insurance - he needs to now pay tax on it - how are you (the Gov.) going to collect that tax?

I think that you are viewing all of this as a simple equation between UK government and a business (e.g. Amazon in the UK) - however, it is never that simple, there are huge complexities in how a business is / can be structured, and the impact of laws - ultimately, the businesses tend to have cleverer people who get past the increasingly complex machinations of governments - and why not, they have the advantage of being able to chose any location to transact / etc.

That is why my argument is not that the current system works - I agree, it is not ideal - but that the solution is not the communist / left wing approach of penalise those who do well and then we will all be the same - it has been tried, it fails! But the true conservative (with a small c) approach of allowing more freedom and relaxing legislation to make it easier - get businesses to locate here and we will end up with more taxes in the coffers...



johna.clements said:


> People who think that taxes can not be applied to either party in a transaction should read the thread Sauter Shop and import taxes.



I am not sure what relevance that thread has 
and no-one is saying that a government can't apply taxes to both parts of a transaction - of course they can (e.g. I sell you a house, I might pay capital gains tax, you might pay stamp duty etc.) - the point being made (and generally ignored!) is that a government can not legislate in a way to force what happens in another territory

the Sauter Shop example is simply the government saying that if you want to sell into this territory you need to do xyz - that is okay because the government governs what happens in this territory...

If you walk into Sauter and buy something, then there is no need for them to register with HMRC as the transaction happens in a territory outside the control of the government - the government can then choose to charge you on importing that item into the UK because that is coming into their territory = their rules... but would then be taxing you as the person bringing it in, not Sauter who are beyond their control.

this whole discussion started with the concept of fees passing across territorial boundaries to avoid taxes in the UK - because those fees are for something intangible, and the transaction takes place outside the UK and is governed under non-UK law - it is beyond the reach of the UK government - it is not in their territory. There is nothing physical coming into the UK to be taxed.


----------



## akirk (26 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> That is debatable. The argument is that the £12 restaurant would close and open as something else.
> 
> My argument that all the resturants should be subject to the same rules.


And who sets those rules when you are dealing with a world wide scenario?
We have no global dictatorship and while the EU tried to go in that direction, it is hugely flawed and that direction was a major reason why the UK left.

Government can only legislate in its territory.
Within that territory, all businesses have to comply by the law
That some businesses are internationally based gives them choices not given to more local businesses - fair - yes, because it is equal opportunity, those other businesses can equally set up a company abroad and move stuff around to minimise taxes - that they choose not to doesn't make it unfair when the bigger businesses do...

The only thing that is unfair is that a bigger business has easier access to these things - but then being bigger also has access to cheaper stationery / bulk buying of paper towels for the loos etc. i.e. there will always be advantages to scale, that is life...


----------



## julianf (26 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Final attempt using an analogy.
> You open a new restaurant. You can charge anything you like obviously for the food you serve. Your choice is to either go top end for the area, and charge an average of £25 per meal, or to charge £12 a meal. You know your competition locally who serve just as good food as you, are charging an average of £12 a meal.
> 
> If you charge £25 a meal, you will make more money per customer, but have fewer customers. If you charge £12 a meal, you will make less money but have more customers.
> ...



So all restaurants should charge £12 meals?

Surely then one will think "we need to be able to charge £8, lets cut back on that healthcare package we offer our employees"

And so they charge £8

Then all the people, like yourself, describe it again, and say that the only way to progress out of this situation is to lower the prices to £8. As then there will be more customers, and more money to the till. But there really isn't any way to actually do this, so they have to loose the paid health care. Its fine though, as otherwise everyone will just be out of a job, so its what has to be done. (maybe call this austerity?)

So then everyone is charging £8. But someone thinks that if you get 14yr olds doing the dishes, a few quid can be saved that way. (the reality is that then, if they were a big enough restaurant, they would probably, somehow, get the government to pay the wages of the 14yr olds anyway - maybe call it something snappy like "learning tax credits" or something?)

But then everyone is charging £6, we have no healthcare, and the chimney sweep is a 6 yr old child.



Its always the same old argument told time and time again, with increasing amounts of effort to make it believable, as if that will somehow cover up the flaws. 

If don't know - you tell me why my modified restaurant example above is inaccurate? Because everyone is somehow going to be so rich that theyre eating out all the time, and the cyclical nature of the expanded economy is going to smooth over all the flaws?

But then what if someone starts skimming off a load of the cash. What happens then?


----------



## johna.clements (26 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> Of course government can change law - but some changes may be foolish - and as Liz Truss has recently seen, messing with the markets too dramatically can have some interesting consequences!
> 
> However, there is a fundamental basis that you don't charge tax on expenses - i.e. you don't tax the purchaser directly, simply because you need to collect that tax and some purchasers are members of the public with no mechanism for being taxed in that way. e.g. As a business I buy insurance, I can buy from anywhere in the world, so will buy from Ireland as it is cheaper... the government thinks, I want a bit of that and will tax the transaction:
> - taxing the seller - there is a mechanism to do that and collect tax, but the Irish seller is out of the government's reach...
> ...


Money is being transferred out of the UK. Many countries have laws on the transfer of money. The UK could enact a law to tax money before its transferred.

There are pros and cons in such a law but that does not stop it being possible.


----------



## johna.clements (26 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> And who sets those rules when you are dealing with a world wide scenario?
> We have no global dictatorship and while the EU tried to go in that direction, it is hugely flawed and that direction was a major reason why the UK left.
> 
> Government can only legislate in its territory.
> ...


The UK Government legislates for things outside its territory, as does the US and others.


----------



## akirk (26 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Money is being transferred out of the UK. Many countries have laws on the transfer of money. The UK could enact a law to tax money before its transferred.
> 
> There are pros and cons in such a law but that does not stop it being possible.


No it is not.

Money being transferred is to place it in a bank account elsewhere - this is a simple commercial transaction where product A is being bought for xxx and the location of the sale happens to be in a different territory. Purchasing from abroad happens the whole time - if the government started to tax that, then they are effectively taxing imports - and that will screw with all their trade agreements internationally...

while a government has power to enact law, it doesn't have the ability to ignore the consequences



johna.clements said:


> The UK Government legislates for things outside its territory, as does the US and others.



only where it has a legal ability to do that - you really aren't getting this are you - what is being done is happening because it is legal, it can't be stopped (not without drastic and stupid actions such as locking down all trade with other countries!  )


----------



## julianf (26 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> That is why my argument is not that the current system works - I agree, it is not ideal - but that the solution is not the communist / left wing approach of penalise those who do well and then we will all be the same - it has been tried, it fails!



Do you know the difference between, say, a democratic socialist, or a social democrat? Or is it all just Siberian gulags to you?


What country is the second most powerful economic block? China. Don't they call themselves communist?

I mean, they're not, but neither was soviet Russia.

What about Norway, with its sovereign wealth fund? Where did that come from? 

I don't know why people always call Soviet Russia communist, but shy away from the fact that the second most powerful economic country on the globe calls itself communist. I mean, neither were, but the bias always draws my attention.




note - personally, I'm a market socialist, which, i can assure you, is nowhere near a communist


----------



## johna.clements (26 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> No it is not.
> 
> Money being transferred is to place it in a bank account elsewhere - this is a simple commercial transaction where product A is being bought for xxx and the location of the sale happens to be in a different territory. Purchasing from abroad happens the whole time - if the government started to tax that, then they are effectively taxing imports - and that will screw with all their trade agreements internationally...
> 
> ...


If a company is doing business in the UK that that transaction is taking place in the UK.


----------



## Jacob (26 Oct 2022)

I keep trying to catch up on economics and money and keep having to look things up. 
I get the impression that everybody is in the same boat and perhaps needs to spend more time on revision!
Just reading "Economics for the Many" (Ed. J McDonnell)
The first essay makes the same point and says a democracy is weakened if people don't understand the issues. In fact elections may be decided on financial matters and the state of the economy, so it's essential that people try to understand what is really going on, not least because politicians and financial dabblers don't have much idea themselves!


----------



## Jacob (26 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> Do you know the difference between, say, a democratic socialist, or a social democrat? ....


Personally, no. 
I don't have lot of faith in arbitrary definitions and all the various "..isms"


----------



## akirk (26 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> If a company is doing business in the UK that that transaction is taking place in the UK.


Sorry - that is absolute nonsense 
A company can do business in the UK and also have many transactions taking place elsewhere...
To bring this back to woodworking - I will buy from e.g. Rockler in the US - I may be a UK citizen and living in the UK and making the transaction from the UK, but the transaction is absolutely happening in the USA and under US law.


----------



## ivan (26 Oct 2022)

Obviously governments cannot do just what they please, as they are subject to the world environment; ably demonstrated in the UK recently... 
1/However, if you look for it, you'll see that the people of countries where the range of earnings top to bottom is low, appear to be more content.
2/The variability of the human species means that there will always be some who cannot care for themselves (learning difficulties, say) and statistically there will always be roughly as many who are barely bright enough to hold down an unskilled job, as there are those at the top. The problem is there are not that many low skilled (labouring) jobs nowadays. In a humane society the many should support those who _need_ it.
3/I wonder about wage benefit top ups. The minimum wage is not really enough to live on, so you can claim benefits. But why does the taxpayer have to subsidise the firm who is not paying their staff enough to live on? Subsidised jobs drain the economy and their public cost should be used elsewhere.
4/ We paid off our mortgage about 20 yeaars ago. The interest rate paid varied between 15% and 7% over the 25 years; around 10% was "normal".


----------



## johna.clements (26 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> Sorry - that is absolute nonsense
> A company can do business in the UK and also have many transactions taking place elsewhere...
> To bring this back to woodworking - I will buy from e.g. Rockler in the US - I may be a UK citizen and living in the UK and making the transaction from the UK, but the transaction is absolutely happening in the USA and under US law.


 It will also be subject to UK law. If you are doing something that is contrary to a UK law you may be fined or imprisoned.


----------



## deema (26 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> If a company is doing business in the UK that that transaction is taking place in the UK.


That’s not the case, it’s perfectly normal practice to actually conduct transaction in a different country whilst selling in another. When we were within the EU, if memory serves a large American company we all know and I’m sure just about everyone has used who operated online did all of its UK sales with the sales transaction in Holland the UK law didn’t not apply to them. This mitigated it’s tax liabilities.
I’m sure most will have purchase stuff of say Alibaba, a sale in the UK but not under UK law.


----------



## johna.clements (26 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> That’s not the case, it’s perfectly normal practice to actually conduct transaction in a different country whilst selling in another. When we were within the EU, if memory serves a large American company we all know and I’m sure just about everyone has used who operated online did all of its UK sales with the sales transaction in Holland the UK law didn’t not apply to them. This mitigated it’s tax liabilities.
> I’m sure most will have purchase stuff of say Alibaba, a sale in the UK but not under UK law.


As you state "it’s perfectly normal practice to actually conduct transaction in a different country whilst selling in another". This transaction is subject to some UK laws.

But I was referring to "If a company is doing business in the UK that that transaction is taking place in the UK". If Company A opens a restaurant in the UK selling meals for £11 it should pay the same taxes as the business next door selling meals for £12 that is owned by a UK citizen.


----------



## deema (26 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> As you state "it’s perfectly normal practice to actually conduct transaction in a different country whilst selling in another". This transaction is subject to some UK laws.
> 
> But I was referring to "If a company is doing business in the UK that that transaction is taking place in the UK". If Company A opens a restaurant in the UK selling meals for £11 it should pay the same taxes as the business next door selling meals for £12 that is owned by a UK citizen.


Again no, we are entering more complex structures. One restaurant can be a subcontractor to a ‘sales’ company. You sit down order your meal, but the order is entered to a ‘sales’ company based in Ireland. They subcontract providing the meal to the company that delivers your meal. You won’t know, but it’s perfectly legal. The providing meal company makes no profit, it’s all made in Ireland.


----------



## julianf (26 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Personally, no.
> I don't have lot of faith in arbitrary definitions and all the various "..isms"



People make the mistake of claiming that every socialist is a command economy advocate. That the "left" want state ownership of everything, and that "has been tried, it fails" whilst ignoring countries like Norway that actually derived state wealth from their oil fields.

It always just flags the comments as either being naive, or deliberately biased, hence asking the question to highlight the (possibly deliberate) lack of understanding.


----------



## deema (26 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> People make the mistake of claiming that every socialist is a command economy advocate. That the "left" want state ownership of everything, and that "has been tried, it fails" whilst ignoring countries like Norway that actually derived state wealth from their oil fields.
> 
> It always just flags the comments as either being naive, or deliberately biased, hence asking the question to highlight the (possibly deliberate) lack of understanding.


Norway is not a socialist state. Like the UK it’s government reaped large rewards from oil and gas exploration. Norway chose to invest their income primarily in the stock market and the returns on those investments used to derive benefits for its citizens. The UK government’s voted in by us: so it was our decision, was to spend the revenues. It was spent by all political parties.


----------



## Jacob (26 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Norway is not a socialist state. Like the UK it’s government reaped large rewards from oil and gas exploration. Norway chose to invest their income and the returns on those investments to be used to derive benefits for its citizens. The UK government’s voted in by us, so it was our decision was to spend the revenues.


Thatcher used N Sea oil revenue to run down British industry.


----------



## johna.clements (26 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Again no, we are entering more complex structures. One restaurant can be a subcontractor to a ‘sales’ company. You sit down order your meal, but the order is entered to a ‘sales’ company based in Ireland. They subcontract providing the meal to the company that delivers your meal. You won’t know, but it’s perfectly legal. The providing meal company makes no profit, it’s all made in Ireland.


And the UK will tax the sale in the UK.


----------



## julianf (26 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Norway is not a socialist state.



Again, I fear you're comparing Norway to the Soviet Union.

In a pure free market system, if i want your wife's kidney, and i have enough money, essentially, i have it. Possibly not by force, but even otherwise, i can use my wealth (legally) such as her "selling" me her kidney is your only option.

Do we have countries where this happens? Maybe, but not officially.

So everything is on a scale. Its not "communist Russia" and everything else. This is *exactly* the point i was making with my "social democrat / democratic socialist" comment.

But, again, to many, possibly even including yourself, "all socialism = command economy failings = soviet gulags".

It really isn't as binary as the ever repeated "has been tried, it fails" comment.


----------



## Jameshow (26 Oct 2022)

I'm a freemarket socialist before lunch and a socialist freemarket-ist after lunch!


----------



## Adam W. (26 Oct 2022)

I'm normally tipsy after lunch.


----------



## Jameshow (26 Oct 2022)

I'd say fix Kev! 

Rates are only going up!


----------



## baldkev (26 Oct 2022)

10 pages so far, my most popular thread yet..... if i start a thread on towbars we can run through everyones thoughts on religion


----------



## Terry - Somerset (27 Oct 2022)

Free market economies are not completely free. The UK rightly imposes rules to avoid the exploitation of labour (minimum wage, child labour, paid holidays etc), standards governing quality safety and performance, consumer law (cooling off periods etc).

There is a debate to be had about whether these constraints are too onerous, or still leave the public and workers exposed to unreasonable or unfair outcomes.

Regulation adds cost to products and services. It makes it more difficult to compete internationally where overseas companies may be less regulated.

Simplistically, "capitalism" seems to favour low regulation to promote innovation and efficiency, "Socialism" tends to favour regulation to minimise inequity.

Companies are free to choose where to locate operations based on logistics, labour market, stability, regulation, tax etc. This will not change in the foreseeable future. The UK government has no jurisdiction in other countries. 

Options:

compete through providing better goods and services onshore - generates jobs, some tax, investment, wealth
stifle innovation and change by creating barriers to trade (import duties, tax etc). ultimately leads to the loss of jobs and associated taxation that regulation was intended to protect.


----------



## Jacob (27 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Norway is not a socialist state. ....


Thought for the day:
All modern economies are largely socialist, with massive levels of tax and public spending.
There is no alternative.
The "capitalist" state, where everything is provided by free market forces, is a childish fantasy; "Trussonomics"  or the fundamentalism of the Tufton Street Taliban.
The most often repeated mantra of the right is about keeping taxes low. They keep flogging this dead horse simply because they think taxation is "unfair", rather like spoilt kids with too many sweets.
Truss pulled the covers off briefly and showed it in all its silliness. She will be remembered!
Maggy has a statue in Grantham, where should Lizzy's go?





__





UK Tax Revenue: % of GDP, 1955 – 2022 | CEIC Data


UK Tax revenue: % of GDP was reported at 28.7 % in Sep 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 26.7 % for Jun 2022.




www.ceicdata.com




Denmark 41%, Norway 35%, UK 26.5% ...


----------



## Jameshow (27 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> All modern economies are largely socialist, with massive levels of tax and public spending.
> There is no alternative.
> The "capitalist" state, where everything is provided by free market forces, is a childish fantasy; "Trussonomics"  or the fundamentalism of the Tufton Street Taliban.
> The most often repeated mantra of the right is about keeping taxes low. They keep flogging this dead horse simply because they think taxation is "unfair", rather like spoilt kids with too many sweets.
> Truss pulled the covers off briefly and showed it in all its silliness. She will be remembered!


India is pretty freemarket with little state social services. It may have changed in 20 yrs since I was there...


----------



## Jacob (27 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> India is pretty freemarket with little state social services. It may have changed in 20 yrs since I was there...


India 7.8% and desperately poor








Raising the standard: Time for a higher poverty line in India


Drawing from their research findings, the authors express the need to raise the poverty line in India and utilize Indian policy to deliver economic growth and inclusion to the nation’s poorest.




www.brookings.edu




Free market theorists would say that the Indian peasants should pull their fingers out and work a lot harder. Then they can buy their own clean drinking water and lavatories when they've earned enough.


----------



## deema (27 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> India 7.8% and desperately poor
> 
> 
> 
> ...


India employment salaries are very similar to the UK for technical jobs such as engineers. Five years ago, when looking at restructuring a USA listed company, it came as a shock to the Americans that employing Engineers in the UK were a lower cost option than India!
The number of millionaire in India is due to at least double by 2026, a faster rate than the UK.
There is huge disparity in the distribution of wealth in India and opportunity, but this is probably more to do with the class system than anything else. Let’s not forget India is a nuclear state with a space program, not the obvious signs of a poor country.


----------



## deema (27 Oct 2022)

I think there are two things get conflicted, a view that support of low taxes somehow means that a corresponding view that care should not be provided to the needy. I actually think it’s completely different, what is being highlighted is that, as unbelievable as it seems, lowering taxes actually increases a coubtrues revenue enabling more money to be available for what ever the population decide to spend it on. In other words, the overall standard of living improves compared to an environment of high taxation. 
Nobody in any response has suggested that support for the needy should be reduced, the only suggestion was that corruption should be tackled. The debate is about how to find the government, lie or high taxation and it’s effects on mobile capital.


----------



## Blackswanwood (27 Oct 2022)

@baldkev - is this question an annual event? 

Interest rates and mortgages.....


----------



## johna.clements (27 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Free market economies are not completely free. The UK rightly imposes rules to avoid the exploitation of labour (minimum wage, child labour, paid holidays etc), standards governing quality safety and performance, consumer law (cooling off periods etc).
> 
> There is a debate to be had about whether these constraints are too onerous, or still leave the public and workers exposed to unreasonable or unfair outcomes.
> 
> ...


There is a bill currently in Parliament to abolish the requirement for minimum wages and paid holidays. They will cease to exist at the end of next year if the bill is passed. Don't know if the restrictions on child labour will also be removed. Government ministers may after the bill is passed decide to keep the minimum wages and paid holidays but there will be no vote on the matter.

Lower regulation makes it harder to compete internationally where overseas companies may be more regulated. When you are selling into a market you have to demonstrate that you meet their standards. If domestically you have to meet the same standards it is relatively easy to demonstrate that you meet the other markets standards. If you do not have to meet the standards domestically you will have to pay more to get your products tested and for your business to be audited to ensure that you meet the higher standards. Because your products now require more checks that cost you money you have to increase the cost of your goods and become less competitive or take less profit.

The UK and other countries have decided to have jurisdiction in other countries.


----------



## Jacob (27 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> .... Let’s not forget India is a nuclear state with a space program, not the obvious signs of a poor country.


exactly. It's the *number of poor people* which indicate that it's a poor country. These things are simpler than you think.


----------



## sploo (27 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> 10 pages so far, my most popular thread yet..... if i start a thread on towbars we can run through everyones thoughts on religion



If I weren't so lazy I'd use Photoshop to knock up an image of a car with a towbar in the shape of a menorah


----------



## Spectric (27 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> India employment salaries are very similar to the UK for technical jobs such as engineers. Five years ago, when looking at restructuring a USA listed company, it came as a shock to the Americans that employing Engineers in the UK were a lower cost option than India!
> The number of millionaire in India is due to at least double by 2026, a faster rate than the UK.


All part of the re-alignment where countries like India and China are growing and becoming more influencial as the Uk slides down to it's new position on the world stage and our employment will grow but wages will fall in comparison. Having a large population of poor people is just a large pool of future workers, in the Uk we once had a very large number of poor rural workers until they moved from the country into towns to work in industry during the industrial revolution but the big difference is we were starting from scratch and they have been given a head start.


----------



## sploo (27 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> the Tufton Street Taliban.


I'd seen the existence of that video but hadn't previously watched it because I thought it was just a silly stunt of them putting the blue plaque on the building - how wrong I was. Nothing "new" (in the sense that it's well known what comes out of Tufton Street), but it's a great explanation for those who aren't aware.

Whilst it was pleasing to see such a sudden and public failure of their immediate policies (in Truss and Kwarteng damaging the economy, and of course, Truss unsurprisingly being a total failure), I rather doubt they'll stop in their activities.

What amazes me is that their representatives are invited to give opinion on widely publicly available media when their donors are very deliberately kept private. Seems to me that there should be a rule that any group or think tank that wants airtime must have transparency as to who provides the funds for their activities.


----------



## Jacob (27 Oct 2022)

sploo said:


> I'd seen the existence of that video but hadn't previously watched it because I thought it was just a silly stunt of them putting the blue plaque on the building - how wrong I was. Nothing "new" (in the sense that it's well known what comes out of Tufton Street), but it's a great explanation for those who aren't aware.
> 
> Whilst it was pleasing to see such a sudden and public failure of their immediate policies (in Truss and Kwarteng damaging the economy, and of course, Truss unsurprisingly being a total failure), I rather doubt they'll stop in their activities.
> 
> What amazes me is that their representatives are invited to give opinion on widely publicly available media when their donors are very deliberately kept private. Seems to me that there should be a rule that any group or think tank that wants airtime must have transparency as to who provides the funds for their activities.


Yes it's very interesting! They should have started the commentary a bit earlier as many might miss it and switch off too soon








Led By Donkeys targets Tufton Street with oversized blue plaque


'The UK economy was crashed here' the sign above 55 Tufton Street near Westminster reads, widely known as the backdoor to Number 10




www.thelondoneconomic.com


----------



## Terry - Somerset (27 Oct 2022)

> Lower regulation makes it harder to compete internationally where overseas companies may be more regulated. When you are selling into a market you have to demonstrate that you meet their standards



This was partially true when the UK was in the EU - the fundamental principles of free movement of goods, people, money etc meant that a common core set of rules applied to all members.

It is also true that for some imported goods compliance with some local requirements is mandatory - eg: safety of electrical goods, permitted food additives etc.

But as far as I know there is no regulation imposed upon manufacturers overseas about how the goods are manufactured. 

China, India, Bangladesh etc may pay workers well below UK minimum wage, in conditions that in this country we would regard as abhorrent, with little regard for environmental impacts, etc. This is the main reason for the lower prices most in this country are happy to enjoy.



> The UK and other countries have decided to have jurisdiction in other countries.



Can you give an example. As far as I know the UK can only enact laws in the UK (possibly + Falklands, Gibraltar etc).

UK government can bring action in courts around the world. The laws under which the courts operate are set by its own government (not the UK) - be it democracy or dictatorship. 

If action is taken against a foreign company or individual in the UK under UK law, the problem then becomes one of enforcing judgement. With the exception of some criminal acts for which there are extradition treaties etc, judgement cannot be enforced, only requested.

An example - the UK government wins a case for which a punitive fine is the outcome. If the guilty has assets in the UK, bailiffs can be appointed to seize said assets. If the assets are overseas, bailiffs may even be guilty of breaking local laws if they tried to recover assets in this way.


----------



## Jacob (27 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> ....
> 
> Lower regulation makes it harder to compete internationally where overseas companies may be more regulated. When you are selling into a market you have to demonstrate that you meet their standards.......


A good part of why joining the EU was such a good idea. and the reason why trading with the EU is now problematic, particularly with the island of Ireland, on which Johnson lied his teeth off and took a big gamble - knowing that he himself wouldn't be in place to deal with the damage


----------



## Spectric (27 Oct 2022)

Boris gambled everything on delivering brexit, it was a promise he made and therefore had to deliver it. People must have known that there was no solution that would solve the Irish border issues and keep everyone happy so why did no one raise any doubts and allow the government to sign an agreement knowing it had a big glowing hole that was thinly hidden. Maybe it is time to have a referendom and ask if the people in Northern ireland want to remain British or become Irish and you have a potential solution if they want to be Irish as then it is all within the EU.


----------



## johna.clements (27 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> This was partially true when the UK was in the EU - the fundamental principles of free movement of goods, people, money etc meant that a common core set of rules applied to all members.
> 
> It is also true that for some imported goods compliance with some local requirements is mandatory - eg: safety of electrical goods, permitted food additives etc.
> 
> ...


Yes when we were in the EU and automatically applied EU rules, (if we did not veto them or get an opt out) we did not have to demonstrate that we complied with EU rules. Exporters to the EU already had demonstrated compliance to the UK government. When we diverge our rules from the EU our exporters will then have to demonstrate compliance with EU rules.

If the UK does not keep paid holidays (the government has not yet decided to keep them) and the EU requires importers to pay for holidays or pay a tariff then UK companies will have an additional expense. The UK exporter will have to bring in an auditor to prove that it provides paid holidays or pay a tariff. The exporter may be more competative when exporting out side the EU but it is harder to grow market share than loose.

There are numerous British standards (most of which were adopted by the EU) etc about how goods are manufactured overseas. 


I am surprised you are not aware of the UK imposing laws overseas when it chooses to do so. It has a long history, I would be surprised if it started at Nuremberg. The US taxes people overseas, Boris had to pay the US to give up his US citizenship to stop getting tax demands (he spent the first three months of his life in New York). Boris could have ignored the US tax demands but then he would have problems visiting the US or doing business.


----------



## johna.clements (27 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Boris gambled everything on delivering brexit, it was a promise he made and therefore had to deliver it. People must have known that there was no solution that would solve the Irish border issues and keep everyone happy so why did no one raise any doubts and allow the government to sign an agreement knowing it had a big glowing hole that was thinly hidden. Maybe it is time to have a referendom and ask if the people in Northern ireland want to remain British or become Irish and you have a potential solution if they want to be Irish as then it is all within the EU.


People did point out there would be problems with Northern Ireland, it was called project fear. 

Mogg and others said there would be a technological solution, he has not produced it. May had the backstop which would be inplace until the Mogg solution arrived or something else appeared. May said the only other solution was a border in the Irish Sea. Boris took over and negotied a border in the Irish Sea then claimed he did not know what a border in the Irish sea was.

It was just ignored because it was a difficult problem.


----------



## Spectric (27 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Mogg and others said there would be a technological solution, he has not produced it.


Just like keeping water and electricity apart you have to keep politicians and technology apart, look at the fiasco with our track and trace and how much money went down that sink hole.


----------



## johna.clements (27 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> 10 pages so far, my most popular thread yet..... if i start a thread on towbars we can run through everyones thoughts on religion


The EU have just put interest rates up 3/4%.

I hope this is not too on topic


----------



## Jacob (27 Oct 2022)

_"During Liz Truss’s short premiership, there was much talk about the power and influence of the Tufton Street network of opaque rightwing thinktanks. But actually, the longer-term driving force of UK economic policy, there in front of us all this time, has been the City of London. It’s time to open our eyes and look more closely."_









Britain has its first investment banker PM – the City’s takeover is complete | Aeron Davis


For all the talk about the thinktanks of Tufton Street, it’s the Square Mile that truly rules Westminster, says Aeron Davis, professor of political communication at Victoria University




www.theguardian.com





They were also main drivers in the hysterical and extreme reaction to poor old Corbyn's brief ascendancy. He was a real threat to what they hold most dear i.e. loadsa money in their hands.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (27 Oct 2022)

> f the UK does not keep paid holidays (the government has not yet decided to keep them) and the EU requires importers to pay for holidays or pay a tariff then UK companies will have an additional expense.


In 2021 EU imported US$557bn from China and US$54bn from India. It is an absolute certainty that employment, environmental, safety standards etc would not have met the minimum required by the EU for production inside the EU. 

Mostly (but not entirely) wealthy western economies are happy to ignore the conditions under which goods are produced overseas to benefit from lower prices. Their principal concern is only that the goods are fit for purpose, and little concerned about how or where they are made.



> I would be surprised if it started at Nuremberg. The US taxes people overseas, Boris had to pay the US to give up his US citizenship to stop getting tax demands (he spent the first three months of his life in New York).



The Nuremburg trials were held following a London Conference between the allies. It was not based on one country imposing their laws on another. The pursuit of war criminals may have little common with commercial trade anyway.

Boris having been born in the US was evidently subject to US law. He had a choice - continue to respond to US tax demands or give up citizenship. Given his very public profile this was something he needed to resolve. This is nothing to do with the US imposing its laws on the UK - they were imposing US laws on Boris as a US citizen.


----------



## johna.clements (27 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> In 2021 EU imported US$557bn from China and US$54bn from India. It is an absolute certainty that employment, environmental, safety standards etc would not have met the minimum required by the EU for production inside the EU.
> 
> Mostly (but not entirely) wealthy western economies are happy to ignore the conditions under which goods are produced overseas to benefit from lower prices. Their principal concern is only that the goods are fit for purpose, and little concerned about how or where they are made.
> 
> ...



The EU imposes tariffs on the USA and India. If we adopt US or Indian regulations we will have to pay tariffs.

Thank you for agreeing that the US imposes citizenship on people, against their will, so that it can tax them.


----------



## akirk (27 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Thank you for agreeing that the US imposes citizenship on people, against their will, so that it can tax them.



Sorry - this is now getting a little ridiculous!

Boris Johnson was born in the USA - and therefore had USA citizenship
No country imposes citizenship to then tax people...


----------



## sploo (27 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Maybe it is time to have a referendom and ask if the people in Northern ireland want to remain British or become Irish and you have a potential solution if they want to be Irish as then it is all within the EU.


I thought the genius of the Good Friday Agreement was that it effectively covers that as part of its scenarios; namely that (for all intents and purposes) there is no border between ROI and NI, but that there will not be a united Ireland until a majority in NI votes for it. The resulting compromise is that the Nationalists and the Republicans get the illusion of a united Ireland, and the Unionists and Loyalists can feel safe that there will not actually be a unified Ireland because the population of NI will never vote for it.

Given that Brexit chucked a huge torpedo through that by requiring a border between ROI and NI I could see the suggestion of "why don't you (NI) guys fix it by just voting to decide if you want to be Irish?" might cause some... strong reactions.


----------



## johna.clements (27 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> Sorry - this is now getting a little ridiculous!
> 
> Boris Johnson was born in the USA - and therefore had USA citizenship
> No country imposes citizenship to then tax people...


The USA decided that Boris Johnson who was born there whilst his parents were studying was a USA citizen.
Boris's parents are from the UK and he was three months old when they returned to the UK.
Boris was not asked if he wanted to be a US citizen when he was 18 or 21 he had no choice in the matter.
Boris had to pay the USA to stop being a citizen.


----------



## deema (27 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> The USA decided that Boris Johnson who was born there whilst his parents were studying was a USA citizen.
> Boris's parents are from the UK and he was three months old when they returned to the UK.
> Boris was not asked if he wanted to be a US citizen when he was 18 or 21 he had no choice in the matter.
> Boris had to pay the USA to stop being a citizen.



It’s where you are born that matters not where your parents are from. Born in the USA in almost all cases means you are a US citizen. If your in the USA when your born then your subject to USA law. 








Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)


A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a



www.uscis.gov


----------



## johna.clements (27 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> It’s where you are born that matters not where your parents are from. Born in the USA in almost all cases means you are a US citizen. If your in the USA when your born then your subject to USA law.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes you have no choice in the matter. Other countries have different rules.


----------



## baldkev (27 Oct 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> @baldkev - is this question an annual event?
> 
> Interest rates and mortgages.....


 yes, it seems so. Last time i was aiming at doing something with our house or moving, and a year later ive done nothing.... so i was tring to figure out what to do for the best. The mrs wants a bigger house, but currently, we dont really have that option ( house prices here are high and i dont want to move out of our area ) I do however promise not to ask next year because i will have been forced to jump by then and remortgage 


sploo said:


> If I weren't so lazy I'd use Photoshop to knock up an image of a car with a towbar in the shape of a menorah


I'll have to google menorah


----------



## sploo (27 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> I'll have to google menorah


I did the reverse; googled the name of that "Jewish candle thingy" (with no disrespect intended to anyone of the Jewish candle thingy faith)


----------



## baldkev (27 Oct 2022)

sploo said:


> I did the reverse; googled the name of that "Jewish candle thingy" (with no disrespect intended to anyone of the Jewish candle thingy faith)



Hmmmm. Interesting towbar attachment choice.... probably more useful than a cross because you can hook more kit on it.... plus those candles would be handy in the dark.


----------



## deema (27 Oct 2022)

I know far too much about Towbars……..now that is a can of worms!


----------



## Richard_C (27 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> 10 pages so far, my most popular thread yet..... if i start a thread on towbars we can run through everyones thoughts on religion


I have heard that in deepest East Cheam there is a tribe of caravan draggers who worship a deity called Witter. Their fundamental belief is an afterlife of fixed mortgage rates and no VAT or corporation tax.


----------



## Scruples (28 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Thought for the day:
> All modern economies are largely socialist, with massive levels of tax and public spending.
> There is no alternative.
> The "capitalist" state, where everything is provided by free market forces, is a childish fantasy; "Trussonomics"  or the fundamentalism of the Tufton Street Taliban.
> ...


And 1% of the pupulation account for 33% of the tax revenue. Hmm...
It seems the more companies we have the more taxes the state get. Is that socialism?


----------



## rwillett (28 Oct 2022)

Having worked and travelled in India, the notion that Indians are lazy is farcical. I count many Indians as friend both here and India and they are very, very hard working.

India has many problems, the incredible difference between the very wealthy and the poor, a caste system that still permeates throughout the rural population, a government that is wholly inefficient, an inability to levy and collect taxes efficiently. I can’t comment on the social issues of religion and the role of women as I still don’t understand them or get my head around them. They also don’t appear to have strategic natural resources in great abundance, so they have to buy in things like oil.

If India could correct these problems, and skip the economic stages of exploitation of natural resources that the uk went though with coal and oil, they will become an economic powerhouse that will dwarf the UK. 

Whilst I can’t see them challenge China or the USA, they will overtake the UK soon, they are ranked 6th for GDP, we are currently 5th but Liz has done an excellent job of trashing our economy in 44 days, so I expect that to change. 20 years from now, I’d expect to see India as 3rd for GDP, ahead of Germany, Japan and the UK. 

It’s entirely possible that India will start to try and restrict immigration to us, much like various Home Secretarys are doing to India with their hateful and spiteful views. We should be very careful for what we wish for. 

Anyway as we are rapidly becoming the laughing stock for Europe and the rest of the world, I’m going to head back to my research on whether my Jewish heritage allows me to claim Portuguese nationality. 

Will the last right wing conservative nut case, turn the lights off when they have finished their ideologue experiments please, we can’t afford the electricity. 

Thanks

Rob


----------



## Jacob (28 Oct 2022)

Scruples said:


> And 1% of the pupulation account for 33% of the tax revenue. Hmm...
> It seems the more companies we have the more taxes the state get. Is that socialism?


Probably, but call it what you will, it's broadly redistributive, there is no alternative, this is how modern economies work


----------



## johna.clements (28 Oct 2022)

rwillett said:


> Having worked and travelled in India, the notion that Indians are lazy is farcical. I count many Indians as friend both here and India and they are very, very hard working.
> 
> India has many problems, the incredible difference between the very wealthy and the poor, a caste system that still permeates throughout the rural population, a government that is wholly inefficient, an inability to levy and collect taxes efficiently. I can’t comment on the social issues of religion and the role of women as I still don’t understand them or get my head around them. They also don’t appear to have strategic natural resources in great abundance, so they have to buy in things like oil.
> 
> ...


I worked in the middle east. The Indian and Pakistani labourers that we had worked hard.


----------



## Jacob (28 Oct 2022)

Wealth Tax Commission


Project to study whether the UK should have a wealth tax




www.ukwealth.tax


----------



## deema (28 Oct 2022)

It’s not that inequality exists, that’s always going to be the case, neither is it really about how much the top 1% has either. It’s really about the difference between the majority and the lowest percentages of the population. Large scale inequality causes societies to break down, it’s therefore in everyone’s interest that the bottom isn’t too far below the median. The problem we face is that the way to increase government revenues / reduce the inequality. We have seen that from the responses and discussion on this thread. I rather like this short uTube video about inequality


----------



## Spectric (28 Oct 2022)

If anyone saw that program last night with mr Foggle in Detroit then you can see the results of inequality, from the richest place in the USA to a ghetto with many people getting up and leaving for good, leaving behind a crime ridden city with a murder rate to match.


----------



## akirk (28 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> It’s not that inequality exists, that’s always going to be the case, neither is it really about how much the top 1% has either. It’s really about the difference between the majority and the lowest percentages of the population. Large scale inequality causes societies to break down, it’s therefore in everyone’s interest that the bottom isn’t too far below the median. The problem we face is that the way to increase government revenues / reduce the inequality. We have seen that from the responses and discussion on this thread. I rather like this shirt uTube video about inequality



A very good video - and it highlights many of the issues...

One thing which comes out of that is the concept of zero and the inability once there, or close to ever move off it - and if you take the analogy of monopoly then you could give a minimum which removes zero - i.e. every time you go below e.g. £300 bank tops you up to £300 - it would change the game considerably as it removes your ever being in the situation where you have no scope for change - doesn't remove the ability to win or lose when you land on Mayfair with hotels on it as you would have to address the ability to have debt above that minimum - but take it back into the real world and arguably that is the benefits system - whatever happens there is a minimum that keeps you from complete zero...

of course there are huge issues - how do you distribute benefits / how do you make people spend it on shelter and food rather than a new phone / alcohol and gambling / etc. but the underlying principle is correct - that you have a compassion which should mean that no-one has less than needed to survive - shelter / warmth / food.

beyond that, the biggest issue is psychological - why do people want things / why is a 60 inch OLED TV more appealing than the current 40 inch LCD TV such that someone wishes to upgrade for £1,000? Why is it that some people don't care about upgrading, and for others it becomes a priority even where they have other debt?

What is it about money and how society promotes and values it that leads to acquisition of wealth - if for example society valued time more than money, how would that change the dynamics - after all, everyone has the same amount of time (ignoring for now life span), so there is less ability to hoard it or have disparity - could society change the psychology?

lots of things to consider - we don't have it right yet...


----------



## Spectric (28 Oct 2022)

In the UK we are programed to get on the property ladder and then spend a vast part of our lives paying a mortgage, this reduces the amount of money available to spend and increases national debt. If there was a good rental property market with regulated rents then people would have more disposable income that would benefit all.


----------



## johna.clements (28 Oct 2022)

akirk said:


> A very good video - and it highlights many of the issues...
> 
> One thing which comes out of that is the concept of zero and the inability once there, or close to ever move off it - and if you take the analogy of monopoly then you could give a minimum which removes zero - i.e. every time you go below e.g. £300 bank tops you up to £300 - it would change the game considerably as it removes your ever being in the situation where you have no scope for change - doesn't remove the ability to win or lose when you land on Mayfair with hotels on it as you would have to address the ability to have debt above that minimum - but take it back into the real world and arguably that is the benefits system - whatever happens there is a minimum that keeps you from complete zero...
> 
> ...


The benefit system decentivies saving money. If you have over a £16000 it is "taxed" at 100%, you get no universal credit until you have spent your saving to a certain level and then they are reduced.

If you have a low income but still can save money you could loose the money you are saving as a deposit if you are unable to work for some time. It is not irrational to then decide to spend money as you get it rather than save for a very long time and then maybe loose it.


----------



## whereistheceilidh (28 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> In the UK we are programed to get on the property ladder and then spend a vast part of our lives paying a mortgage, this reduces the amount of money available to spend and increases national debt. If there was a good rental property market with regulated rents then people would have more disposable income that would benefit all.


I tend to agree with Spectric that we are programmed to aspire to property, but unfortunately there is little incentive to put out property as a long term let without conforming to a rash of rules & restrictions.
I also feel that Akirk's & Spetric 's comments are linked by the idea of programming, especially advertising. That idea of being nudged into spending or doing more than we need to......
I suspect it also applies to tool advertising as well....


----------



## Spectric (28 Oct 2022)

Our problem is that signing on is seen as a form of employment, some who could work choose not to whilst others decide to work part time and claim a top up often because of the expense of child care. If you choose to just sign on then you should be made available to do work in the community so you at least get a routine and some experience of a working life and hopefully an incentive that you might as well get a better paid job than community work.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (28 Oct 2022)

Although quite different in character, the lifetime costs of house ownership vs rental may not be wildly different, despite social programming aspiring to ownership.

Rental charges need to be at least equal to the risk adjusted costs of ownership. Rental costs tend to increase over time due to inflation - but the costs of initial purchase remain unchanged (subject to interest rates on borrowings). Property assets carry risks - potential for increase in value, changes to interest rates, fairly illiquid, rental void periods etc.

The cost of ownership is equal (broadly) to the costs of funding the initial cost (either by mortgage or interest or savings foregone) + subsequent costs of maintenance, insurance, repair, updating as time passes etc. 

Renting is largely the converse - insecurity of tenure, but can flexibly meeting changing needs, no worries about maintenance, repairs, upgrading etc. 

That owners end up with an asset and tenants more rarely may have more to do with either greater incomes or less other spending by the former.

The fundamental influence on property and rental pricing is scarcity. Decades of a failure to build sufficient new properties to meet demand = scarcity = property values or rent increases.


----------



## johna.clements (28 Oct 2022)

Like any business a property developer wants to make as much profit as possible. I understand that there is generally more profit on higher value property. Higher value houses take more land. Therefore the same area of land is being used to house less people. 

Councils and housing associations do not build as many houses as in the past. Whilst those would have gone for rent they would have soaked up some demand in the housing market.

A shortage of housing and government incentives to buy drives up prices. The only people who benefit are the property developers, people downsizing and your heirs.


----------



## Jacob (28 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Our problem is that signing on is seen as a form of employment,


So unemployment is a form of employment? 


Spectric said:


> some who could work choose not to whilst others decide to work part time and claim a top up often because of the expense of child care. If you choose to just sign on then you should be made available to do work in the community so you at least get a routine and some experience of a working life and hopefully an incentive that you might as well get a better paid job than community work.


What sort of community work do you have in mind? n.b. there aren't many available for what you suggest as we currently have the lowest unemployment rates since 1974.


----------



## Spectric (28 Oct 2022)

I would start with cleaning up the local area, we seem to be burying ourselves in liter.


----------



## johna.clements (28 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Our problem is that signing on is seen as a form of employment, some who could work choose not to whilst others decide to work part time and claim a top up often because of the expense of child care. If you choose to just sign on then you should be made available to do work in the community so you at least get a routine and some experience of a working life and hopefully an incentive that you might as well get a better paid job than community work.


The government tried to put the unemployed to work in the 80s. A lot of the jobs were worthless, go sweep the floor of a factory. They were discontinued when the government decided that they were largely a waste of money.

At this time I was working on a power station in Kent. There was a bloke on the dole in the lodging house I was staying. he was on one of the schemes repairing the footpaths along the coast. They would hang around for an hour or two waiting to be driven to the site. Get there do two hours work then have lunch. Do another two hours then be driven home. Not what I would call a good experience of work.

I doubt it would be any better now apart from as a means of injecting money into the "training" agencies that would be set up.

It would be far better to spend the money on further education colleges so that people can learn trades.


----------



## johna.clements (28 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> I would start with cleaning up the local area, we seem to be burying ourselves in liter.


You are going to make the local authority litter collectors redundant and then employ people to watch groups of people on the dole collecting litter.


----------



## Spectric (28 Oct 2022)

You have to do something, if there are jobs then there should be no unemployment. Not far from me is a hotel that is desperate to recruit, need staff urgently and there are also many busineses that are also in need of staff but cannot get them so they reduce there opening hours and some might have to close yet there are quiet a lot of unemployed in the area who could easily fill these slots. The hotel manager who is a local says that they will not work in hospitality because they don't like the hours especially some of the early mornings and basically just enjoy the lazy life which really pee's him off.


----------



## Spectric (28 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> You are going to make the local authority litter collectors redundant


There is more than enough liter for them all to clear up as the local highways are understaffed and there are a lot more people lobing it out of car windows than people collecting.


----------



## johna.clements (28 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> You have to do something, if there are jobs then there should be no unemployment. Not far from me is a hotel that is desperate to recruit, need staff urgently and there are also many busineses that are also in need of staff but cannot get them so they reduce there opening hours and some might have to close yet there are quiet a lot of unemployed in the area who could easily fill these slots. The hotel manager who is a local says that they will not work in hospitality because they don't like the hours especially some of the early mornings and basically just enjoy the lazy life which really pee's him off.


They probably do not like the split shifts. 
We want you in at 0700 and you finish at 1100. Then we want you back at 1700 finish at 2000.
Min wage on the weekend and bank holidays.


----------



## deema (28 Oct 2022)

I think there are a few categories of unemployed, and we need to be careful not to lump them altogether. These are the categories I have come a across. 
1. Those who for medical reasons cannot work. They can be both short term and long term conditions.
2. Those who have become trapped in the benefit system. These are people who if they took paid employment would see their net income reduce. A vicious trap, that’s very hard to get out of for those with low skills, and for instance large families. 
3. Those that accept the life that the benefits system provides, and have no desire to work / better themselves. 
4. Those who defraud the system, in that they claim benefits whilst not declaring other paid work ie black market.


----------



## johna.clements (28 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> I think there are a few categories of unemployed, and we need to be careful not to lump them altogether. These are the categories I have come a across.
> 1. Those who for medical reasons cannot work. They can be both short term and long term conditions.
> 2. Those who have become trapped in the benefit system. These are people who if they took paid employment would see their net income reduce. A vicious trap, that’s very hard to get out of for those with low skills, and for instance large families.
> 3. Those that accept the life that the benefits system provides, and have no desire to work / better themselves.
> 4. Those who defraud the system, in that they claim benefits whilst not declaring other paid work ie black market.


1. A lot of those are people with mental health issues.
2. This has got better in the last few years. But I think the marginal tax rate is still in the region of 60 or 70% for many.
3. There are some like this but a lot less than some think.
4. This also certainly happens but it is quite difficult to disappear on the same day every week to sign on. Most likely to be one off jobs that are not declared. Cash in hand tax fraud is larger.

5. Over qualified.


----------



## Jacob (28 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> I would start with cleaning up the local area, we seem to be burying ourselves in liter.


Well if it's worth doing they could turn it into a paid job and get somebody off the dole, or it'll be chain gangs next!


----------



## Jacob (28 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> I think there are a few categories of unemployed, and we need to be careful not to lump them altogether. These are the categories I have come a across.
> 1. Those who for medical reasons cannot work. They can be both short term and long term conditions.
> 2. Those who have become trapped in the benefit system. These are people who if they took paid employment would see their net income reduce. A vicious trap, that’s very hard to get out of for those with low skills, and for instance large families.
> 3. Those that accept the life that the benefits system provides, and have no desire to work / better themselves.
> 4. Those who defraud the system, in that they claim benefits whilst not declaring other paid work ie black market.


_"The number of people on Universal Credit in employment has remained at around 2.3 million since 10 December 2020. The employment rate has increased for all people on Universal Credit to 42% on 9 December 2021 from 39% on 10 December 2020 as the total number of people on Universal Credit has decreased."_
This means that 2.3 million people in full time work are *underpaid* and their skin flint employers are subsidised by the benefits system.
Lots of information here DWP benefits statistics: February 2021


----------



## baldkev (28 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> In the UK we are programed to get on the property ladder and then spend a vast part of our lives paying a mortgage, this reduces the amount of money available to spend and increases national debt. If there was a good rental property market with regulated rents then people would have more disposable income that would benefit all.


Around here rents are a fair bit more than a mortgage.... seems to me renting is throwing money away. At least with a mortgage you end up with an asset..... with rent, it never ends


whereistheceilidh said:


> I tend to agree with Spectric that we are programmed to aspire to property, but unfortunately there is little incentive to put out property as a long term let without conforming to a rash of rules & restrictions.
> I also feel that Akirk's & Spetric 's comments are linked by the idea of programming, especially advertising. That idea of being nudged into spending or doing more than we need to......
> I suspect it also applies to tool advertising as well....


Everything is geared towards making us want stuff. Our phones, com0uters, smart t.vs even, collect info on us and our shopping / browsing info so they can target us.... and by extension, others around us, for instance, recently i was looking at tracked dumpers. Someone who worked with me for a few days then started getting ads for tracked dumpers because his phone was in close proximity to mine for a while 


Jacob said:


> So unemployment is a form of employment?
> 
> What sort of community work do you have in mind? n.b. there aren't many available for what you suggest as we currently have the lowest unemployment rates since 1974.


Start a national building company. Give them labouring tasks and those who show willing get offered to start an apprenticeship.
Of course thered be problems with stealing, bad management and controlling standards would be difficult, but that'd be social housing sorted


----------



## Spectric (28 Oct 2022)

baldkev said:


> seems to me renting is throwing money away. At least with a mortgage you end up with an asset..... with rent, it never ends


Yes I can see that view but if rents were lower and you had a lot more disposable income as a result then is there really much difference. Buying a property ties you down for say 25 years and all repairs and upkeep are down to you, if renting was cheaper then your outlay is less and no upkeep so you have money to spend. I think a lot of europe does the renting more because the rent is sensable and people want to have more money in their pockets. You may end up owning the property but it can be a brick round your neck, it is an asset but you need somewhere to live so downsize, release equity, leave in your will. This all goes wrong when you get old and need care, now owning a property is just money to pay for the care whereas someone who has rented and had extra money to spend all their life now gets it free and they could be in the same care home as you! Same old story in that you have something and so get nothing, have nothing and get everything.


----------



## Spectric (28 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> or it'll be chain gangs next!


Not for the unemployed, we will use that idea for the people in prison, bright pink overalls along the lines of america.


----------



## baldkev (28 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Yes I can see that view but if rents were lower and you had a lot more disposable income as a result then is there really much difference. Buying a property ties you down for say 25 years and all repairs and upkeep are down to you, if renting was cheaper then your outlay is less and no upkeep so you have money to spend. I think a lot of europe does the renting more because the rent is sensable and people want to have more money in their pockets. You may end up owning the property but it can be a brick round your neck, it is an asset but you need somewhere to live so downsize, release equity, leave in your will. This all goes wrong when you get old and need care, now owning a property is just money to pay for the care whereas someone who has rented and had extra money to spend all their life now gets it free and they could be in the same care home as you! Same old story in that you have something and so get nothing, have nothing and get everything.


Thats why you sign it over to your kids... the only difficult bit is timing. You need to do it ideally 7 years before you die or maybe 3 years before you need a care home. 

If rent was a good bit lower than a mortgage, that would make a big difference in peoples choices... at that point you could roll your money into a business to make more money


----------



## thetyreman (28 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> You have to do something, if there are jobs then there should be no unemployment. Not far from me is a hotel that is desperate to recruit, need staff urgently and there are also many busineses that are also in need of staff but cannot get them so they reduce there opening hours and some might have to close yet there are quiet a lot of unemployed in the area who could easily fill these slots. The hotel manager who is a local says that they will not work in hospitality because they don't like the hours especially some of the early mornings and basically just enjoy the lazy life which really pee's him off.


 
I've been long-term unemployed before, the problem the unemployed face is discrimination, you go to interviews and people automatically presume you're 1. lazy 2. don't want to work 3. have no aspirations 4. you're stupid 5. you could never start a business, many unemployed people do want jobs but they'd need enough money to be able to cover the losses from loosing the benefit money, also I had may as well been a serial killer the amount of hostility I received from job centre staff, I even told them about my woodworking and just got laughed at basically, they also delberately with held opportunities for me to re-train to become a joiner despite trying to get on a course for over 6 months constantly hounding them, my 'work coach' went out of her way to deliberately forget my interest in woodworking, instead making me apply for Cumquats customer service jobs and jobs not suited to my skill set, the whole experience just confirmed that the system is completely broken and not working at all and left a very bad taste in my mouth regarding the conservative party that I'll never ever forget until the day I die.


----------



## thetyreman (28 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> There is more than enough liter for them all to clear up as the local highways are understaffed and there are a lot more people lobing it out of car windows than people collecting.


that should be a job for people who have committed crimes instead, not for the unemployed who are simply out of work and just looking for a job, they're looking for paid opportunities not slave labour...


----------



## thetyreman (28 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> _"The number of people on Universal Credit in employment has remained at around 2.3 million since 10 December 2020. The employment rate has increased for all people on Universal Credit to 42% on 9 December 2021 from 39% on 10 December 2020 as the total number of people on Universal Credit has decreased."_
> This means that 2.3 million people in full time work are *underpaid* and their skin flint employers are subsidised by the benefits system.
> Lots of information here DWP benefits statistics: February 2021



also a big part of the universal credit 'system' is they are putting people on useless outsourced courses, for example 'how to write a CV', to the point where it's actually patronising, I went to university ffs. I know how to write a CV! When you get onto the course, you are straight away no longer classed as unemployed, this is obviously to make the conservative party look great, and ONS are bending the figures, the REAL numbers are much higher because these people become invisible and are neither unemployed or employed anymore, it needs to be investigated more thoroughly, by an unbiased third party.


----------



## Jacob (29 Oct 2022)

You know these threads have run out of steam when people are blaming the ills of society on the unemployed, or boat people bobbing desperately in the channel, or as we saw earlier, "nurses claiming benefits so that they can look after their children part time". (That's a new variation of the "single mothers on benefits" so despised and hated by Daily Mail readers. Makes a change! )
But the real blame lies more with those with the power, at the top. 
A representative sample here:


----------



## johna.clements (29 Oct 2022)

thetyreman said:


> also a big part of the universal credit 'system' is they are putting people on useless outsourced courses, for example 'how to write a CV', to the point where it's actually patronising, I went to university ffs. I know how to write a CV! When you get onto the course, you are straight away no longer classed as unemployed, this is obviously to make the conservative party look great, and ONS are bending the figures, the REAL numbers are much higher because these people become invisible and are neither unemployed or employed anymore, it needs to be investigated more thoroughly, by an unbiased third party.


I went on two of those CV courses about ten years ago after the contractor I worked for laid off half their engineers as there was no work. Did not learn a much but it may have been helpful to be put in contact with other people who are in the same position as you for a few days. Sitting at home trawling through the internet for jobs, applying and mostly getting no response can be a bit disheartening.

I got a job after I removed my degree and mention of managerial responsibilities from my CV. They did not suggest that on either course.


----------



## julianf (29 Oct 2022)

As unemployment is at recorded low levels, the whole "benefits scroungers" thing is, I assume, now a non issue anyway.

It's boat people who are the cause of all our misery now. They are the cause of my increased mortgage rate.

Remember, it's always those with less than you who are the problem.


----------



## johna.clements (29 Oct 2022)

I doubt the mail will be reporting much on the conditions at the concentration camp in Kent. They will be reporting that the streets are paved with gold for refugees.

Meanwhile over half of the overseas aid budget is being spent in the UK. There will be less spending on things to help them live in or near their own country.


----------



## deema (29 Oct 2022)

@julianf there are a lot of people less fortunate than the most bereft in UK society, and again we have really two classes of ‘boat people’, those who have a real claim to be refugee / asylum status and the economic migrants. 

However, the larger question is why would anyone wish to place their life in mortal danger and use a small unsafe boat to try and cross the channel to gain access the the UK from a stable, democratic, none discriminatory Europe? In ever case, they will have passed through multiple European countries to arrive at the shores of France before attempting the crossing.

Now, let’s consider France, they like almost every country have laws about illegal access to the country. You either are permitted to reside, visit or have to claim asylum / refugee status or be deported. Now, it would appear that those seeking to cross the channel have not achieved the right to reside in France, or indeed any other European country they have passed through. For what ever reason, France has not deported them, and neither has any of the other European countries they have passed through. Once half way across the channel, they are no longer within the European Union and become subject to UK laws. Now, Europe is not going to allow illegal aligns back into Europe, now that we are no longer part of the EU. So, once they arrive, determining where they are actually from if they either have no papers, or have chosen to not have papers is extremely difficult, especially if your from a war torn state, or a very poor state where records can be none existent. A country is not going to take back an economic migrant unless it’s certain they are actually from the country. So a lot of time and expense is entailed in working out these basic facts, made harder by those who wish to hide their point of origin. 

Being for instance gay, or to have turned away from say the Muslim faith can if a person is returned to their homeland make make them subject to persecution, a legitimate reason for a person to seek asylum. However, it’s very difficult to work out if these are genuine claims, or just claims made to gain access to the country as in reality they are economic migrants. 

The fall of Iraq has in essence ‘opened the door’ enabling mass migration from Africa to Europe, totally understandable aspirations for many at the very bottom of the economic ladder, more than a few steps down from the worst economic conditions in the UK. However, what tends to be the case is that the fit, young and bright make the journey, this reduces the ability of the poor country to economically develop, this coupled with legitimate migration from these countries of the well educated, such as doctors and nurses is condemning the country to poor economic development. Like most things in life, it’s an extremely difficult problem if it were simple it would have been solved by now. 

To put some numbers on it, I understand that this year alone there have been c38,000 people have cross the channel. Average processing time is circa 415 days for an asylum application I believe. Now, let’s assume around a cost of £100 / day / person for the UK Government (accommodation, food, medical care, legal cost, spending money for life etc), that’s approx £1.57 billion to process just these people. That is affecting your interest rate, inflation, and the taxes that you pay


----------



## Spectric (29 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> As unemployment is at recorded low levels, the whole "benefits scroungers" thing is, I assume, now a non issue anyway.


You need to look at the reasons behing the figures, low unemployment does not directly relate to high employment. This quote is stating we have people on the fence who are neither employed or unemployed.

" However, the fall in the headline rate came amid a sharp rise in the number of working-age adults classified by statisticians as “economically inactive,” meaning they are neither employed nor looking for work."

The number of people in this group is 

" While there are about 1.2 million people unemployed, it said the inactivity rate rose by 0.6 percentage points over the three-month period to 21.7%, with almost 9 million people aged 16-64 economically inactive. " 

So although offically the unemployment rate based on benefits has fallen the number of people not employed is still high. Could be just a way for a government to make things look better or has anyone thought about the boomer generation, now approaching retirement and many will be winding down and living off savings until they take their pensions. This will lead to more problems as many used to fill roles that are now vacant and cannot be filled.

None of this answers the question that we have 1.2 million unemployed who could be filling the vacancies, what do you think happens in countries with no benefit system.


----------



## thetyreman (29 Oct 2022)

anyone remember this?


----------



## Spectric (29 Oct 2022)

Has this problem got worse since we left the EU, 



deema said:


> Now, it would appear that those seeking to cross the channel have not achieved the right to reside in France, or indeed any other European country they have passed through. For what ever reason, France has not deported them, and neither has any of the other European countries they have passed through.



Could this just be another french tactic to make us regret leaving the EU, costing us £6.8 million a day for what are mostly economic migrants seeking a more rewarding career in UK crime gangs. The rest of the world must be laughing at us for not just rounding them up and deporting back to place of origin. With this number arriving, once settled then sooner or later we will have turf wars as they claim there patches in our towns and cities.


----------



## thetyreman (29 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> You know these threads have run out of steam when people are blaming the ills of society on the unemployed, or boat people bobbing desperately in the channel, or as we saw earlier, "nurses claiming benefits so that they can look after their children part time". (That's a new variation of the "single mothers on benefits" so despised and hated by Daily Mail readers. Makes a change! )
> But the real blame lies more with those with the power, at the top.
> A representative sample here:
> 
> View attachment 146075



perfect for darts practise!


----------



## johna.clements (29 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Has this problem got worse since we left the EU,
> 
> 
> 
> Could this just be another french tactic to make us regret leaving the EU, costing us £6.8 million a day for what are mostly economic migrants seeking a more rewarding career in UK crime gangs. The rest of the world must be laughing at us for not just rounding them up and deporting back to place of origin. With this number arriving, once settled then sooner or later we will have turf wars as they claim there patches in our towns and cities.


It does not help the French to have masses of homeless people roaming around northern France. I can't imagine the people of Kent would like them here launching boats to go to France.
People voted to leave the EU and they knew what they were voting for (well they say the did).


----------



## Jacob (29 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> You need to look at the reasons behind the figures, low unemployment does not directly relate to high employment.


Oh yes it does.


----------



## J-G (29 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Oh yes it does.


Pantomime season early this year!


----------



## Jameshow (29 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Oh yes it does.


You need to read the posts above Jacob. People on courses etc....


----------



## Jacob (29 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> You need to read the posts above Jacob. People on courses etc....


You can count people e.g. on courses or other "occupations", as either unemployed or employed, depending on your definition.
Then if you stick to the same definitions then levels of "unemployment" directly relate to levels of "employment".
If you chop and change the definitions then comparing and contrasting becomes less meaningful.


----------



## Jacob (29 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> .... mostly economic migrants seeking a more rewarding career in UK crime gangs. ...


Most economic migrants are looking for work and a normal life just like you and me, and in fact most of them find it. Much the same as UK economic emigrants going to Australia, USA or anywhere.
Mind you you could think of certain offspring of economic migrants e.g. Priti Patel, Suella Braverman, Kwazi Kwarteng, Richi Sunak, as having ended up in a well known criminal gang!


----------



## Spectric (29 Oct 2022)

Unemployed is exactly that, out of work but available and seeking employment unlike people at college or in full time education who are not unemployed because they are not available or seeking employment at the current time.


----------



## deema (29 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Most economic migrants are looking for work and a normal life just like you and me, and in fact most of them find it. Much the same as UK economic emigrants going to Australia, USA or anywhere.
> Mind you you could think of certain offspring of economic migrants e.g. Priti Patel, Suella Braverman, Kwazi Kwarteng, Richi Sunak, as having ended up in a well known criminal gang!



Or, as is the fact consider them coming from commonwealth countries, and a different mode of legal entry to the UK at the time their parents came over.


----------



## John Brown (29 Oct 2022)

J-G said:


> Pantomime season early this year!


It's been panto season since BJ became PM.


----------



## sploo (29 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> As unemployment is at recorded low levels, the whole "benefits scroungers" thing is, I assume, now a non issue anyway.
> 
> It's boat people who are the cause of all our misery now. They are the cause of my increased mortgage rate.
> 
> Remember, it's always those with less than you who are the problem.


Whenever I hear about "boat people" I just can't get this gem out of my head:


----------



## Jameshow (29 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> It's been panto season since BJ became PM.


Took over from Corbyn!!!!


----------



## julianf (29 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> @julianf there are a lot of people less fortunate than the most bereft in UK society, and again we have really two classes of ‘boat people’, those who have a real claim to be refugee / asylum status and the economic migrants.
> 
> However, the larger question is why would anyone wish to place their life in mortal danger and use a small unsafe boat to try and cross the channel to gain access the the UK from a stable, democratic, none discriminatory Europe? In ever case, they will have passed through multiple European countries to arrive at the shores of France before attempting the crossing.
> 
> ...



I saw a figure of £4,300 per asylum seeker per month.

Now we both know that it doesn't cost £4,300 to support a human for one month.

So why is this cost so high?

Is it 

A) because the asylum seekers can only eat caviare, or 

B) someone is royally rinsing the tax payer for money, once again 


A or B?

Remember, we are playing the blame game here. 

So, who's fault is it? The people with nothing or the people who are, in some way or other, actually profiting from that £4300 per month?

It does not cost £4300 a month to house and feed someone, and pay for all their paperwork etc so the rest of that money is going somewhere... 

I wonder where? 

Again I'd remind you that we need to blame someone, so who do we blame? The person with nothing or the person who is massively ripping off the tax payer?


----------



## julianf (29 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Took over from Corbyn!!!!



Ahh yes, that famous PM...


----------



## deema (29 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> I saw a figure of £4,300 per asylum seeker per month.
> 
> Now we both know that it doesn't cost £4,300 to support a human for one month.
> 
> ...



So, apart from the normal costs of living (housing, clothing, money for living expenses) we supply medical treatment which is an expense, we provide interpreters and legal representation in order for them to be able to properly have their case for staying in the country considered properly. If they are minors, then they get schooling, a guardian, social services etc etc. Then there is the court time, judges, court clerks and everything else are all an additional costs. I.e. if they didn’t make an asylum application these costs wouldn’t be incurred. It all very rapidly adds up.


----------



## John Brown (29 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Took over from Corbyn!!!!


Have you forgotten May and Cameron so quickly?


----------



## John Brown (29 Oct 2022)

julianf said:


> I saw a figure of £4,300 per asylum seeker per month.
> 
> Now we both know that it doesn't cost £4,300 to support a human for one month.
> 
> ...


Roughly the same amount as it costs to incarcerate someone, but probably not as much as care for the elderly.
From which I conclude that we should put all old people in prison. Doesn't solve the asylum seeker problem, though.


----------



## Jameshow (29 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> Have you forgotten May and Cameron so quickly?



Who were they?! Don't forget IDS and the other one I cannot remember!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (29 Oct 2022)

Just looked up the cost per prisoner - around £48k pa. Care home costs are £50k pa ++.

No doubt some variation depending on nature of the accommodation, but many costs will be similar - food, health care, building and services. "Management" may be somewhat different:

prisons have prison officers,
hospitals need care and medical staff, 
asylum seekers need interpreters, immigration staff, legal support, language teachers etc 
I am unsurprised by the similarity of costs. The big issue is what can be done:

the UK is perceived as an attractive place to seek asylum. The easier it is, the more people will be attracted - in spite of the risks of a channel crossing.
governments have failed to agree a clear policy. Public views are polarised - politicians don't want to alienate some voters. Disgraceful display of non-leadership!
we cannot rely on French help to control our borders - every boat that sets sail across the channel represents a few less problems for the French to deal with
IMHO resolution requires:

an explicit policy to be adopted by the UK on the treatment of asylum seekers, rather than the inadequate cop out that presently exists 
all applications to be processed within (say) 3 months after which there is no further right of appeal. The current delays are completely unacceptable
applicants arriving from mainland Europe need to justify the decision not to seek asylum there. Clear criteria needed - eg: family ties in the UK, language skills (possibly)
if the application is unsuccessful - immediate flight back to country of origin or Rwanda (?)
There will be those who would regard this as uncompromisingly tough and likely expose applicants to serious risks on return. I would agree - but the fundamental point still holds true - make it easy to come and numbers will increase, make it fair but tough and only those with a realistic prospect of a successful application will make the journey.


----------



## monster (29 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> So does Baldkev fix his mortgage or not?!



Baldkev had a full head of hair when he started this thread!


----------



## johna.clements (29 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> all applications to be processed within (say) 3 months after which there is no further right of appeal. The current delays are completely unacceptable


The majority of asylum seekers who appeal are successful.

The government has failed to process but a tiny fraction of the people who arrived by boat last year. More than 90% (correct me if I am incorrect) have been in the system for more than three months. Does that mean that they are automatically accepted in your scheme..

Obviously if people were getting automatic passes if the process was dragged out for more than three months the quality of the decisions would decrease. The government would have to give them the benefit of the doubt even if they wanted to make further inquiries. Or the government would reject genuine asyllm seekers, who are the majority, and then face the political embarrassment as cases are continuously pointed out.


----------



## Jacob (29 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> ....the UK is perceived as an attractive place to seek asylum. ...


Not true. It's a popular self deception with the usual crowd. Basically UK is a dismal 'ole but those that choose have their reasons.
Nor is it easy to get here, quite the opposite. They deserve medals for courage and determination. They are obviously highly motivated and generally do well, given a chance.









What makes the United Kingdom such an important destination for migrants? • Eyes on Europe


%




www.eyes-on-europe.eu


----------



## Jameshow (29 Oct 2022)

Or course it's a popular place to come come too. 

Benefits. 
Employment
Language
Climate 
Rule of law 
Lack of racism
Healthcare 
Education

Etc etc.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (29 Oct 2022)

> Not true. It's a popular self deception with the usual crowd. Basically UK is a dismal 'ole but those that choose have their reasons.
> Nor is it easy to get here, quite the opposite. They deserve medals for courage and determination. They are obviously highly motivated and generally do well, given a chance.


I agree with you second point - but what exactly are the reasons the apparently talented, determined, motivated, courageous decide to come to the UK if, as you say, it is such a dismal hole.


----------



## Pineapple (30 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> You know these threads have run out of steam when people are blaming the ills of society on the unemployed, or boat people bobbing desperately in the channel, or as we saw earlier, "nurses claiming benefits so that they can look after their children part time". (That's a new variation of the "single mothers on benefits" so despised and hated by Daily Mail readers. Makes a change! )
> But the real blame lies more with those with the power, at the top.
> A representative sample here:
> 
> View attachment 146075


Any chance you could Identify 1 to 9 for us, please, Jacob ?


----------



## Scruples (30 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> You know these threads have run out of steam when people are blaming the ills of society on the unemployed, or boat people bobbing desperately in the channel, or as we saw earlier, "nurses claiming benefits so that they can look after their children part time". (That's a new variation of the "single mothers on benefits" so despised and hated by Daily Mail readers. Makes a change! )
> But the real blame lies more with those with the power, at the top.
> A representative sample here:
> 
> View attachment 146075


That theory is as daft as the one you think is the cause.
We are what we are.


----------



## Pineapple (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> @julianf there are a lot of people less fortunate than the most bereft in UK society, and again we have really two classes of ‘boat people’, those who have a real claim to be refugee / asylum status and the economic migrants.
> 
> However, the larger question is why would anyone wish to place their life in mortal danger and use a small unsafe boat to try and cross the channel to gain access the the UK from a stable, democratic, none discriminatory Europe? In ever case, they will have passed through multiple European countries to arrive at the shores of France before attempting the crossing.
> 
> ...


IF:- " Average processing time is circa 415 days for an asylum application I believe. Now, let’s assume around a cost of £100 / day / person for the UK Government (accommodation, food, medical care, legal cost, spending money for life etc) "
Then why don't we save a lot of Office Time & Money by Giving each successful-channel-crossing-migrant the equivalent of HALF THAT COST; so that they can set themselves up in stable rented housing and a small business to support themselves going forward ?
By doing that we would turn them from an expensive liability into useful and lucrative Tax-Payers !
( 415 Days x £100 Per Day = £41,500. ) ...So if we gave them say, £20,000 Each to set themselves up, on a "Succeed;- or be Returned to Point of Origin Basis" we could gain £21,500 Each Immediately AND WE, AS A NATION would gain a useful Tax-Paying Citizen....Sounds like a Win - Win idea to me.
( " 38,000 migrants PER YEAR x £21,500 saved on each one = £817 Million in savings alone BEFORE they start paying Income tax & VAT...)
To my uneducated mind, it's a No Brainer !


----------



## deema (30 Oct 2022)

Pineapple said:


> IF:- " Average processing time is circa 415 days for an asylum application I believe. Now, let’s assume around a cost of £100 / day / person for the UK Government (accommodation, food, medical care, legal cost, spending money for life etc) "
> Then why don't we save a lot of Office Time & Money by Giving each successful-channel-crossing-migrant the equivalent of HALF THAT COST; so that they can set themselves up in stable rented housing and a small business to support themselves going forward ?
> By doing that we would turn them from an expensive liability into useful and lucrative Tax-Payers !
> ( 415 Days x £100 Per Day = £41,500. ) ...So if we gave them say, £20,000 Each to set themselves up, on a "Succeed;- or be Returned to Point of Origin Basis" we could gain £21,500 Each Immediately AND WE, AS A NATION would gain a useful Tax-Paying Citizen....Sounds like a Win - Win idea to me.
> ...



Simply because the entirety of Africa a,one with everyone from every poor nation would then be living in the UK. We also wouldn’t have enough money to do it. Apart from which, would you not think that every legal citizen would see it as unfair, and that they should also get the same boost for their lives?


----------



## Pineapple (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Simply because the entirety of Africa a,one with everyone from every poor nation would then be living in the UK. We also wouldn’t have enough money to do it. Apart from which, would you not think that every legal citizen would see it as unfair, and that they should also get the same boost for their lives?


I thought about that...A much better idea might be to send the £20,000 to them in their own country to enter into a contract to Not Come to the UK.
We could benefit from not having to find housing for them to rent and their own countries could gain the extra economic benefit of them staying put.


----------



## Jacob (30 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I agree with you second point - but what exactly are the reasons the apparently talented, determined, motivated, courageous decide to come to the UK if, as you say, it is such a dismal hole.


Because it's a better 'ole than the one they are in.
Many of them come from war zones of our creation. £30billion spent on bombing them and destabilising their lives. https://assets.publishing.service.g...-Cost_of_the_wars_in_Iraq_and_Afghanistan.pdf
Some reparations are called for and something a bit better than this:








Borders watchdog left ‘speechless’ by failings at migrant centre in Kent


Chief inspector told MPs that Manston processing site in Kent was unsafe, understaffed and ‘wretched’




www.theguardian.com









Iraqi Refugees | Costs of War


The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.




watson.brown.edu


----------



## Jacob (30 Oct 2022)

Pineapple said:


> I thought about that...A much better idea might be to send the £20,000 to them in their own country to enter into a contract to Not Come to the UK.
> We could benefit from not having to find housing for them to rent and their own countries could gain the extra economic benefit of them staying put.


We do do that in a sense already, with foreign aid. A good investment if managed properly. Also making small reparations for colonialism and the empire.


----------



## Marcusthehat (30 Oct 2022)

Did I see a recent figure that it is estimated that 10% of the adult male Albanian population have now "migrated" to the UK.
I fear not many of these 10% come here to engage in **lawful honest occupations, unless as a cover for nefarious illegal activities.
**And even if they are lawful, I highly doubt they are paying their taxes.
P.S.
Wor Son worked in a Belfast PO and witnessed first hand, over a substantial period of time both;
(i) The benefits they were claiming, and in all likelyhood, illegally maxxed out.
(ii) The shocking ***cumulative sums of cash being moneygrammed back to Albania/Romania
***cumulatively, because they carefully stayed below the money laundering trigger amounts.
Btw, these communities are known to run the prostituation in Belfast.
Nice people, all in all.
A real asset to any community.
Marcus


----------



## Blackswanwood (30 Oct 2022)

Pineapple said:


> I thought about that...A much better idea might be to send the £20,000 to them in their own country to enter into a contract to Not Come to the UK.
> We could benefit from not having to find housing for them to rent and their own countries could gain the extra economic benefit of them staying put.


The population of Africa is approx 1.2bn and rising … multiply that by £20k and you’ll spot the flaw in your thinking.


----------



## deema (30 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> We do do that in a sense already, with foreign aid. A good investment if managed properly. Also making small reparations for colonialism and the empire.



Why do people feel that reparations are required? It’s a strange concept. So, let’s assume that the idea is valid, the UK should pay reparations for colonialism. Good so far, but why stop there, is colonialism limited by some specific date? No, the argument should apply to what went before the UKs empire, so the UK should seek reparations from France for instance for the invasion of 1066, or the Italians for the Roman era. To give examples. Or perhaps why are we ignoring the internal 100 year war, war of the roses. Let’s remember the UK was at one stage a number of different kingdoms that over time were all brought together, who pays who for that? My favourite is the Catholic Church as we were all pagans before different Popes encouraged and demanded Holly war to retake the Holly lands, that’s after bloodily converting and suppressing other ideas.

Argentina should have a big debt, it did invade the Falkland isles…….but they claim it’s the UK that invaded and they were taking them back…..but who were the original inhabitants?


----------



## Jacob (30 Oct 2022)

Pineapple said:


> IF:- " Average processing time is circa 415 days for an asylum application I believe. Now, let’s assume around a cost of £100 / day / person for the UK Government (accommodation, food, medical care, legal cost, spending money for life etc) "
> Then why don't we save a lot of Office Time & Money by Giving each successful-channel-crossing-migrant the equivalent of HALF THAT COST; so that they can set themselves up in stable rented housing and a small business to support themselves going forward ?
> By doing that we would turn them from an expensive liability into useful and lucrative Tax-Payers !
> ( 415 Days x £100 Per Day = £41,500. ) ...So if we gave them say, £20,000 Each to set themselves up, on a "Succeed;- or be Returned to Point of Origin Basis" we could gain £21,500 Each Immediately AND WE, AS A NATION would gain a useful Tax-Paying Citizen....Sounds like a Win - Win idea to me.
> ...


Good idea in principle; "start up" capital for people to rebuild their lives.
Similar to Piketty's idea Economist Piketty: Everyone should receive €120,000 for their 25th birthday


----------



## Jacob (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Why do people feel that reparations are required? ....


Because many people are still living with the effects.


----------



## Jacob (30 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Did I see a recent figure that it is estimated that 10% of the adult male Albanian population have now "migrated" to the UK.
> ...


No you didn't. 1 to 2% according to some sources.
'Exponential rise' in Albanian migrants crossing the Channel this year, MPs told


----------



## deema (30 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Because many people are still living with the effects.


Let’s not forget then the 1st and 2nd world war, Korea, Vietnam, Falkland Isles, troubles in Ireland, Ukraine (we are pumping money into helping their as well as taking refugees), why London is the capital and wealth isn’t distributed evenly across the UK. We are all in some way living with the effects of something. The UK is owed by all ( we fought in all) of them and either people are still alive and living with the consequences, or their children’s lives were / are directly affected. Which in some cases will affect generations.

We were all still paying for WW2 until the 80’s,


----------



## Pineapple (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Why do people feel that reparations are required? It’s a strange concept. So, let’s assume that the idea is valid, the UK should pay reparations for colonialism. Good so far, but why stop there, is colonialism limited by some specific date? No, the argument should apply to what went before the UKs empire, so the UK should seek reparations from France for instance for the invasion of 1066, or the Italians for the Roman era. To give examples. Or perhaps why are we ignoring the internal 100 year war, war of the roses. Let’s remember the UK was at one stage a number of different kingdoms that over time were all brought together, who pays who for that? My favourite is the Catholic Church as we were all pagans before different Popes encouraged and demanded Holly war to retake the Holly lands, that’s after bloodily converting and suppressing other ideas.
> 
> Argentina should have a big debt, it did invade the Falkland isles…….but they claim it’s the UK that invaded and they were taking them back…..but who were the original inhabitants?


PENGUINS.


----------



## deema (30 Oct 2022)

Pineapple said:


> PENGUINS.



Brilliant! 
In reality, it’s all Africa’s fault. Africa should pay reparations for everything, as all humans trace their roots back to Africa from where we all come from. We literally left Africa invaded the rest of the world.


----------



## John Brown (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Brilliant!
> In reality, it’s all Africa’s fault. Africa should pay reparations for everything, as all humans trace their roots back to Africa from where we all come from. We literally left Africa invaded the rest of the world.











Is the Out of Africa Theory Out?


An examination of over 5,000 teeth from early human ancestors shows that many of the first Europeans probably came from Asia




www.scientificamerican.com





As always, those [email protected]@dy scientists have changed their minds!


----------



## johna.clements (30 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Did I see a recent figure that it is estimated that 10% of the adult male Albanian population have now "migrated" to the UK.
> I fear not many of these 10% come here to engage in **lawful honest occupations, unless as a cover for nefarious illegal activities.
> **And even if they are lawful, I highly doubt they are paying their taxes.
> P.S.
> ...


Why would Albanians be sending money to Romania.

I doubt that many more Albanians are criminals than any other place. The problems is criminal gangs which can have an undue influence. In the past gangs like the Kray's had an undue influence in this country but the overwhelming majority of people just tried to keep away from them.


----------



## johna.clements (30 Oct 2022)

Pineapple said:


> I thought about that...A much better idea might be to send the £20,000 to them in their own country to enter into a contract to Not Come to the UK.
> We could benefit from not having to find housing for them to rent and their own countries could gain the extra economic benefit of them staying put.


We have cut the overseas aid budget which can help people to stay in or near there own country from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP. Of that 0.5% we now spend half of it in the UK on the refugees.

We have cut the overseas aid budget in effect by two thirds. The government is doing the opposite to what you propose.


----------



## deema (30 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> We have cut the overseas aid budget which can help people to stay in or near there own country from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP. Of that 0.5% we now spend half of it in the UK on the refugees.
> 
> We have cut the overseas aid budget in effect by two thirds. The government is doing the opposite to what you propose.



Again, I always find it very surprising that we talk about a percentage of GDP as a benchmark for overseas aid budgets. The UK had no surplus, it’s not in the black when it comes to our spending versus income. All foreign aid is funded by the UK Taking on National Debt. So, it’s not this generation that’s giving aid, it’s our kids. We all recognise that the national debt cannot just keep increasing and savings have to be made, the debate really is what we collectively consider important. UK GDP is estimated for 2022 to be 3,149 Trillion (12 zeros) now that’s still a huge amount of money when multiplied by 0.5%. To put it another way, you could sort out a huge amount of issue within the UK if that was spent on the poor within the UK, and that’s being spent every year.


----------



## johna.clements (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Again, I always find it very surprising that we talk about a percentage of GDP as a benchmark for overseas aid budgets. The UK had no surplus, it’s not in the black when it comes to our spending versus income. All foreign aid is funded by the UK Taking on National Debt. So, it’s not this generation that’s giving aid, it’s our kids. We all recognise that the national debt cannot just keep increasing and savings have to be made, the debate really is what we collectively consider important. UK GDP is estimated for 2022 to be 3,149 Trillion (12 zeros) now that’s still a huge amount of money when multiplied by 0.5%. To put it another way, you could sort out a huge amount of issue within the UK if that was spent on the poor within the UK, and that’s being spent every year.


Some people think it is a good idea to help refugees to stay in or near their own country. It is cheaper than your idea of spending the money on them when they get here.

Boosting the economy of other countries also boosts the potential for UK exports. If you went to a school built with Germany funds would you be more likely to buy German goods.


----------



## Jacob (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> ... All foreign aid is funded by the UK Taking on National Debt.


Or higher taxation


deema said:


> So, it’s not this generation that’s giving aid, it’s our kids.


Then it's our generation giving


deema said:


> We all recognise that the national debt cannot just keep increasing and savings have to be made,


Yep that's why taxation makes more sense.
They burble on about austerity ("savings have to be made") being essential to avoid increased national debt but it's a bit of a con trick to distract from taxation as the better alternative i.e. spreading austerity to the whole community not just the low paid.
But as 5th richest nation on earth we don't need austerity we need redistribution. The party is over.
And also of course we don't need "growth growth growth" in the light of climate change and the massive changes needed in our economy, we need "redistribution redistribution redistribution".
They know this and this is why they are swinging the lead over zero CO2 - it's going to cost a lot.
No coincidence that climate change denial is also on the Tufton St Taliban agenda.


----------



## Spectric (30 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Did I see a recent figure that it is estimated that 10% of the adult male Albanian population have now "migrated" to the UK.
> I fear not many of these 10% come here to engage in **lawful honest occupations, unless as a cover for nefarious illegal activities.
> **And even if they are lawful, I highly doubt they are paying their taxes.



Are they coming here because we are in effect advertising ourselves as a soft touch, we are making it worth traveling the extra distance and taking the risk because of what we are telling the world. We are advertising the fact that only 5% of burgularies are solved, 1.7% of rape offences get to court and drug offences are on the rise, the only offence you are more likely to get convicted of is murder. On top of this you get free board once the navy gets you here so for them this must be like the Yukon gold rush and plenty of ripe pickings. Like all crime you need a detterent that outweighs the gains so not worth doing.


----------



## johna.clements (30 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Are they coming here because we are in effect advertising ourselves as a soft touch, we are making it worth traveling the extra distance and taking the risk because of what we are telling the world. We are advertising the fact that only 5% of burgularies are solved, 1.7% of rape offences get to court and drug offences are on the rise, the only offence you are more likely to get convicted of is murder. On top of this you get free board once the navy gets you here so for them this must be like the Yukon gold rush and plenty of ripe pickings. Like all crime you need a detterent that outweighs the gains so not worth doing.


I don't understand why some sections of the press are telling refugees how good things are for them here, which they are not, if they do not want them to come here. They should be saying they will have to live in some grotty bedsit with little money for a couple of years whilst the bureaucracy grinds very slowly.


----------



## johna.clements (30 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> And also of course we don't need "growth growth growth" in the light of climate change and the massive changes needed in our economy, we need "redistribution redistribution redistribution".
> They know this and this is why they are swinging the lead over zero CO2 - it's going to cost a lot.
> No coincidence that climate change denial is also on the Tufton St Taliban agenda.


Failure to take action on CO2 is also borrowing from the future.

It is cheaper and easier to fix things over time rather than deal with the consequences.


----------



## deema (30 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Or higher taxation
> 
> Then it's our generation giving
> 
> ...



There is absolutely no reason why those with your perspective cannot voluntarily pay higher taxes. You just need to inform the tax office of your philanthropic perspective and either make one off donations, or pay more. We don’t share the same opinion on how to generate more tax revenue, but that doesn’t preclude you and others with the same view of enacting your beliefs.


----------



## deema (30 Oct 2022)

Let’s put some numbers on things. First off, the UK national debt is approximately £2,427 billion. We have a population of c67 million. That’s each an average debt of £36,200 per person in the country. Let’s take Pakistan, it’s national debt is $248 billion, with a population of 225 million, an average debt of $1,102 per person in the country. Now the average gross income in the UK is £38K (ONS 2021) so, roughly one years salary is owed in debt by everyone in the country. The average annual income in Pakistan is $7,330, which is that each person owes around 2 months salary to clear the national debt. However, the UK provided Pakistan with £14.5 billion in Official Development Aid. The UK is increasing the burden on its population at a higher rate than one of the principle country’s it provides aid to. 

The indebtedness of every person in the Uk is nearly 6 times higher than a country we are providing aid to. If you were looking at to whom you would lend money to, you would say that the UK is bankrupt, and Pakistan is in a good position to raise more debt if required to sort out its problems. Let’s not forget it’s also a nuclear country. 

The UK provides aid to India, China and a number of other countries, where similar calculations can be done. The reason I’m highlighting nuclear countries with space programs is because it’s a huge expense to have these.

These types of numbers and comparison are never considered when the whole issue of aid to other countries is debated.


----------



## Spectric (30 Oct 2022)

Is it not really guilt money for the years that we ruled these countries and the impact we have had on them such as cutting India into two. We are trying to be nice now because we realise we will become subserviant to them in the future, be nice to people on the way up a ladder because you will meet them again when you come down.


----------



## Jacob (30 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Are they coming here because we are in effect advertising ourselves as a soft touch, .


They are coming here because they are desperate. But other parts of Europe are a softer touch and more go there. It's usually family or other connections which bring them here.
Statistics do not show that they are significantly criminally inclined except in small groups such as certain drug dealers, but they occur in all branches of society. Howard Marks's lot was one one of the biggest but I don't think the Welsh as a whole got blamed for drug dealing.


deema said:


> There is absolutely no reason why those with your perspective cannot voluntarily pay higher taxes. .....


Doesn't work. Another of the free market fundamentalist myths.


----------



## John Brown (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Let’s put some numbers on things. First off, the UK national debt is approximately £2,427 billion. We have a population of c67 million. That’s each an average debt of £36,200 per person in the country. Let’s take Pakistan, it’s national debt is $248 billion, with a population of 225 million, an average debt of $1,102 per person in the country. Now the average gross income in the UK is £38K (ONS 2021) so, roughly one years salary is owed in debt by everyone in the country. The average annual income in Pakistan is $7,330, which is that each person owes around 2 months salary to clear the national debt. However, the UK provided Pakistan with £14.5 billion in Official Development Aid. The UK is increasing the burden on its population at a higher rate than one of the principle country’s it provides aid to.
> 
> The indebtedness of every person in the Uk is nearly 6 times higher than a country we are providing aid to. If you were looking at to whom you would lend money to, you would say that the UK is bankrupt, and Pakistan is in a good position to raise more debt if required to sort out its problems. Let’s not forget it’s also a nuclear country.
> 
> ...


Firstly, what do you mean(!) by average? Mean? Mode? Median? Just curious, as the word "average" is bandied about, and most people, I believe, interpret it as the arithmetic mean.
Secondly, India is one of the most unequal countries in the world when it comes to income/wealth. So whatever interpretation of average you apply, there are still plenty of people in extreme poverty. Maybe they could do with some aid.


----------



## John Brown (30 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> Is it not really guilt money for the years that we ruled these countries and the impact we have had on them such as cutting India into two. We are trying to be nice now because we realise we will become subserviant to them in the future, be nice to people on the way up a ladder because you will meet them again when you come down.


That's possibly the most cynical viewpoint I've encountered today! I hope it was proposed, at least partially, for comic effect.


----------



## IBmatty (30 Oct 2022)

Sometimes funny reading this sort of thing from France. Half UK is delusional, other half ignorant re the channel crossings. I think the UK media is as guilty as the politicians for that. Not once have I seen any UK stats or opinion that matches the reality visible from the window.


----------



## Dibs-h (30 Oct 2022)

I suspect this thread will get moved over to the "by request" forum soon enough.


----------



## Blackswanwood (30 Oct 2022)

IBmatty said:


> Sometimes funny reading this sort of thing from France. Half UK is delusional, other half ignorant re the channel crossings. I think the UK media is as guilty as the politicians for that. Not once have I seen any UK stats or opinion that matches the reality visible from the window.


What is the French perspective on it?


----------



## deema (30 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> Firstly, what do you mean(!) by average? Mean? Mode? Median? Just curious, as the word "average" is bandied about, and most people, I believe, interpret it as the arithmetic mean.
> Secondly, India is one of the most unequal countries in the world when it comes to income/wealth. So whatever interpretation of average you apply, there are still plenty of people in extreme poverty. Maybe they could do with some aid.


Average is just that, average or mean, mode is most frequent and medium is in the Centre.

India is a democratic country, the inequality is perpetuated by whom they vote in. It’s a choice on what they do with their resources.


----------



## deema (30 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Doesn't work. Another of the free market fundamentalist myths.



It doesn’t work because although for instance individuals propose a solution, they aren’t willing to as an individual enact it by paying voluntarily more taxes.
The argument for more tax is only appealing when it’s someone else paying it.


----------



## Jacob (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> It doesn’t work because although for instance individuals propose a solution, they aren’t willing to as an individual enact it by paying voluntarily more taxes.
> The argument for more tax is only appealing when it’s someone else paying it.


Most people accept the inevitability of tax and regard it as the price of civilisation. There is no alternative.


----------



## Richard_C (30 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Who were they?! Don't forget IDS and the other one I cannot remember!


Don't be vague, 'twas William Hague.


----------



## Jameshow (30 Oct 2022)

Richard_C said:


> Don't be vague, 'twas William Hague.


Yes I believe so!!


----------



## Richard_C (30 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> As always, those [email protected]@dy scientists have changed their minds!



When new evidence is available, scientists change their view (remember when the atom was indivisible). People who don't change their view in the light of evidence, however strong, are called politicians ..... or in some cases forum participants.


----------



## John Brown (30 Oct 2022)

Richard_C said:


> When new evidence is available, scientists change their view (remember when the atom was indivisible). People who don't change their view in the light of evidence, however strong, are called politicians ..... or in some cases forum participants.


Yes. I know. It was a joke.


----------



## Spectric (30 Oct 2022)

Richard_C said:


> scientists change their view (remember when the atom was indivisible)


I have recently found that the way the structure of the atom was portrayed back when I was in education has now changed. We were taught that the electrons orbited around the nucleus with only a given number allowed in each orbit, but not anymore because rather than a set orbital path they now realise it is a range of spherical zones around the nucleus in which the electrons can be found and not in predictable paths. Got me curious as to what else in the world of electromagnetic's has since changed.


----------



## johna.clements (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Let’s put some numbers on things. First off, the UK national debt is approximately £2,427 billion. We have a population of c67 million. That’s each an average debt of £36,200 per person in the country. Let’s take Pakistan, it’s national debt is $248 billion, with a population of 225 million, an average debt of $1,102 per person in the country. Now the average gross income in the UK is £38K (ONS 2021) so, roughly one years salary is owed in debt by everyone in the country. The average annual income in Pakistan is $7,330, which is that each person owes around 2 months salary to clear the national debt. However, the UK provided Pakistan with £14.5 billion in Official Development Aid. The UK is increasing the burden on its population at a higher rate than one of the principle country’s it provides aid to.
> 
> The indebtedness of every person in the Uk is nearly 6 times higher than a country we are providing aid to. If you were looking at to whom you would lend money to, you would say that the UK is bankrupt, and Pakistan is in a good position to raise more debt if required to sort out its problems. Let’s not forget it’s also a nuclear country.
> 
> ...



From the UK Government

"Between 2015 and 2019 Pakistan was the largest single recipient of direct UK government-to-government bilateral aid. However, since then, overall UK aid has been cut from 0.7% of UK national income to 0.5% and aid to Pakistan has been reduced dramatically.


After experiencing the largest cut in UK aid of any single country, Pakistan fell to seventh in the table of UK recipients, with an annual budget of just less than £200 million."



https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/98/international-development-committee/news/166108/uk-aid-to-pakistan-must-be-more-focused/





https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/22059/documents/163766/default/



Aid to Pakistan, a country of over 225 million. peaked at £603 million in 2016. Currently it is £200m

I do not know why you think that the entire aid budget goes to Pakistan. The total aid spending was £11500m in 2021, we are obviously not giving £14500 to Pakistan.


----------



## Flynnwood (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Let’s not forget then the 1st and 2nd world war, Korea, Vietnam, Falkland Isles, troubles in Ireland, Ukraine (we are pumping money into helping their as well as taking refugees), why London is the capital and wealth isn’t distributed evenly across the UK. We are all in some way living with the effects of something. The UK is owed by all ( we fought in all) of them and either people are still alive and living with the consequences, or their children’s lives were / are directly affected. Which in some cases will affect generations.
> 
> We were all still paying for WW2 until the 80’s,


UK WW2 final payoff to USA loan was in 2006. Not that it really matters when printing money can win.
Dad was a Hurricane pilot.


----------



## Jacob (30 Oct 2022)

IBmatty said:


> Sometimes funny reading this sort of thing from France. Half UK is delusional, other half ignorant re the channel crossings. I think the UK media is as guilty as the politicians for that. Not once have I seen any UK stats or opinion that matches the reality visible from the window.


The bigger issue; climate change is being ignored on every front.
It's already a major influence, individual stories may differ but environmental degradation is happening worldwide.
Migration is the natural reaction when things get too severe.
Migration is not the problem; it is the solution.
Are we just seeing the beginning?
The century of climate migration: why we need to plan for the great upheaval


----------



## deema (30 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> From the UK Government
> 
> "Between 2015 and 2019 Pakistan was the largest single recipient of direct UK government-to-government bilateral aid. However, since then, overall UK aid has been cut from 0.7% of UK national income to 0.5% and aid to Pakistan has been reduced dramatically.
> 
> ...


Thank you, my bad, out the wrong number in.


----------



## John Brown (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Average is just that, average or mean, mode is most frequent and medium is in the Centre.
> 
> India is a democratic country, the inequality is perpetuated by whom they vote in. It’s a choice on what they do with their resources.


I am well aware of the definitions. Average can, and is used for all of those, although more commonly for the arithmetic mean.
But when Liz Truss kept saying that the average fuel bill would be capped at £x, which "average" was she thinking of?
And you must have heard people say;" you know how stupid the average person is? Well half of the people are more stupid than that." According to my back of the envelope figuring, that's not true for the arithmetic mean.


----------



## Noel (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Let’s not forget then the 1st and 2nd world war, Korea, Vietnam, Falkland Isles, *troubles in Ireland, *Ukraine (we are pumping money into helping their as well as taking refugees), why London is the capital and wealth isn’t distributed evenly across the UK. We are all in some way living with the effects of something. The UK is owed by all ( we fought in all) of them and either people are still alive and living with the consequences, or their children’s lives were / are directly affected. Which in some cases will affect generations.
> 
> We were all still paying for WW2 until the 80’s,



….troubles in Ireland? Was that the 1919-21 Irish War of Independence?


----------



## johna.clements (30 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Thank you, my bad, out the wrong number in.


No problem.


----------



## johna.clements (30 Oct 2022)

Noel said:


> ….troubles in Ireland? Was that the 1919-21 Irish War of Independence?


The little thing that was ended with the Good Friday/ Belfast Agreement


----------



## johna.clements (30 Oct 2022)

Flynnwood said:


> UK WW2 final payoff to USA loan was in 2006. Not that it really matters when printing money can win.
> Dad was a Hurricane pilot.


We also stopped paying for the South Sea Bubble in 2015 and a few other things like the cost of paying the owners to free the slaves.


----------



## Noel (30 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> The little thing that was ended with the Good Friday/ Belfast Agreement


That was N Ireland as I recall.


----------



## johna.clements (30 Oct 2022)

Noel said:


> That was N Ireland as I recall.


Which is in Ireland the island.
Things happened in the south as well. Plus here, Gibraltar, Germany and other places. Sadly many people were killed.


----------



## Pineapple (31 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Again, I always find it very surprising that we talk about a percentage of GDP as a benchmark for overseas aid budgets. The UK had no surplus, it’s not in the black when it comes to our spending versus income. All foreign aid is funded by the UK Taking on National Debt. So, it’s not this generation that’s giving aid, it’s our kids. We all recognise that the national debt cannot just keep increasing and savings have to be made, the debate really is what we collectively consider important. UK GDP is estimated for 2022 to be 3,149 Trillion (12 zeros) now that’s still a huge amount of money when multiplied by 0.5%. To put it another way, you could sort out a huge amount of issue within the UK if that was spent on the poor within the UK, and that’s being spent every year.


 3,149 Trillion is an extremely big "Pi"


----------



## Hutzul (31 Oct 2022)

Pineapple said:


> Any chance you could Identify 1 to 9 for us, please, Jacob ?


Number 8 is Bojo. All the others I don't know


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2022)

Pineapple said:


> Any chance you could Identify 1 to 9 for us, please, Jacob ?











Boris Johnson, the mystery man and the Bullingdon Club: Where are they now? | ITV News


Boris Johnson dressed in all his finery - along with David Cameron - came to symbolise the haves and the have nots. | ITV National News




www.itv.com


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2022)

Concentration camps.








Channel Migrants: Manston processing centre criticism prompts minister's visit


Robert Jenrick was responding to criticism of conditions at the migrant processing centre.



www.bbc.co.uk








__





Loading…






www.bbc.co.uk




Violent attacks








Dover migrant centre: Police search house over fire attack


The suspect, who was later found dead, is a 66-year-old from the High Wycombe area, police said.



www.bbc.co.uk




Persecution








GPS tagging migrants ‘psychological torture’, says report


Calls for GPS tagging to be abolished as report finds people left suicidal and stigmatised by the practice




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Ozi (31 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Why should a landlord get a subsidy to buy a house but not a owner occupier.


This was never a subsidy or tax relief. Tax was payed on income which is entirely fare. Money In minus costs equals income. The interest on a mortgage is a cost just the same as paying a plumber or buying a carpet. Can you name any other business that pays tax on the interest charged on loans?


----------



## Ozi (31 Oct 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I disagree....
> 
> The top 1% covers drs, lawyers, CEO and directors, etc etc.
> 
> ...


It's not just multi nationals.


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2022)

Ozi said:


> This was never a subsidy or tax relief. ...


We have buy to let mortgages and no fault evictions.
These are supposedly being done away. Can't come too soon!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (31 Oct 2022)

There are inconsistencies in the way mortgage interest is treated:

as a private householder there is no tax relief for interest payments on your main residence
as an owner directly of a property which is rented out you will get a 20% basic rate tax credit on any interest payments, irrespective of the actual top rate of tax.
if a rental property is owned by a company incorporated as a business, tax is an allowable expense. Complexities arise (a) businesses are subject to corporation tax, (b) implications of receiving income personally either through dividends or salary (c) stamp duty payable on transfer of an existing property to a business "umbrella"
A bit of a mess really - it could do with some consistency.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (31 Oct 2022)

> We have buy to let mortgages and no fault evictions.
> These are supposedly being done away. Can't come too soon!


There is a real need for an end to the demonisation of landlords - they are real people. Some may be, but most are not champagne swilling, caviar munching, Rachmans!

I was not aware buy to let mortgages were being done away - a loan is a loan!
Rules about notice periods and no-fault evictions need to be balanced, not one sided. There is room for improvement. Denying owners the right to recover property in a reasonable manner should their circumstances change would be an abuse of their rights. 
There are 4.4m private rented households in England. 

About half of tenancies are with landlords who rent more than 4 properties - broadly they make a business out of rental properties. The other 50% of tenancies are provided by 85% of landlords who own between 1 and 4 properties. 43% own only one property. 

It seems plausible that most landlords become such either because they have (a) surplus income to invest, or (b) inheritance. Property has a track record of preserving capital, generating a (fairly) reliable income, and thus a good basis for long term saving/pensions.


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> ........
> 
> It seems plausible that most landlords become such either because they have (a) surplus income to invest, or (b) inheritance. Property has a track record of preserving capital, generating a (fairly) reliable income, and thus a good basis for long term saving/pensions.


Yes good for landlords. Not good for anybody else.


----------



## johna.clements (31 Oct 2022)

Ozi said:


> This was never a subsidy or tax relief. Tax was payed on income which is entirely fare. Money In minus costs equals income. The interest on a mortgage is a cost just the same as paying a plumber or buying a carpet. Can you name any other business that pays tax on the interest charged on loans?


Mortgage interest relief at source was given too private householders and was abolished. It would seem that private landlords are being put on the same footing as private householders.

Buying Real estate is different to buying chattels or paying for a service. Buying the real estate is a separate operation too letting the property. Subsidising private landlords creates an unfair advantage over private householders as the they have more money to spend on the property.

I would not be surprised if the buy to let market was beginning to throw up some gaming of the tax relief system. My son is going to University, I can afford to buy a flat for him to live in then sell it which would be better than paying rent. You are doing the same thing. Why don't we rent to each others children and claim the tax relief. Then a few years latter oh that worked well we did not have to pay so much why don't we rent our houses out each other.


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Mortgage interest relief at source was given too private householders and was abolished. It would seem that private landlords are being put on the same footing as private householders.
> 
> Buying Real estate is different to buying chattels or paying for a service. Buying the real estate is a separate operation too letting the property. Subsidising private landlords creates an unfair advantage over private householders as the they have more money to spend on the property.
> 
> I would not be surprised if the buy to let market was beginning to throw up some gaming of the tax relief system. My son is going to University, I can afford to buy a flat for him to live in then sell it which would be better than paying rent. You are doing the same thing. Why don't we rent to each others children and claim the tax relief. Then a few years latter oh that worked well we did not have to pay so much why don't we rent our houses out each other.


I suppose you could start your own not-for-profit housing association?


----------



## johna.clements (31 Oct 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There is a real need for an end to the demonisation of landlords - they are real people. Some may be, but most are not champagne swilling, caviar munching, Rachmans!
> 
> I was not aware buy to let mortgages were being done away - a loan is a loan!
> Rules about notice periods and no-fault evictions need to be balanced, not one sided. There is room for improvement. Denying owners the right to recover property in a reasonable manner should their circumstances change would be an abuse of their rights.
> ...


Many people are collectively demonised for no good reason. Whilst working away from home I have had good and bad landlords. I have had friends how have had worse. 

Many people seem to think that all people on benefits are scroungers.
The current one seems to be that all Albanians are criminals.
We could make a long list.


----------



## ey_tony (31 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> You know these threads have run out of steam when people are blaming the ills of society on the unemployed, or boat people bobbing desperately in the channel, or as we saw earlier, "nurses claiming benefits so that they can look after their children part time". (That's a new variation of the "single mothers on benefits" so despised and hated by Daily Mail readers. Makes a change! )
> But the real blame lies more with those with the power, at the top.
> A representative sample here:
> 
> View attachment 146075


...or gangsters like the following, responsible for the deaths of countless thousands of lives and not one war crime to show for it!
Boris's alleged corruption was very meek by this lot's standards.


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2022)

ey_tony said:


> ...or gangsters like the following, responsible for the deaths of countless thousands of lives and not one war crime to show for it!
> Boris's alleged corruption was very meek by this lot's standards.
> View attachment 146204
> 
> ...


I agree. Not easy to compare/contrast their crimes. R soles but in different ways.


----------



## D_W (31 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> I am well aware of the definitions. Average can, and is used for all of those..



No, it's not to be used for anything other than a defined mean. That mean could be logarithmic, arithmetic, geometric, but it doesn't mean mode and it doesn't mean median and never has. 

Trying to extend the definition to be anything you want is a tactic for making factually false arguments. 

For example, calling people in the bottom quintile on here "the average person" without saying "the average individual in the bottom quintile", or taking something composed of several unlike groups and claiming that one is average and the others are not. "the average landlord".


----------



## Ozi (31 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> We have buy to let mortgages and no fault evictions.
> These are supposedly being done away. Can't come too soon!


No fault evictions need to go no argument. What's your point about buy to let mortgages, they come at higher interest rates than money raised against your own home. Plus 3% on all stamp duty bands as well - don't suppose you abject to that either?


----------



## Marcusthehat (31 Oct 2022)

Regardless of the causes behind the economic forces driving the illegal cross channel migration.
It has to be curtailed, or the UK as we know it will cease to exist.
I just read a BBC report which graphed the years from 2018
2018 virtually zero.
2019 much the same.
2020 about 9 thou.
2021 about 30 thou.
2022 about 40,000.
This cannot be allowed to continue.
They also had a breakdown of the ethnicities ages and genders of the migrants. It was sadly illuminating.
They are NOT refugees.
They are economic migrants.
They must be stopped.
I do not know how they could be stopped, well I do but it would be offensive to some.
Marcus


----------



## johna.clements (31 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> No, it's not to be used for anything other than a defined mean. That mean could be logarithmic, arithmetic, geometric, but it doesn't mean mode and it doesn't mean median and never has.
> 
> Trying to extend the definition to be anything you want is a tactic for making factually false arguments.
> 
> For example, calling people in the bottom quintile on here "the average person" without saying "the average individual in the bottom quintile", or taking something composed of several unlike groups and claiming that one is average and the others are not. "the average landlord".


"Definition of _average_​ (Entry 1 of 3)


1a *: *a single value (such as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values "

From Definition of AVERAGE

_"Merriam_-_Webster_ is America's most trusted online dictionary" , according to Merriam Webster.
When I was learning statisics at school here in the UK (most likely about 13) we were taught that there were three types of average and you choose mean. median or mode depending on the data and what you want to present. Also we were told that you should tell people which average you are using.


----------



## johna.clements (31 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Regardless of the causes behind the economic forces driving the illegal cross channel migration.
> It has to be curtailed, or the UK as we know it will cease to exist.
> I just read a BBC report which graphed the years from 2018
> 2018 virtually zero.
> ...


Why does the government decided that the overwhelming majority of them are in fact refugees.


----------



## deema (31 Oct 2022)

Things change, I only used to know there to be a single definition of average, like ‘a woman’, it used to be very easy to define, we all knew what it meant. Now it seems nobody knows, and it could be anyone or anything! Haven’t looked up how dictionaries now define it.


----------



## johna.clements (31 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> Things change, a woman used to be very easy to define, we all knew what it meant. Now it seems nobody knows, and it could be anyone or anything! Haven’t looked up how dictionaries now define it.


Well I am going off the definition I was taught in the second or third year of secondary school back in the mid 70s.

Average does not appear to have changed. A lot of other things have.


----------



## deema (31 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Well I am going off the definition I was taught in the second or third year of secondary school back in the mid 70s.
> 
> Average does not appear to have changed. A lot of other things have.



I used to have a Collins English Dictionary, average was definitely defined as the sum of numbers divided by the quantity of numbers, still appears to be the case looking at it on line. That’s the trouble with American Dictionary’s used outside America. For me a trunk is an appendage of an elephant and not the rear storage compartment of a car.

At one stage I taught O level maths, if you answered a question about an average giving the mode or median, you would definitely have failed.


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2022)

D_W said:


> No, it's not to be used for anything other than a defined mean. That mean could be logarithmic, arithmetic, geometric, but it doesn't mean mode and it doesn't mean median and never has.
> 
> Trying to extend the definition to be anything you want is a tactic for making factually false arguments.
> 
> For example, calling people in the bottom quintile on here "the average person" without saying "the average individual in the bottom quintile", or taking something composed of several unlike groups and claiming that one is average and the others are not. "the average landlord".


In ordinary language, an *average* is a single number taken as representative of a list of numbers, usually the sum of the numbers divided by how many numbers are in the list (the arithmetic mean). For example, the average of the numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9 (summing to 25) is 5. Depending on the context, an average might be another statistic such as the median, or mode. For example, the average personal income is often given as the median—the number below which are 50% of personal incomes and above which are 50% of personal incomes—because the mean would be misleadingly high by including personal incomes from a few billionaires.


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> In ordinary language, an *average* is a single number taken as representative of a list of numbers, usually the sum of the numbers divided by how many numbers are in the list (the arithmetic mean). For example, the average of the numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9 (summing to 25) is 5. Depending on the context, an average might be another statistic such as the median, or mode. For example, the average personal income is often given as the median—the number below which are 50% of personal incomes and above which are 50% of personal incomes—because the mean would be misleadingly high by including personal incomes from a few billionaires.


Having said that, when I was at school, a long time ago, we always meant arithmetic mean if we used the term average. I'm not sure whether that's the case these days, which is why I brought it up. I can assure you that it wasn't to make false arguments.


----------



## johna.clements (31 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> I used to have a Collins English Dictionary, average was definitely defined as the sum of numbers divided by the quantity of numbers, still appears to be the case looking at it on line. That’s the trouble with American Dictionary’s used outside America. For me a trunk is an appendage of an elephant and not the rear storage compartment of a car.
> 
> At one stage I taught O level maths, if you answered a question about an average giving the mode or median, you would definitely have failed.


My 1975 Collins English Dictionary which is sat next to me would agree with that definition but it also has no reference to median and mode with regards to statistics. You can only put in so many references.

I am not sure we had stastistics at O level. We did a lot of stuff in the first three years that we never did again. Certainly have studied statistics since.


----------



## Jameshow (31 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Why does the government decided that the overwhelming majority of them are in fact refugees.


Assulted by an army of lawyers finding every loophole possible!


----------



## monster (31 Oct 2022)

Ozi said:


> No fault evictions need to go no argument. What's your point about buy to let mortgages, they come at higher interest rates than money raised against your own home. Plus 3% on all stamp duty bands as well - don't suppose you abject to that either?


So called 'no fault evictions' have been totally misrepresented by the media and various pressure groups.

A 'no fault' eviction refers to a 'Section 21' type of eviction were the landlord does not need to site any faults that the tenant may or may not be in breach of in order to evict.

An 'at fault' eviction such as a 'Section 8' eviction can be used when the tenant may be in rent arrears or is damaging the property or creating antisocial nuisances with neighbours etc.

The problem landlords have with using the 'at fault' Section 8 eviction method is that the hurdles and obstruction to its use are so great that it's easier for the landlord to use a 'no fault' Section 21 eviction instead.

So the reality is that the majority of tenants who are evicted through 'no fault' evictions, are actually at fault - its just not been sited as a reason for eviction as thats a more difficult process.

In reality landlords rarely if ever evict good tenants unless they have a very good reason to such as the wish to sell their rental property or maybe move back into it themselves etc.


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Regardless of the causes behind the economic forces driving the illegal cross channel migration.
> It has to be curtailed, or the UK as we know it will cease to exist.
> I just read a BBC report which graphed the years from 2018
> 2018 virtually zero.
> ...


It's not actually illegal to cross the channel and land in the UK by whatever means. But the law requires you to immediately register your arrival and seek legal permission, visas etc. Just about all of them do as far as is known. I doubt there are many "illegal" immigrants at all.
PS this is changing due to the The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 but is very ambiguous, inoperable, likely to be ignored etc.

A simple matter of fact is that we need them as labour force. We currently have record low unemployment and record levels of job vacancies.
In general immigrants throughout history cause economies to flourish. There's a simple reason for this - they tend to go where the prospects for work and a normal life are greatest.
Appalling Farage on R4 this morning. Why do they give him air space - he's not elected by anybody, has nothing interesting to say and is an out-and-out loud mouth racist. Farage stats here: the total of *all* *the votes he's ever obtained* in his dubious career is less than Diane Abbotts majority *at just the one last election. *Just a measure of his utter insignificance except as a rabble rouser.
PS your figures are completely wrong. U.K. Immigration Statistics 1960-2022


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2022)

My 1979 Collins Dictionary has the first definition of average as:"The typical or normal amount, quality or degree etc."
It also does have entries for mode and median.

My favourite dictionary, compiled by Ambrose Bierce, is strangely silent on the matter, and Henry Root's World of Knowledge, simply mentions that the bankruptcy courts are full of those who believed in the law of averages.


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2022)

monster said:


> ...
> 
> In reality landlords rarely if ever evict good tenants


Bad landlords do


monster said:


> unless they have a very good reason to such as the wish to sell their rental property or maybe move back into it themselves etc.


These are not good enough reasons to disrupt people's lives. Tenants should not be evicted unless and until they have somewhere equivalent or better, where they would happily go.


----------



## Spectric (31 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Regardless of the causes behind the economic forces driving the illegal cross channel migration.
> It has to be curtailed, or the UK as we know it will cease to exist.


A point will be reached where due to ineffective control by the government a flashpoint will be reached and we have civil unrest, the people will demonstrate there feelings and this will be made worse by the fact we are in an economic crisis and worrying about food and heating whilst the government waste £6.8 million a day on economic migrants, we all know the direction it is going and the government is wholly responsible and will have to take the consequences.


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2022)

Spectric said:


> A point will be reached where due to ineffective control by the government a flashpoint will be reached and we have civil unrest,


which is what Farage and co hope, intend and induced, in the form of brexit


Spectric said:


> the people will demonstrate there feelings and this will be made worse by the fact we are in an economic crisis and worrying about food and heating


Which is why we've got brexit, which has made things generally worse for all concerned


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Why does the government decided that the overwhelming majority of them are in fact refugees.


I entirely agree with you, however a worrying trend now appears to be emerging of increasing numbers of single young Albanian men. Some of these appear to be expected to repay the criminal gangs who brought them here by becoming forced labour in Cannabis farms and other criminal enterprises. As for the legitimate refugees, as i understand the situation they are not legally permitted to work until their application has been processed. The government have made such a spectacular balls up of the whole process that many who would doubtless want to work are unable to do so for months on end whilst waiting for their cases to be determined. Hardly their fault.


----------



## monster (31 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Appalling Farage on R4 this morning. Why do they give him air space - he's not elected by anybody, has nothing interesting to say and is an out-and-out loud mouth racist.


You may not like Farage or his policies, but its a bit cheap to call him a racist just because he opposes unrestrained immigration, you need to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.


----------



## monster (31 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> Bad landlords do
> 
> These are not good enough reasons to disrupt people's lives. Tenants should not be evicted unless and until they have somewhere equivalent or better, where they would happily go.


No, you are wrong I'm afraid - landlords are not in the business of evicting good tenants for no good reason - there is simply no reason they would do that other than genuine reasons like selling up etc. Even bad landlords will want to hang on to their good tenants. Don't believe all you read in the press, its largely only bad tenants that get evicted.

If a landlord needs to sell or re-occupy his property, then they are two very good reasons to ask the tenants to leave - we do after all still have lawful respect for private property rights, despite the certain sections of societies desire to undermine these bedrocks of civilisation.


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Oct 2022)

Marcusthehat said:


> Regardless of the causes behind the economic forces driving the illegal cross channel migration.
> It has to be curtailed, or the UK as we know it will cease to exist.
> I just read a BBC report which graphed the years from 2018
> 2018 virtually zero.
> ...


To be fair I think these figures relate to those coming by boat. The number has increased dramatically because the jump in the back of a truck option was effectively closed down. The actual numbers overall have not increased appreciably, or hadnt last time I looked. Difference being that when they came by lorry they just got out at a motorway service area somewhere and dissappeared. Only newsworthy when the poor sods died in the back of the lorry. Now most boats are intercepted, so we are seeing the problem much more clearly.


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2022)

monster said:


> .... we do after all still have lawful respect for private property rights, despite the certain sections of societies desire to undermine these bedrocks of civilisation.


private property rights are not and never have been the bedrock of civilisation.


----------



## deema (31 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> It's not actually illegal to cross the channel and land in the UK by whatever means.


It is now illegal to cross the channel without making the necessary declarations, it didn’t used to be, the rules change a few years back: you have to pre-advise of your journey. let’s just take private craft, which I think these boats fit into the category of. The requirements are defined here. 






Sailing a pleasure craft that is arriving in the UK


Check customs rules for private individuals who travel to the UK from another country in a pleasure craft




www.gov.uk


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2022)

How do individuals get to "own" areas of the planet in the first place? I suppose they just seize it and then fight off anyone who disputes their ownership. How would stamp duty work in those circumstances, I wonder?


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2022)

monster said:


> You may not like Farage or his policies, but its a bit cheap to call him a racist just because he opposes unrestrained immigration, you need to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.


It is true, however, that he's not elected by anyone, and has nothing interesting to say. Two out of three ain't bad.


----------



## deema (31 Oct 2022)

Jacob said:


> private property rights are not and never have been the bedrock of civilisation.


The right to evict without fault was primarily acted upon at the end of the contract, which specifies the duration in which the tenant is able to reside in the property. Now, most buy to let mortgages only allow 12 month contracts, however, there are also private landlords who own their properties. It’s virtually impossible to get tenants to sign up for more than 12 months, in fact most would like a shorter duration. Let’s not forget, that under the present rules if you sign up for say 5 years, you are responsible for paying the rent for 5 years. Thats too long for most people to commit for. A 5 year tenancy agreement is a dream for most private landlords. 

Now in the proposed new rules, tenants can give notice at any time irrespective of how long they have signed a tenancy agreement for, I think they will only need to give 1 or 2 months notice. What’s the effect of this? Well, for absolute certain, landlords will increase rents. Why? Well the cost of turnover from one tenant to another is actually very high. As a landlord, you could be faced with turnovers every couple of months. Equally the new rules allow the tenant to have what ever pet they want. so, 26 Great Danes, yep that’s totally allowed, the fact that in general dogs tend to trash a rented property is one of the main reasons most landlords prohibit them at the moment. Cats are just as bad, especially Tom cats. Now, I know the reply will be, that tenants don’t stay for just a couple of months, well, they do, and there is a lot of people who just want a few months rental. People moving homes, contract workers to name but two. There is a market for this type of short term let accommodation, and the rents are a lot higher than ‘long term’ rents. They are generally holiday let’s.


----------



## Fergie 307 (31 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> How do individuals get to "own" areas of the planet in the first place? I suppose they just seize it and then fight off anyone who disputes their ownership. How would stamp duty work in those circumstances, I wonder?


Was the preffered method througout most of history. We have just formalised the process as we have become more "civilised".


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Was the preffered method througout most of history. We have just formalised the process as we have become more "civilised".


Preferred method of what?


----------



## Jacob (31 Oct 2022)

deema said:


> It is now illegal to cross the channel without making the necessary declarations, it didn’t used to be, the rules change a few years back: you have to pre-advise of your journey. let’s just take private craft, which I think these boats fit into the category of. The requirements are defined here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No change there then. Bin there dunnit. Often sat in the boat (Q flag up) waiting for customs officer to arrive, but gave up! In fact I think we only ever saw one once. He got really shirty as the rest of the crew had crept off to the pub and I made a bad taste joke about the immigrants we'd also downloaded. 
The current problems are about underfunding (as ever!) and a deliberately hostile policy to immigrants which appeals to a small sector of the electorate and if anything encourages illegality.
World wide migration is the future as climate change kicks in and we are probably only just seeing the beginning. It's a global problem and we need joined up policies with other nations - re-joining the EU would be a good start.


----------



## sploo (31 Oct 2022)

monster said:


> You may not like Farage or his policies, but its a bit cheap to call him a racist just because he opposes unrestrained immigration, you need to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.


Farage opposes (or supports) whatever he thinks will allow him to separate money from the gullible.

Does he actually personally hold racist views? Evidence of his past would suggest he possibly does, but regardless he's frequently used imagery and words that were likely to stoke related fires - such as the Breaking Point poster ("coincidentally" aping the propaganda of a certain group from the 1930s...)

On a lighter note, and concerning the discussion about average, mean, median etc; it's worth remembering that the average number of legs across the human race is less than 2. So if you have 2 legs, you're above average. Congratulations!


----------



## monster (31 Oct 2022)

John Brown said:


> It is true, however, that he's not elected by anyone, and has nothing interesting to say. Two out of three ain't bad.


Not quite - he was elected four times by the people of South East England to represent them in the European Parliament, and on your second point, well that is merely an opinion - one some will share with you, whilst others will disagree.


----------



## Ozi (31 Oct 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Mortgage interest relief at source was given too private householders and was abolished. It would seem that private landlords are being put on the same footing as private householders.
> 
> Buying Real estate is different to buying chattels or paying for a service. Buying the real estate is a separate operation too letting the property. Subsidising private landlords creates an unfair advantage over private householders as the they have more money to spend on the property.
> 
> I would not be surprised if the buy to let market was beginning to throw up some gaming of the tax relief system. My son is going to University, I can afford to buy a flat for him to live in then sell it which would be better than paying rent. You are doing the same thing. Why don't we rent to each others children and claim the tax relief. Then a few years latter oh that worked well we did not have to pay so much why don't we rent our houses out each other.


Where is the subsidy in this? If you buy a house for your son in his name you will not be charged income tax on the mortgage interest or the extra 3% stamp duty, if you buy it in your name and become a landlord you will


----------



## John Brown (31 Oct 2022)

monster said:


> Not quite - he was elected four times by the people of South East England to represent them in the European Parliament, and on your second point, well that is merely an opinion - one some will share with you, whilst others will disagree.


Was.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I entirely agree with you, however a worrying trend now appears to be emerging of increasing numbers of single young Albanian men. Some of these appear to be expected to repay the criminal gangs who brought them here by becoming forced labour in Cannabis farms and other criminal enterprises.


I'd blame government policy for the illegal drug trade and it's certainly not an exclusively Albanian problem. We need to decriminalise the drug trade, to regulate and tax as has been done successfully with much lethal nicotine.


Fergie 307 said:


> As for the legitimate refugees, as i understand the situation they are not legally permitted to work until their application has been processed. The government have made such a spectacular balls up of the whole process that many who would doubtless want to work are unable to do so for months on end whilst waiting for their cases to be determined. Hardly their fault.


Absolutely agree.


----------



## Keith Cocker (1 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> A point will be reached where due to ineffective control by the government a flashpoint will be reached and we have civil unrest, the people will demonstrate there feelings and this will be made worse by the fact we are in an economic crisis and worrying about food and heating whilst the government waste £6.8 million a day on economic migrants, we all know the direction it is going and the government is wholly responsible and will have to take the consequences.


Enochs spirit will always find a body to reincarnate in! Rivers of Blood!!


----------



## Keith Cocker (1 Nov 2022)

monster said:


> You may not like Farage or his policies, but its a bit cheap to call him a racist just because he opposes unrestrained immigration, you need to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.


“He’s not a racist he’s a very naughty piece of slime””


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> ..... Now most boats are intercepted, so we are seeing the problem much more clearly.


Yes. Radio 4 this morning; far more arrive by other means, far more prefer other EU countries not least because the processing of work permits is quicker.
There's a real sense that the immigration "crisis" is a construct as a vote winner for the right.

_"09.17 GMT
Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said she imagines policymakers in France and Germany would look at the UK immigration numbers and “wondering what the fuss is about”.  She said the backlog had increased because as numbers have risen, capacity for decision-making not increased and there are fewer asylum claim decisions being made over the last year or so than before the pandemic.  She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
The UK experienced a period for most of the 2010s where there were actually very low numbers of asylum claims by historical standards."











Home - Migration Observatory







migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk




_


----------



## johna.clements (1 Nov 2022)

monster said:


> No, you are wrong I'm afraid - landlords are not in the business of evicting good tenants for no good reason - there is simply no reason they would do that other than genuine reasons like selling up etc. Even bad landlords will want to hang on to their good tenants. Don't believe all you read in the press, its largely only bad tenants that get evicted.
> 
> If a landlord needs to sell or re-occupy his property, then they are two very good reasons to ask the tenants to leave - we do after all still have lawful respect for private property rights, despite the certain sections of societies desire to undermine these bedrocks of civilisation.


This is obvious nonsense.

There are good and bad landlords, pretending otherwise is a bit silly.

Thinking that bad landlord will always act in there own financial interest is also not a realistic assumption.


----------



## Thingybob (1 Nov 2022)

So now you have all the facts Kev what yer gonna do about that mortgage


----------



## Fergie 307 (1 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> It is true, however, that he's not elected by anyone, and has nothing interesting to say. Two out of three ain't bad.


You cant have a meaningful debate without people from different viewpoints. Often people like Farage just reveal what unpleasant individuals they are, happy to give him a little airtime to do that.


----------



## deema (1 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> There are good and bad landlords, pretending otherwise is a bit silly.


Your absolutely right, there are good and bad landlords, and a level of regulation is required to protect the vulnerable.
The sector had a terrible reputation at one stage which was well deserved, however, one thing that is forgotten about is that rent control had a major impact on rental housing stock. It literally became a loss making exercise to be a landlord, and the sector wasn’t able to invest or carry out repairs effectively. It was only after 15 January 1989, the Housing Act 1988, that rent control in the private sector was abolished that we have seen high quality properties return to the sector, this coupled with much tighter regulation.
We are now seeing the signs of rental control coming back in, the effect is only going to be like last time and we will see landlords selling up and the remaining housing stock deteriorate in its quality. Without private rental properties there would be a huge housing crisis. I know that it will be suggested that it will free up more houses for people to buy / prices will reduce. However, house prices have fluctuated dramatically, from the days I recall that you could buy a whole street in Manchester for £1 to today, where houses are over valued. Throughout there has always been a demand for rental properties. Some people are just unsuitable for mortgages, can’t save, don’t want to own a house, or other factors. Social housing has always been oversubscribed for instance.


----------



## Ozi (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Yes good for landlords. Not good for anybody else.


I have a very simple business model, I buy houses in need of repair, I renovate then rent. The aim is to make what I have to offer better than the average of it's kind in the area. That means good quality windows, loft insulation, the same grade of appliances I use in my own home. That allows me to set a rent above average. Doing that attracts tenants who can afford to pay the extra and who have noticed the difference. The theory is that a person choosing to pay a little more for something nice will keep it nice, there are exceptions but not many. This keeps my maintenance costs down and I split that saving with my tenants, I tell them I'm doing that when their rent goes down after a year due to their taking good care of my property and importantly letting me know if something needs fixing before it needs replacing. My average tenant stays just under 8 years, only once have I evicted a tenant who was harassing other vulnerable residents to borrow money. I'm sure that doesn't fit your political agenda, you don't like people owning other peoples homes, do you feel the same way about people owning food production or shops. I assume you make a living, who does that exploit? 

Looking forward to your explanation of how my business is doing anyone any harm. 

I know folks "do not feed the troll"


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 Nov 2022)

Ozi said:


> I have a very simple business model, I buy houses in need of repair, I renovate then rent. The aim is to make what I have to offer better than the average of it's kind in the area. That means good quality windows, loft insulation, the same grade of appliances I use in my own home. That allows me to set a rent above average. Doing that attracts tenants who can afford to pay the extra and who have noticed the difference. The theory is that a person choosing to pay a little more for something nice will keep it nice, there are exceptions but not many. This keeps my maintenance costs down and I split that saving with my tenants, I tell them I'm doing that when their rent goes down after a year due to their taking good care of my property and importantly letting me know if something needs fixing before it needs replacing. My average tenant stays just under 8 years, only once have I evicted a tenant who was harassing other vulnerable residents to borrow money. I'm sure that doesn't fit your political agenda, you don't like people owning other peoples homes, do you feel the same way about people owning food production or shops. I assume you make a living, who does that exploit?
> 
> Looking forward to your explanation of how my business is doing anyone any harm.
> 
> I know folks "do not feed the troll"


We have a similar approach with our rental properties. Treating tenants well makes good business sense.

I suspect a certain forum member believes "property is theft" though and will be along shortly with some random wikipedia and news articles to show how what we are doing makes us the sperm of the devil


----------



## Jameshow (1 Nov 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> We have a similar approach with our rental properties. Treating tenants well makes good business sense.
> 
> I suspect a certain forum member believes "property is theft" though and will be along shortly with some random wikipedia and news articles to show how what we are doing makes us the sperm of the devil


I have a holiday rental ... What does that make me?!


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

Ozi said:


> I have a very simple business model, I buy houses in need of repair, I renovate then rent. The aim is to make what I have to offer better than the average of it's kind in the area. That means good quality windows, loft insulation, the same grade of appliances I use in my own home. That allows me to set a rent above average. Doing that attracts tenants who can afford to pay the extra and who have noticed the difference. The theory is that a person choosing to pay a little more for something nice will keep it nice, there are exceptions but not many. This keeps my maintenance costs down and I split that saving with my tenants, I tell them I'm doing that when their rent goes down after a year due to their taking good care of my property and importantly letting me know if something needs fixing before it needs replacing. My average tenant stays just under 8 years, only once have I evicted a tenant who was harassing other vulnerable residents to borrow money. I'm sure that doesn't fit your political agenda, you don't like people owning other peoples homes, do you feel the same way about people owning food production or shops. I assume you make a living, who does that exploit?
> 
> Looking forward to your explanation of how my business is doing anyone any harm.
> 
> I know folks "do not feed the troll"


No argument about building services and property management being useful/essential services which have to be paid for.
*But we have housing problems and the system is not working* for a large number of people, who may never get on the housing ladder, or be able to afford rents, especially in London and other places.
The cost of housing has been leveraged higher than incomes. The main responsibility for this is government policy, or absence thereof, particularly the sale of council housing and non replacement.
Private landlords are another feature. It's too easy. High rents are subsidised by housing benefit and house prices go up to match so they profit twice. Needs constraint by taxation, rent controls, minimum standards, licensing, more rights/security to tenants and so on.
2nd homes is another. This should not be possible when there is a desperate shortage.
Housing is a basic human right but house price to earnings ratio are at record high.
How would you suggest housing problem should be addressed, short or long term?









UK House Price to income ratio and affordability - Economics Help


An examination of UK house price affordability. Graphs and data to illustrate the affordability of housing and ratio of house price to earnings. Why ratios have increased.




www.economicshelp.org


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I have a holiday rental ... What does that make me?!


In a time of housing shortages it makes you highly privileged.









UK House Price to income ratio and affordability - Economics Help


An examination of UK house price affordability. Graphs and data to illustrate the affordability of housing and ratio of house price to earnings. Why ratios have increased.




www.economicshelp.org


----------



## deema (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Needs constraint by taxation, rent controls, minimum standards, licensing, more rights/security to tenants and so on.


This is the socialist mantra that created the last rental housing crisis in the 70’s were the private rental stock was abysmal. One of the reasons the social housing stock was sold off by Thatcher was that councils were not able to maintain it and standards were falling. Like me I believe you are if an age were you should be able to remember the social (council) housing estates that were literally slums, that after being sold off became highly desirable.


----------



## deema (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> In a time of housing shortages it makes you highly privileged.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, this is a bit misleading. For instance I believe in Liverpool you can still buy properties from the council for £1 each.








Homes for a Pound


Homes for a Pound is one of a range of measures we're using to bring a total of 6,000 empty houses back into use.




liverpool.gov.uk





There is a large part about where people want to live rather than where they could live.


----------



## Dibs-h (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> There is a large part about where people want to live rather than where they could live.


And times change - in some cities, what were once highly undesirable areas, are now so desirable prices are insane. I suppose the converse is true as well.


----------



## johna.clements (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> Your absolutely right, there are good and bad landlords, and a level of regulation is required to protect the vulnerable.
> The sector had a terrible reputation at one stage which was well deserved, however, one thing that is forgotten about is that rent control had a major impact on rental housing stock. It literally became a loss making exercise to be a landlord, and the sector wasn’t able to invest or carry out repairs effectively. It was only after 15 January 1989, the Housing Act 1988, that rent control in the private sector was abolished that we have seen high quality properties return to the sector, this coupled with much tighter regulation.
> We are now seeing the signs of rental control coming back in, the effect is only going to be like last time and we will see landlords selling up and the remaining housing stock deteriorate in its quality. Without private rental properties there would be a huge housing crisis. I know that it will be suggested that it will free up more houses for people to buy / prices will reduce. However, house prices have fluctuated dramatically, from the days I recall that you could buy a whole street in Manchester for £1 to today, where houses are over valued. Throughout there has always been a demand for rental properties. Some people are just unsuitable for mortgages, can’t save, don’t want to own a house, or other factors. Social housing has always been oversubscribed for instance.


The whole housing market is dysfunctional.

Successive governments have mostly adopted polices that drive up house prices. This makes people feel rich but they can only benefit if they downsize. The higher prices make it hard or impossible for many to buy.

Social housing used to be built to provide for families (mostly) to rent at cost. The majority of the social housing was sold off and replaced with short term rental which costs more. If social housing had continued to be built there would a million or two more houses in the country. This would have lowered the demand for buying and private renting which would have lowered house price increases, which would make some people feel less rich.

The government has introduced controls on private rents via caps on housing benefits. As I note above they would be better building social housing which would lower demand and prices.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> This is the socialist mantra that created the last rental housing crisis in the 70’s were the private rental stock was abysmal. One of the reasons the social housing stock was sold off by Thatcher was that councils were not able to maintain it and standards were falling.


Because of government underfunding


deema said:


> Like me I believe you are if an age were you should be able to remember the social (council) housing estates that were literally slums, that after being sold off became highly desirable.


I remember them well. They were nothing of the sort! They were a huge improvement on the private sector of the time, built to good standards to good sizes inside and out door spaces, and had a lively social mix. They went downhill after the sell offs. The better off used the discounted prices as a way out but the worse off couldn't do this.


----------



## johna.clements (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> This is the socialist mantra that created the last rental housing crisis in the 70’s were the private rental stock was abysmal. One of the reasons the social housing stock was sold off by Thatcher was that councils were not able to maintain it and standards were falling. Like me I believe you are if an age were you should be able to remember the social (council) housing estates that were literally slums, that after being sold off became highly desirable.


The council estate that I grew up on in the 60s and 70s was well maintained by the Conservative council it certainly was not a slum.

After the majority were sold at a discount in the 90s the neat front gardens are gone and the anti social behavior has increased.


----------



## Jameshow (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> In a time of housing shortages it makes you highly privileged.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's mobile home lodge so not really applicable as it's holiday use only.


----------



## deema (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> I remember them well. They were nothing of the sort! They were a huge improvement on the private sector of the time, built to good standards to good sizes inside and out door spaces, and had a lively social mix. They went downhill after the sell offs. The better off used the discounted prices as a way out but the worse off couldn't do this.


The big push in the 70’s was for the ‘streets in the sky’s’ where large scale council flats were built in tower blocks In urbane areas. Terribly built, no community, massive crime issues, and rapidly became slums with huge numbers pulled down. Yes, fond memories.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> The big push in the 70’s was for the ‘streets in the sky’s’ where large scale council flats were built in tower blocks In urbane areas. Terribly built, no community, massive crime issues, and rapidly became slums with huge numbers pulled down. Yes, fond memories.


Downhill in the 70s yes. Lack of investment. I remember it well - some were so bad that they were demolished not long after.
The best were the post war brick built.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> It's mobile home lodge so not really applicable as it's holiday use only.


That's OK then we'll let you off!


----------



## deema (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Downhill in the 70s yes. Lack of investment. I remember it well - some were so bad that they were demolished not long after.
> The best were the post war brick built.


The war finished in 1945, Britain needed to rebuild and ‘create housing for the return soldiers’. Resources were scarce, and the UK was not in financial good shape. There were large numbers of prefab houses built, which is where the UK aversion to prefabricated housing came from as they were only ever intended as temporary accommodation, and were not well built or insulated and suffered from damp and being cold……..a great number are still with us. The high rise social housing movement started in the late 60’s, and the big council house sell off started in the 80’s.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> The war finished in 1945, Britain needed to rebuild and ‘create housing for the return soldiers’. Resources were scarce, and the UK was not in financial good shape. There were large numbers of prefab houses built, which is where the UK aversion to prefabricated housing came from as they were only ever intended as temporary accommodation, and were not well built or insulated and suffered from damp and being cold……..a great number are still with us. The high rise social housing movement started in the late 60’s, and the big council house sell off started in the 80’s.


I remember the prefab bungalows well. They were still around in the 60s. Good in terms of space and planning, low maintenance, well built, but cold, as you say. But coal was cheap.
High rise originally was idealistic but often done on the cheap. Now it's all done on the cheap.


----------



## Ozi (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> No argument about building services and property management being useful/essential services which have to be paid for.
> *But we have housing problems and the system is not working* for a large number of people, who may never get on the housing ladder, or be able to afford rents, especially in London and other places.
> The cost of housing has been leveraged higher than incomes. The main responsibility for this is government policy, or absence thereof, particularly the sale of council housing and non replacement.
> Private landlords are another feature. It's too easy. High rents are subsidised by housing benefit and house prices go up to match so they profit twice. Needs constraint by taxation, rent controls, minimum standards, licensing, more rights/security to tenants and so on.
> ...


Only one solution - build more houses and build the correct houses. My first house was a two bed mid terrace house in Coventry. There are hundreds almost identical throughout the city. They were in their day the correct house for the people coming to work in the new industries growing in the city. Some were built speculatively some by building societies where groups of people paid in and drew lots for the houses as they were completed, some were built to let. The point is they were the correct house for the times. By modern standards solid walls single glazed no loft insulation and outside toilets plus built on a twelve foot pitch so less than one car parking space per house no longer the correct house. What we need (I think you will like this) is a peoples house in the same sense as the VW was a peoples car. This is my best guess at what it should be but others may know better. Two or three bed versions Terraced. Parking under the ground floor for one SMALL electric vehicle. Over pavement street parking ie inward facing for a second if needed. Modern levels of insulation both thermal and sound, battery storage probably community batteries and solar on the roofs, plus rainwater harvesting. Standard houses built on production lines delivered as modules to site. It's been done, you can half the build cost (not the land cost) but there is a lot less profit to be made. 

Read this








Cost of living: Swansea estate cuts bills by generating energy


People on a Swansea estate are reducing bills by sharing solar panels and storing the power.



www.bbc.co.uk





combine that with the houses I was describing

Here is an article by someone actually trying to live a modern life with some sustainability

Guest Blog: Oakwood pt 2 - MyGridGB 


The houses built in Coventry around 1903 like mine were not built in isolation, the sewage systems went in as did shops and schools, joined up thinking three years after the founding of the Labor party eleven before the first world war. Built with the Victorian attitude that they wee going to last, no house should be designed to last less than 100 years.

To do this we all need to pay tax and in the most efficient way possible.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (1 Nov 2022)

Rents and house prices are driven by:

demand increases - breakdown of traditional family units and population increases
supply - limited due to strict planning constraints and local objections (Nimbys).
It makes little difference to supply and demand whether houses are owned or rented - a flexible market needs spare capacity which is largely absent in the UK property market. 

Private rents are impacted by normal "commercial" pressures. Investment cost, regulatory framework, taxation policy, risk, alternative investment returns.

Social housing whilst not impacted by commercial pressures in quite the same way need a taxpayer subsidy to deliver social housing at below market rents. 

There is a wealth of comparative data held by OECD. I have not read this in detail but there are a few points worth noting: 

OECD data

The UK has:

some of the highest cost housing
is relatively uncrowded
very high commuting times
amongst the oldest and least efficient housing stock
above average access to green spaces - a consequence of strict planning laws
a fairly average/typical mix of rented/owned property 
very low levels of rent control
very high levels of housing allowances - which may feed into rental costs
I am sure all will be able to find a statistic to support any preconceived notion - but one key element which I could not quickly find is that vacant property in the UK is very low by comparison to other developed countries.

The lack of supply drives high prices of both ownership and rents. We simply need to build a lot more property, accept that as much as 5-10% may be vacant at any time (similar to many other developed countries), and both rents and prices will fall.


----------



## johna.clements (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> The war finished in 1945, Britain needed to rebuild and ‘create housing for the return soldiers’. Resources were scarce, and the UK was not in financial good shape. There were large numbers of prefab houses built, which is where the UK aversion to prefabricated housing came from as they were only ever intended as temporary accommodation, and were not well built or insulated and suffered from damp and being cold……..a great number are still with us. The high rise social housing movement started in the late 60’s, and the big council house sell off started in the 80’s.


There are still around 8000 of the 156000 prefabs remaining. Not sure I would call that a great number. I assume they are owned privately for the most part.

There were some prefabs near where I lived as a child. But they had been knocked down around 1970.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Rents and house prices are driven by:
> 
> demand increases - breakdown of traditional family units and population increases
> supply - limited due to strict planning constraints and local objections (Nimbys).
> ...


What stands out are the last two items. They are what makes buying to let so attractive. They could be reversed and also bring prices down.


Terry - Somerset said:


> I am sure all will be able to find a statistic to support any preconceived notion - but one key element which I could not quickly find is that vacant property in the UK is very low by comparison to other developed countries.











Why second homes are a problem for housing in the UK - The Big Issue


Second homes have become a contentious issue as a lack of affordable housing means the UK's housing crisis shows no sign of ending



www.bigissue.com






Terry - Somerset said:


> The lack of supply drives high prices of both ownership and rents. We simply need to build a lot more property, accept that as much as 5-10% may be vacant at any time (similar to many other developed countries), and both rents and prices will fall.


And/or liberate empty property and second homes.


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 Nov 2022)

The fundamental problem with the housing market is that there are not enough houses and demand keeps outstripping supply. Successive governments have failed to address this as to do so needs a long term strategy and probably therefore cross party consensus.

One missed opportunity to fund more social housing has been allowing the major building firms to profit from the likes of the help to buy scheme. The construct of this could have been better thought through by either increasing the requirement on developers to build more affordable/social housing alongside other developments or an increased level of corporation tax. In itself it wouldn't have solved the problem but it would have helped.


----------



## Jameshow (1 Nov 2022)

Can someone tell me why we need all this new housing if the birth rate is below 2 then the need decreases?!


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Can someone tell me why we need all this new housing if the birth rate is below 2 then the need decreases?!


We don't need it if we liberate 2nd homes and empty property.


----------



## johna.clements (1 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Can someone tell me why we need all this new housing if the birth rate is below 2 then the need decreases?!


More people are living alone, therefore more households. We need more smaller houses and flats.


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Can someone tell me why we need all this new housing if the birth rate is below 2 then the need decreases?!



A number of factors leading to the population rising such as people living longer and then a higher divorce rate/change in how people want to live. 

Not sure what "liberating" second homes means ... stealing?


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> A number of factors leading to the population rising such as people living longer and then a higher divorce rate/change in how people want to live.
> 
> Not sure what "liberating" second homes means ... stealing?


Taxing is the most civilised way. In a time of severe affordable housing shortage they are obviously unacceptable and a property tax could be targeted to pay the cost of replacing them, or we would be building council houses merely to protect the rights of the better off to own two or more homes - a very silly idea!
It would work both ways and liberate some empty properties pretty quickly I imagine!
It's not that "property is theft" but neither is it sacrosanct.


----------



## Dibs-h (1 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Can someone tell me why we need all this new housing if the birth rate is below 2 then the need decreases?!


The population is aging and the ol' codgers ain't dead yet.


----------



## monster (1 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> This is obvious nonsense.
> 
> There are good and bad landlords, pretending otherwise is a bit silly.
> 
> Thinking that bad landlord will always act in there own financial interest is also not a realistic assumption.


I'm sorry you clearly didn't read and digest what I wrote - There are quite obviously bad landlords out there just as there are bad tenants - I even mentioned the fact there are both good and bad landlords in my post you are commenting on, so your reply is an odd one.

My point was that neither the good or bad landlords would want to evict good tenants without having a valid tenant unrelated reason such as wishing to sell etc - there is simply no realistic motive to do otherwise.


----------



## johna.clements (1 Nov 2022)

monster said:


> I'm sorry you clearly didn't read and digest what I wrote - There are quite obviously bad landlords out there just as there are bad tenants - I even mentioned the fact there are both good and bad landlords in my post you are commenting on, so your reply is an odd one.
> 
> My point was that neither the good or bad landlords would want to evict good tenants without having a valid tenant unrelated reason such as wishing to sell etc - there is simply no realistic motive to do otherwise.


Why do you think that bad landlords always act in their own financial interest.

People have other motives than money.


----------



## monster (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> We don't need it if we liberate 2nd homes and empty property.


'Liberate'..... 

How would you feel about others suggesting we liberate some of your privately owned property?


----------



## monster (1 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Why do you think that bad landlords always act in their own financial interest.
> 
> People have other motives than money.


I'm not sure what you are hinting at there.

What I am sure of is that there are very few landlords (good or bad) who would evict good tenants without a valid reason such as the need to sell. There is simply no good motive for them to so. Despite the pressure groups and the media which cry daily that such a thing is rife.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

monster said:


> 'Liberate'.....
> 
> How would you feel about others suggesting we liberate some of your privately owned property?


Depends on the whys and wherefores. We all accept that taxation is the price of civilisation - except for Liz Truss and the Tufton Street Taliban of course, but they are not very bright.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

monster said:


> I'm not sure what you are hinting at there.
> 
> What I am sure of is that there are very few landlords (good or bad) who would evict good tenants without a valid reason such as the need to sell. There is simply no good motive for them to so. Despite the pressure groups and the media which cry daily that such a thing is rife.


The bigger issue is bad landlords who don't comply with their obligations and attempt to harass or evict their tenants if they complain. It's a very common story They are widespread. Complaints about private landlords - Shelter England
"Need to sell" isn't a very good reason as the need for somewhere to live is obviously much more important.


----------



## deema (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> The bigger issue is bad landlords who don't comply with their obligations and attempt to harass or evict their tenants if they complain. It's a very common story They are widespread. Complaints about private landlords - Shelter England
> "Need to sell" isn't a very good reason as the need for somewhere to live is obviously much more important.


Lets put your perspective slightly differently, what in effect your saying is that somebody else’s housing needs trumps another’s need for the cash. I suggest that if your own house was suddenly made such that you are no longer able to sell it, all your bank accounts are frozen and any other assets you have are also frozen so that someone else could benefit you may have a different perspective. 

Why not go the whole nine yards and suggest that a there are bedroom police, and anyone with a spare bedroom must take in people without accommodation? That would solve the housing crisis immediately. In fact, let’s go a step further and an assessment of your basic living needs is also made, and any excess money is given to those with a lower living standard? I understand that your retired, so all your tools and machines should be donated to those who are trying to work and can’t afford them. 

A wardrobe police should check your wardrobe, and more than two pairs of anything is immediately seized and given to those who need it more.

Yep, the world has been there tried it, killed millions trying it to make it work and finally in almost every case started to move away from it. Only Kim Jong-un is I think the last sticking to that mantra……but at least everyone is equally starving.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Yes. Radio 4 this morning; far more arrive by other means, far more prefer other EU countries not least because the processing of work permits is quicker.
> There's a real sense that the immigration "crisis" is a construct as a vote winner for the right.
> 
> _"09.17 GMT
> ...


----------



## johna.clements (1 Nov 2022)

monster said:


> I'm not sure what you are hinting at there.
> 
> What I am sure of is that there are very few landlords (good or bad) who would evict good tenants without a valid reason such as the need to sell. There is simply no good motive for them to so. Despite the pressure groups and the media which cry daily that such a thing is rife.


As I said people are motivated by other things as well a money. Sex would be the most likely motivation.


----------



## deema (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> The bigger issue is bad landlords who don't comply with their obligations and attempt to harass or evict their tenants if they complain. It's a very common story They are widespread. Complaints about private landlords - Shelter England
> "Need to sell" isn't a very good reason as the need for somewhere to live is obviously much more important.


Again, balance is needed. A tenant can still insist on everything being fixed and made beautiful and refuse to pay the rent for what ever reason. It takes usually a minimum of 6 months to evict a bad tenant, and usually there are significant repair bills. So, in a number of cases, the landlord does not rush around to fix a broken window…..that they broke as they aren’t being paid. There are two sides to every coin, and you need to look at both before arriving at a perspective.


----------



## johna.clements (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> Again, balance is needed. A tenant can still insist on everything being fixed and made beautiful and refuse to pay the rent for what ever reason. It takes usually a minimum of 6 months to evict a bad tenant, and usually there are significant repair bills. So, in a number of cases, the landlord does not rush around to fix a broken window…..that they broke as they aren’t being paid. There are two sides to every coin, and you need to look at both before arriving at a perspective.


There certainly are bad tenants as well.


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> The bigger issue is bad landlords who don't comply with their obligations and attempt to harass or evict their tenants if they complain. It's a very common story They are widespread. Complaints about private landlords - Shelter England
> "Need to sell" isn't a very good reason as the need for somewhere to live is obviously much more important.


I would agree that there are bad landlords and I have every sympathy with those that get exposed to them but it’s simply not the case that they are the bigger issue. Of the 2.7 million landlords in the UK the vast majority are good landlords.

Equally there are good and bad tenants.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> I would agree that there are bad landlords and I have every sympathy with those that get exposed to them but it’s simply not the case that they are the bigger issue. Of the 2.7 million landlords in the UK the vast majority are good landlords.


"Good" landlords aren't the problem by definition.
The big issue is "bad" landlords, appallingly so in some cases, such as the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
The other big issue is house price "affordability".


Blackswanwood said:


> Equally there are good and bad tenants.


Not quite "equally" - good or bad tenants need somewhere to live, landlords usually don't.


----------



## deema (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> bad tenants need somewhere to live


I would suggest that bad tenants have no ‘right’ other than to modify their behaviour to make them acceptable within society. It’s fallen out of fashion, but the old mantra of ‘do to others as you would be done by’ is a good basis to live by. Any other suggestion (excluding medical / mental health issues causing the poor behaviour) is just advocating anarchy. Is it acceptable for the neighbours trying to live respectably lives to have to tolerate inappropriate bahviour? Typically, poor tenants also in many cases create antisocial issues for their neighbourhood.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> Lets put your perspective slightly differently, what in effect your saying is that somebody else’s housing needs trumps another’s need for the cash. ....


Yes.


----------



## deema (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Yes.


It’s a perspective, which your entitled to and I’m sure your living by your principles. I hope you’ve opend up your house to the needy, distributed anything surplus that you have etc etc. I have no issue with alternative views IF they live by their values, if they do they are to be admired. What I find difficult to understand is arm chair socialist perspectives that feel the world must change, but do absolutely nothing themselves to enact their values, it’s always what someone else must do. It lacks both credibility and integrity.


----------



## Spectric (1 Nov 2022)

That could come down to free housing, a landlord has to charge a rent that covers their cost / fair profit and a tenant has to pay but what has to be sorted is a fair rent for a property that is fit for domestic habitation and not some dirty slum. This is where it all comes apart, the good landlords end up tared with the same brush.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> It’s a perspective, which your entitled to and I’m sure your living by your principles. I hope you’ve opend up your house to the needy, distributed anything surplus that you have etc etc. I have no issue with alternative views IF they live by their values, if they do they are to be admired. What I find difficult to understand is arm chair socialist perspectives that feel the world must change, but do absolutely nothing themselves to enact their values, it’s always what someone else must do. It lacks both credibility and integrity.


No it's something which we *all* must do i.e. accept that these things must be paid for from taxation which we *all* pay.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> That could come down to free housing, a landlord has to charge a rent that covers their cost / fair profit and a tenant has to pay but what has to be sorted is a fair rent for a property that is fit for domestic habitation and not some dirty slum. This is where it all comes apart, the good landlords end up tared with the same brush.


True that "good" landlords get drawn in to the problem - we all do. We have to buy, sell, rent at the market rates. We need to make changes to the market.
A landlord doesn't have to be a landlord at all.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> It’s a perspective, which your entitled to and I’m sure your living by your principles. I hope you’ve opened up your house to the needy, distributed anything surplus that you have etc etc....


Some noble souls do but most people don't have the capacity for that degree of self sacrifice and it could never be a solution. This is what governments are for - pooling resources, managing and and acting for the common good. Much more efficient and cost effective than charity.


----------



## deema (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Some do but most people don't have the capacity for that degree of self sacrifice and it could never be a solution. This is what governments are for.


So, do you live by your principles, are you philanthropist? are you doing your bit to change the world? If so, I’d be really interested to know what your doing, credit should be given to those who live by their conviction.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> So, do you live by your principles, are you philanthropist? are you doing your bit to change the world? If so, I’d be really interested to know what your doing, credut should be given to those who live by their conviction.


Taxation is the price of civilisation. Philanthropy couldn't pay for it. Hardly a radical point of view. The only strange thing is having to explain it, over and over again!


----------



## deema (1 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Taxation is the price of civilisation. Philanthropy couldn't pay for it. Hardly a radical point of view. The only strange thing is having to explain it, over and over again!


Sorry, but I take it from your comment you dont live by your convictions. If you don’t believe in your views enough to actually live by them, they have in my opinion little if any credibility.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> Sorry, but I take it from your comment you dont live by your convictions. If you don’t believe in your views enough to actually live by them, they have in my opinion little if any credibility.


It's not about "convictions" it's about problem solving.
Do your "convictions" tell you that an unregulated free market is the best of all possible worlds?
If not, how would you solve the affordability problem yourself?









UK House Price to income ratio and affordability - Economics Help


An examination of UK house price affordability. Graphs and data to illustrate the affordability of housing and ratio of house price to earnings. Why ratios have increased.




www.economicshelp.org





PS it's not about "fairness" either, it's about solving the problem of homelessness, inadequate housing, un-affordability and so on.


----------



## johna.clements (1 Nov 2022)

The terrorist attack in Dover has been confirmed as anti asylum seeker.


----------



## Jacob (1 Nov 2022)

Most interesting thing I've been listening to for a long time is this: The Plan Is to Make You Permanently Poorer | Aaron Meets Gary Stevenson | Novara Media
He is a world class expert on his subject.
He explains why the rich have to be taxed or the economy will fail.
I've only got to 38 minutes so far - it goes on a bit but is deeply fascinating.
About him here Gary Stevenson, City trader turned campaigner: ‘I made money betting on a disaster’


----------



## baldkev (1 Nov 2022)

Frozen Elsa GIF - Frozen Elsa Let It Go - Discover & Share GIFs


----------



## baldkev (1 Nov 2022)

Im not very good at this meme thing yet


----------



## Terry - Somerset (1 Nov 2022)

> And/or liberate empty property and second homes.


There are ~500k second homes in the UK. Of these ~200k (39%) are holiday homes or weekend cottages. 

Liberating these would add ~1% to the available UK housing stock. The impact would be rather less than suggested by the numbers as the geographic distribution of holiday homes is unlikely to be well aligned to the availability of jobs, schools, public transport etc. 

The other 60% are a mix of rented as holiday homes (tourist industry), for future retirement, living or working away from main residence. There may be rather less of a case for "liberating" these as they already serve a socially or economically useful function.

As usual dogma dominates rational analysis.


----------



## johna.clements (1 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There are ~500k second homes in the UK. Of these ~200k (39%) are holiday homes or weekend cottages.
> 
> Liberating these would add ~1% to the available UK housing stock. The impact would be rather less than suggested by the numbers as the geographic distribution of holiday homes is unlikely to be well aligned to the availability of jobs, schools, public transport etc.
> 
> ...


You are correct about the distribution of second homes. But that causes its own problems with some places having no one living them for half the year. And the people who are needed to work there being priced out.


----------



## julianf (1 Nov 2022)

It's sad to see house price increase being blamed on "the breakdown of the family unit" etc when there is accepted economic thinking that explains things on a somwhat more sophisticated level.

After 2008 we saw significant quantitative easing. For those who done know what this is, the bottom line is that it increases the money supply in the economy.

However the injection is at the higher wealth levels. 

An undisputed effect of QE is that it bolsters the asset market.

What's the "asset market"? It's a fancy way of saying stuff that's considered an asset.

So, after 2008 whilst half the nation was experiencing the effects of austerity, we also saw massive increases in the value of, say, classic cars. And house prices.

I mean, it happened, it's accepted economics. I'm sure someone here will disagree but that's just how it is.


So why did the hose prices go up, at the same time as austerity?

Because QE does not inject the cash into the economy evenly. It injects it at the wealthy end.

Wealthy people generally "consume" as much as they want to anyway, so additional cash does not increase their consumption in the same way as it would with someone at the lower end of the wealth scale.

So what do they do with the additional money? They invest it. Supposedly in "beneficial to society" things, if you're a supply side economics advocate, but also, absolutely irrefutably, in other "stuff" that are considered assets.

Like classic cars, antique vases. And houses.


So, after 2008, when half the population was feeling the pain of the banking errors, the other half (well, not half...) were busy driving up the price of housing stock.


But, yes, blame it on people getting divorced if you like. That probably fits with prejudice better than understanding one of the generally accepted results of QE.


----------



## julianf (1 Nov 2022)

As a follow up, 

I mentioned previously that the government injected about £600b into the money supply over COVID.

I mentioned that, averaged out, this was about £15k per person, and, if you didn't have £15k per person more in your family unit, then someone else had your share.

I understand this was difficult to grasp. I likened cash to water - it may evaporate (get spent) but ultimately still exists... Somwhere...


(excluding bonfires)


Someone, I can't remember who, said about people spending their COVID grants and that was their "fault" which was somewhat missing the point... But still - like water in the water cycle that money exists. Somwhere.


And the reality is that it's at the high end of the wealth spectrum. 


So we have the cost of living crisis with not just the "workshy scum" (and nurses, civil servants, etc. etc) feeling the "pinch" but well into the middle class too.

Keep a good eye on house prices. I know some people find it hard to understand, because "they [the other people] spent their COVID grants" but that money still exists...

And my bet is it's now looking for a home in the asset market.


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There are ~500k second homes in the UK. Of these ~200k (39%) are holiday homes or weekend cottages.
> 
> Liberating these would add ~1% to the available UK housing stock. The impact would be rather less than suggested by the numbers as the geographic distribution of holiday homes is unlikely to be well aligned to the availability of jobs, schools, public transport etc.


2nd homes etc actually *cause* deterioration in local services, schools, shops etc. Towns and villages become depopulated for various lengths of time. This is very noticeable here in the Peak District, empty villages and hamlets as the area becomes a playground for the better off or for transient holiday makers, squeezing out the locals


Terry - Somerset said:


> The other 60% are a mix of rented as holiday homes (tourist industry), for future retirement, living or working away from main residence. There may be rather less of a case for "liberating" these as they already serve a socially or economically useful function.


Arguable. Housing the homeless and the inadequately housed should take priority and be regarded as an emergency


Terry - Somerset said:


> As usual dogma dominates rational analysis.


 Why not try rational analysis then, instead of grasping at straws? You can do it!


----------



## Blackswanwood (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> It's sad to see house price increase being blamed on "the breakdown of the family unit" etc when there is accepted economic thinking that explains things on a somwhat more sophisticated level.
> 
> After 2008 we saw significant quantitative easing. For those who done know what this is, the bottom line is that it increases the money supply in the economy.
> 
> ...


Yes, that is undoubtedly a factor. It goes alongside the fact that the divorce rate has increased and what were the social norms of the family unit having changed. There are many factors that makes the housing market what it is. 

Some of the money created has accumulated in pension funds (both via increased contributions and dividends resulting from more consumer spending). Interestingly some pension providers are investing it back in the housing market - Legal & General are a good example of this. (I'm not arguing that's a solution to the overall problem or that it justifies how QE has been managed).


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> ...... Interestingly some pension providers are investing it back in the housing market - Legal & General are a good example of this. .....


A simple example of the failure of QE - money in the wrong hands pushing up house prices.
People with surplus money buy assets and push up prices. OK perhaps if it's traditional; art work, silly cars or jewellery which nobody needs,  but not if land or housing which everybody needs
To make economies work for everybody money has to circulate - to be moved from the well-off where it is not needed, to where it is needed.
This is the Gary Stevenson message - at least I think it is I've got another hour to listen to yet!
It's also what you learn from the Monopoly board - which was designed to show exactly this. History of Monopoly - Wikipedia
Economics is simpler than you think! But not as simple as Liz Truss thinks.


----------



## Jameshow (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> As a follow up,
> 
> I mentioned previously that the government injected about £600b into the money supply over COVID.
> 
> ...


I think your getting mixed up... 

The covid cash wasn't a hand out in top of your usual income, it was instead of your usual income which you weren't able to earn. Therefore those people in furlough were no better off than anyone else. It was the companies that too the hit in productivity. 

Fraud cases excepted.


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I think your getting mixed up...
> 
> The covid cash wasn't a hand out in top of your usual income, it was instead of your usual income which you weren't able to earn. Therefore those people in furlough were no better off than anyone else. It was the companies that too the hit in productivity.
> 
> Fraud cases excepted.



No, really, I'm not getting mixed up at all. I'll explain again using different terms and hopefully you'll be able to understand -

If I have 10 people in a room and I give each of them 10 marbles, then they each have 10 marbles, right?

But what if all the marbles go into a bucket, and then people take out handfuls until there are none left, and then they count how many they have.

Evreyone has 10 still, right?

No... Some people have 6 and some people have 18...

You know that, unless you have 10 marbles, someone else has your share of those marbles given out.

I'm unsure why I have to keep saying this. I've used the water cycle analogy before, and now I'm onto children's toys....


That £600b was a cash injection into the economy. Someone came along with a whole load of marbles and dumped them into the population.

Regardless of who did what then, what those marbles were for, and who just "spent their COVID grant" or whatever, if you don't have your marbles, someone else does.

That's the simple way of looking at it.

We can discuss how the money was injected or whatever, but the long and the short of it is that, unless you have, in your account, be it as cash or assets, an ADDITIONAL 10 "marbles" per person in your household, then those marbles are somwhere else. 
With someone else.


----------



## Jameshow (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> No, really, I'm not getting mixed up at all. I'll explain again using different terms and hopefully you'll be able to understand -
> 
> If I have 10 people in a room and I give each of them 10 marbles, then they each have 10 marbles, right?
> 
> ...


No because marbles were taken out due to the lack of productivity in factories, offices and building sites around the country. The only thing that did change was there was a load of debt the gov created. 

Which was done to stop companies going under, people becoming homeless, people starving etc etc.


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> Yes, that is undoubtedly a factor. It goes alongside the fact that the divorce rate has increased and what were the social norms of the family unit having changed. There are many factors that makes the housing market what it is.
> 
> Some of the money created has accumulated in pension funds (both via increased contributions and dividends resulting from more consumer spending). Interestingly some pension providers are investing it back in the housing market - Legal & General are a good example of this. (I'm not arguing that's a solution to the overall problem or that it justifies how QE has been managed).




Two points i'd like to reply to -

You've gone back to divorce -

Me spitting out the window if there's a flood is a "factor", but I wouldn't try and use it as a cause of the flood.

This is one that, really, I don't need to try and convince you of though. QE correlated with a massive increase in asset prices. If you think that correlation should be talked about in terms of the divorce rate, then so be it. 
But I think you may be trying to fight against the tide.


The second point -

You mention pension funds buying up housing stock. Just to be sure, you realise thats exactly what I was saying, right?


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> No because marbles were taken out due to the lack of productivity in factories, offices and building sites around the country. The only thing that did change was there was a load of debt the gov created.
> 
> Which was done to stop companies going under, people becoming homeless, people starving etc etc.



Where did the marbles go?

Did someone have a bonfire and burn all the cash?


You are using economic output interchangeably with money supply. They're not the same.


----------



## Jameshow (2 Nov 2022)

Of course they are not the same....but the factory / office output dropped yet the payroll remained the same and thus the employees had the same money in thier bank acc..


----------



## D_W (2 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> In ordinary language, an *average* is a single number taken as representative of a list of numbers, usually the sum of the numbers divided by how many numbers are in the list (the arithmetic mean). For example, the average of the numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9 (summing to 25) is 5. Depending on the context, an average might be another statistic such as the median, or mode. For example, the average personal income is often given as the median—the number below which are 50% of personal incomes and above which are 50% of personal incomes—because the mean would be misleadingly high by including personal incomes from a few billionaires.



There is no such thing as redefining mathematical terms and calling it ordinary language. It's not subjective.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (2 Nov 2022)

Money is merely a means of exchange enabling trade within a complex economy and society. In its absence we would be back to barter - as far as I know this only works well in small self contained communities with basic needs.

Most economies fail to deliver all desires - hopefully the deficiencies are aspirational not essential. 

In a very simple economic model:

output (the aggregate of goods and services) remains stable
putting more money into the economy (borrowing or printing) initially increases demand
more money is chasing the same quantity of goods and services
prices go up to match the money available - inflation
This is simplistic as it ignores other pressures - international trade, exchange rates, circumstances (war, pandemics etc), savings ratios, interest rates etc. But for this purpose it suffices.

In (rightly) providing support during the pandemic the UK borrowed or printed ~£400bn and output fell. To a great extent these actions were mirrored across the international community - financial support provided and output reduced.

There can only be one of two consequences:

reduced future consumption allowing loans to be repaid
inflation as cash has been created with no increase in output
Politically the former is unattractive - increased taxes and reduced public expenditure. Truss tried to avoid this by stimulating growth - an experiment universally damned by the financial markets.

Sunak and Hunt seem to be gearing up to try the more tax/less spend approach - the financial markets seem encouraged and as a "fiscal conservative" I agree.

However inflation has its part to play in resolution of the pandemic loans - the real value of loans which need to be repaid diminishes (as a proportion of GDP) as does the real value of any cash assets held (bank accounts, government bonds etc).

In the earlier posts the marbles are the output of the economy. The pandemic reduced the 10 marbles the game started with to 8 as output fell and some consumed. There are no extra marbles hiding.


----------



## John Brown (2 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> There is no such thing as redefining mathematical terms and calling it ordinary language. It's not subjective.


Take it up with the dictionary compilers, who will probably respond by saying that they reflect common usage.


----------



## johna.clements (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> Where did the marbles go?
> 
> Did someone have a bonfire and burn all the cash?
> 
> ...


Your marbles in a bucket allegory is incorrect.

There was more than one bucket. You are asking why you did get marbles from another bucket.

Many people got marbles from the bucket set up for people whose jobs were closed or disrupted by covid.

Companies that were forced to close had their own bucket.

Money was used to buy PPE, set up vaccination stations etc from a different bucket.


If everybody had the same share of all the different buckets how would that work. Would you give some of your marbles to your employer so that they can pay their bills when they could not trade. What about the local pub. Would you give some of your marbles to the local doctors and hospital so that they can swap them for PPE.

All the marbles were not in the same bucket.

Now if you want to talk about investigation of fraud and mismagement of the marbles and the different buckets I would support that.


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2022)

Finally got to the end. 1hr 32minutes.
He's brilliant, covers lots of ground and comes to a devastating conclusion.
He says we must organise - there's far more of us than them.
He covers all the issues raised on this thread and a lot more.








The Plan Is to Make You Permanently Poorer | Aaron Meets Gary Stevenson | Novara Media


In 2011, while working as a City trader, Gary Stevenson joined the ultra rich with a single bonus cheque. Not long after he was named one of Citibank’s highest performing traders worldwide. Stevenson made millions for his employer by betting on one thing: that the British and American economies...




novaramedia.com




Now having a look at this https://www.youtube.com/c/garyseconomics


----------



## johna.clements (2 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> There is no such thing as redefining mathematical terms and calling it ordinary language. It's not subjective.


In the UK, this is a UK forum, average a general term for mean, median and mode.

Here is an extract from A level Maths revision notes. A levels are taken at 18 and form the basis of University selection.

"What are mean, median and mode?​
Mean, median and mode are measures of *location*
A measure of location gives information about where data is in the number system 
Mean, median and mode are *measures of central tendency*
They describe where the centre of the data is

They are all types of *averages*
In Statistics it is important to be specific about which average you are referring to"







Basic Statistical Measures (2.1.1) | AQA A Level Maths: Statistics Revision Notes 2018


AQA A Level Maths: Statistics exam revision with questions, model answers & video solutions for Statistical Measures. Made by expert teachers.




www.savemyexams.co.uk





You will note that importance is placed telling people which average you are using.

Obviously people will choose a miss leading type of average and then may be unwilling to tell people which type they used as it will undermine their argument.


----------



## Spectric (2 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> In the UK, this is a UK forum,


It may have UK in the name but it is not a UK forum, it is global and anyone is welcome that has an interest in wood. To this end we have to accept there will be variations on the meaning of various words and terms as we all know from our American colleagues.


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Money is merely a means of exchange enabling trade within a complex economy and society. In its absence we would be back to barter - as far as I know this only works well in small self contained communities with basic needs.
> ........


The problem is that money itself has become a commodity and is traded and betted upon in the financial market, barely connected to the real world.
It connects to the real world when the rich convert their money into assets, which may deprive others of life's necessities. Housing being number one; a desirable asset for the rich *but also *a necessity of life for everybody.
Beautifully explained by Gary The Plan Is to Make You Permanently Poorer | Aaron Meets Gary Stevenson | Novara Media


----------



## D_W (2 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> In the UK, this is a UK forum, average a general term for mean, median and mode.
> 
> Here is an extract from A level Maths revision notes. A levels are taken at 18 and form the basis of University selection.
> 
> ...



I guess you guys use a different math language than we do over here. Average is flatly stated in the M-W dictionary here as the sum divided by the quantity. 

however, the use of the word average is almost constantly used to mislead, often because someone has convinced themselves that they have the freedom to use it. 

The pitfalls of average used without other measures is something different (skewness, kurtosis, etc), but that's usually reasonably well covered by providing the median (e.g., the median net worth in the US is something like $130k) vs. the mean ($750k). 

You will often see that "the average person is drowning in debt", or comments like that, or "the average poor person pays more in taxes than the rich". 

Neither of these are true. 

Too, if folks try to rely on calling the mode "average", which is how some people perceive it here, too - as any group you can think of has having more than one can be "the average person" often refer to a group that isn't the mode, either. 

I would call misuse of numerical terms to support an argument or imply that something is numerically significant and then say it's not is part of "the language of losers". An excellent term that Adam Carolla coined years ago for people who say something that is intentionally inaccurate. Loser language often involves numbers. Like saying "I missed that because I didn't double check it" which is a fudge around saying you didn't check something at all leaving the recipient of the communication to think maybe you did check something but missed it. Intentionally. 

Loser implies the person who doesn't try or do but talks like they did, not the person who tried and failed.


----------



## D_W (2 Nov 2022)

I'm guessing my comment about "language of losers" will sound a little harsh, but it's not just mud slinging to other people. The point of it is that running around and misdirecting or implying by omission certainly doesn't do the recipient of the speech or discussion any favors, but in the long term, it does only negative things for the person who takes the easy way out (at best) when communicating something that doesn't need to be imprecise. 

There have been plenty of times in the OT that I had wished to make a statement that I had a hunch was true and then found out it wasn't. Or posted something numerical, found out it wasn't correct, and revised it. 

There's nothing about me that's a particular success story, but I traded wanting to be right vs. not saying things that are incorrect or misleading if I can help it a long time ago. It's pretty easy to get past "I was wrong about that" to "this is the correct version", or "my argument isn't robust, but I really feel like it should be the case 'if things were fair'" to "if the argument isn't robust, then maybe I shouldn't be making it".


----------



## Blackswanwood (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> Two points i'd like to reply to -
> 
> You've gone back to divorce -
> 
> ...


You do seem to be getting a bit hot under the collar over this 

As I’ve said I agree QE has had an impact. It’s not the only thing though and the mention of divorce came about in response we to someone asking why more housing stock was needed when the birth rate was falling. It wasn’t put forward as the only reason house prices were rising.

On your second pointily put point I was highlighting where some of the money has ended up. Simplistically consumers spend money having “benefitted” from QE, companies make profits and those who have private pensions (most working people) indirectly own the companies and receive dividends. Pension funds have a diverse range of investments and there has been a shift with some investing in increasing housing supply. This includes more affordable and social housing. To my mind this is a good thing although to be clear I am not saying there will not be many other examples of the marbles (to use your analogy) ending up elsewhere.

Do you always feel the need to be so snippy when someone has a slightly different perspective to yours or is today just a bad day?


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Your marbles in a bucket allegory is incorrect.
> 
> There was more than one bucket. You are asking why you did get marbles from another bucket.
> 
> ...



I was simplifying things for those who pretend not to understand, and seem to have created further issues.

My point is that the marbles have not disappeared. If 600 billion marbles were poured into any number of buckets, those marbles still exist.

If you don't have [number of population / number of marbles] then someone has ended up with more marbles than you. And they have got richer, in terms of marbles, whilst you, relative to them, have got poorer.


This really is simple maths. I'm evidently a really poor teacher, or some people dont really want to understand. Like the chap who said that he will need to "agree to disagree". I mean if i try and demonstrate that 2+2=4, someone can "agree to disagree" all they like, but it doesn't change maths.

We are not talking who should have got what. We are talking undisputable maths. If 1000 marbles are give out between 100 people, and then its "all shaken up" those with less than 10 marbles have become relatively poor (in marbles) against any that end up with more than 10 - no matter if they have more marbles than they started with.

Number of buckets, colour of buckets, what the buckets have written on them, etc. etc. is not relevant.


----------



## johna.clements (2 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> I guess you guys use a different math language than we do over here. Average is flatly stated in the M-W dictionary here as the sum divided by the quantity.
> 
> however, the use of the word average is almost constantly used to mislead, often because someone has convinced themselves that they have the freedom to use it.
> 
> ...


I posted from Merriam-Webster in _reply to your self at 1605 U_K time on Monday post 365. I did not realise that Merriam-Webster had different entries when accessed from the UK, that's a bit strange.



johna.clements said:


> "Definition of _average_​(Entry 1 of 3)
> 
> 
> 1a *: *a single value (such as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values "
> ...


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> Do you always feel the need to be so snippy when someone has a slightly different perspective to yours or is today just a bad day?



In a debate, there are points which can be discussed, and there are points which are taken as understood.

If you are trying to have, say, a scientific discussion, and someone keeps saying "2+2=5" and you keep explaining to them how 4 multiples of 1 actually equals 4... and then, after a while it becomes clear that the reason they wont accept that 2+2=4 is mostly that they don't want it to equal 4. Well, its disappointing.

Maybe that person will finally say that you will have to agree to disagree when presented with a collection of workings which, indeed, show that 2+2=4. It might not actually be that they do not understand, but more that they do not want to. Or that they were hoping for some other result where, eventually the sum worked out as 5.

There are points where it gets more complex. Discussing the credibility of the Laffer curve / Reganomincs, sure, but simple maths stuff... You start to wonder if the person really does have a problem, or, well, something else.


Your comment about the price of housing going up because of the divorce rate is, like i say, akin to me increasing the flood by spitting in it. Both are as true. Both have debatable relevance.

Find a graph somewhere of divorce rates, and find one of average house prices. Overlay them. See if there's much correlation. 
Stick another graph on top showing events that create an increase in the money supply (eg QE) and see if there is a correlation.

I've not done it, but I know what the answer will be.


We can discuss at length if QE was the best approach, in the same way as we can look at the motivation for Reganomics, and what the consequences were, but trying to suggest that QE was not, without debate, the massive lever with which the asset market was raised after 2008 is akin to constantly saying 2+2=5.

Or that the marbles were spent, so no longer exist...


----------



## johna.clements (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> I was simplifying things for those who pretend not to understand, and seem to have created further issues.
> 
> My point is that the marbles have not disappeared. If 600 billion marbles were poured into any number of buckets, those marbles still exist.
> 
> ...


 You are correct the 600 hundred million marbles have not disappeared they were spent from there different buckets. 

Many people got marbles from the furlough bucket. I got some furlough marbles and spent them in Tesco. Lidl and utilities. I do not have my marbles any more. I spent them.

The place I was working for was compulsorily closed. They got money from the business support bucket. They spent the money on rent, utilities, product that could no longer be sold. They also no longer have there marbles, they were spent.

The PPE vacinations etc came out of another bucket. I have been vaccinated in a conference center. The NHS gave some marbles to the conference center to pay for heating and hire of the place and the people working there would have got some marbles that they would have taken to Tesco. The marbles were spent.

If you think that businesses that were forced to close should not have received any marbles you should say so. 

If you think that people should have been given marbles so that they could pay to get vaccinated you should say so.


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> You are correct the 600 hundred million marbles have not disappeared they were spent from there different buckets.
> 
> Many people got marbles from the furlough bucket. I got some furlough marbles and spent them in Tesco. Lidl and utilities. I do not have my marbles any more. I spent them.
> 
> ...



I've not said either of the above as neither are my opinion.

My comment is that 600b was injected into the economy. It's happened. The money is out there.

(again, by "there" I mean somwhere else other than, by your admission, with you or I)

So what happens now?

Do you, for example, try to get that cash back in, or do you leave it in circulation with the resultant effects of inflation and increasing wealth polarization?

Again, it's out there now. That's not up for debate. Those at the higher end of the wealth spectrum have accumulated increased assets, and those at the bottom of the spectrum have become (relatively) poorer. 
Again, this isn't up for debate (not by anyone who understands pretty basic marble maths).
Increase in the money supply increases inflation. Again simple maths. Energy markets also contribute, sure, but 600b cash injections increase inflation. It's just the way it is, like 2+2...


So you have all these things that are resultant of the increased cash supply. What do you do about it now?


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2022)

Gary Stevenson for chancellor of the exchequer! Or the new messiah. Roll on Garymas!


https://www.youtube.com/c/garyseconomics


----------



## johna.clements (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> I've not said either of the above as neither are my opinion.
> 
> My comment is that 600b was injected into the economy. It's happened. The money is out there.
> 
> ...



How would you have supported all the business that was forced to close if you did not give them money. How would you have paid for the vaccination centers.

A lot of money was not generated. I live near the sea side. We did not see a lot of tourists for a couple of years. The government spent a lot but a lot was not generated.


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> How would you have supported all the business that was forced to close if you did not give them money. How would you have paid for the vaccination centers.
> 
> A lot of money was not generated. I live near the sea side. We did not see a lot of tourists for a couple of years. The government spent a lot but a lot was not generated.



I have never said the money should not have been spent. My concern is what happens now.


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

As a side note -

One might even question if the huge injection of cash that has ended up at the higher end of the wealth spectrum might, given the current economic climate, actually be casting significant doubt on supply side economics.



I mean the rich have significantly greater share of the marbles than they did pre-covid, and that's supposed to stimulate growth... And yet we are on the edge of recession?



Maybe blame Russia?



But then ask the same question, but, instead of the COVID period, look at the years following 2008. Wealth of the wealthiest rose and rose, and yet the economy remained stagnant.


----------



## Jacob (2 Nov 2022)

A reminder, just in case anybody has not been paying attention at the back!


----------



## johna.clements (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> I have never said the money should not have been spent. My concern is what happens now.


No you said that everybody should have got 10 marbles.

But you are unwilling to say how you would support the bussiness that were forced to close and how you would pay for the vaccinations etc.


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> A reminder, just in case anybody has not been paying attention at the back!
> 
> View attachment 146398



I have read your post but I think I will say that I do not understand the data. 

You can now present it in a much simpler way, and then we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> No you said that everybody should have got 10 marbles.
> 
> But you are unwilling to say how you would support the bussiness that were forced to close and how you would pay for the vaccinations etc.



No. I've said that if you don't, currently have 10 marbles, then those marbles are elsewhere.

The analogy was to show what had happened to the cash. I don't have much of an opinion on the initial injection. Is that acceptable to you?


----------



## johna.clements (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> No. I've said that if you don't, currently have 10 marbles, then those marbles are elsewhere.
> 
> The analogy was to show what had happened to the cash. I don't have much of an opinion on the initial injection. Is that acceptable to you?


And I stated that your analogy misrepresents the situation. 

You are assuming that business support and vaccination etc had no cost.


----------



## Blackswanwood (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> In a debate, there are points which can be discussed, and there are points which are taken as understood.
> 
> If you are trying to have, say, a scientific discussion, and someone keeps saying "2+2=5" and you keep explaining to them how 4 multiples of 1 actually equals 4... and then, after a while it becomes clear that the reason they wont accept that 2+2=4 is mostly that they don't want it to equal 4. Well, its disappointing.
> 
> ...



There were 28.1 million households in 2021 which is an increase of 6.8% over the last ten years. The number of single person households increased by 8.3% over the corresponding period. The housing stock has not increased at the same rate.

If you look back you’ll see I commented on housing stock and not housing prices (albeit the two are obviously linked). 

I clearly mistook this for the general chat section of a woodworking forum and overlooked that it’s a major debating forum so apologise for the shabbiness of my response which has upset you. Perhaps if I get a t shirt that says QE caused prices to go up (which at no point have I disputed) you’ll feel vindicated?

I won’t be commenting further so feel free to misinterpret anything I’ve said if having the last word is important to you


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> You are assuming that business support and vaccination etc had no cost.



Why ever would I assume that?


----------



## johna.clements (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> Why ever would I assume that?


Your assumption that all the money is in one bucket or should be considered as in one bucket.


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Your assumption that all the money is in one bucket or should be considered as in one bucket.



I thought I had addressed this? I said somthing along the lines of not caring how many buckets there were, what colours they were, or what was written on them.

I don't, for the purpose of this debate, even want to make comment on why it was given out, where it was given out, to whom it was given to etc.etc.


I'm interested in where it is now, and the effects it's having now.

You keep going back to the whys and the wheres. Again, I've not made comment on any of that. 

600b was injected. Where is it now and what's it currently doing to the economy?


----------



## monster (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> I was simplifying things for those who pretend not to understand, and seem to have created further issues.
> 
> My point is that the marbles have not disappeared. If 600 billion marbles were poured into any number of buckets, those marbles still exist.
> 
> ...


I have to say i'm not grasping your analogy - the reason some received newly created money during the lockdown was because the state prevented them from working and earning and so they just received what they would have received had they been allowed to work. Others who were allowed to carry on working and receiving their income via the normal route didnt receive any of your 'marbles' as they didn't need to as they were still getting paid....

Not that I condone any of this - Printing £billions to pay people to stay at home and produce nothing for two years has got to be one of the single largest follies a government has ever done! and the most inflationary thing possible!

Just doing one of those things is massively inflationary, but to do the two simultaneously - QE and stifling production - is the politics of madmen. Well its no wonder we have massive inflation - and I even seem to remember those in power in the central banks suggesting at the beginning the inflation was temporary and then transitory - now we see its runaway!


----------



## Spectric (2 Nov 2022)

monster said:


> Not that I condone any of this - Printing £billions to pay people to stay at home and produce nothing


That is just fantastic, but that is no different to retirement and I can fully recommend it because us boomers have earned it.


----------



## monster (2 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> 600b was injected. Where is it now and what's it currently doing to the economy?


Its everywhere - it has expanded the money supply - that means more money chasing (due to lockdown) even fewer goods and services. Its doing what any increase of the money supply (inflation) does to the economy - it is raising prices, devaluing debt etc - and the central banks are responding by raising interest rates to try and get the inflation they helped create back under control.


----------



## julianf (2 Nov 2022)

monster said:


> I have to say i'm not grasping your analogy - the reason some received newly created money during the lockdown was because the state prevented them from working and earning and so they just received what they would have received had they been allowed to work. Others who were allowed to carry on working and receiving their income via the normal route didnt receive any of your 'marbles' as they didn't need to as they were still getting paid....



I think, maybe, my language has confused my point.

I have probably said "got" a few times, implying that my concern is who initial "got" the funds, whilst that is in the past, and what is of concern right now is who has "got" the funds now. Again, my comment, time and time again, is to money not just vanishing. To say "but it was spent" etc. is focusing on what was, rather what is. The marbles were flung out by whatever method, and they did not just vanish again. They are still about. And, if you don't have them (right now) then someone else does.

As you say in your second post, if there is a subsequent scarcity of resources, that additional money supply is chasing those limited resources, and fuelling inflation. There was no significant scarcity of resources after 2008, so QE bolstered the asset market which is largely ignored in inflation figures. Did the money "trickle down" to increase aggregate demand at lower levels? The data suggests that it did not, so a period of low inflation, low interest rates.

But now the "double whammy" that you mention - increased money supply at the levels of wealth that like to "invest" additional funds AND a reduction of goods available to be consumed by the lower levels of the wealth spectrum. So inflation.

If interest rates rise too far in relation to wages, we will, of course, see issues in mortgage defaults. But i doubt that will actually affect house prices as much as the recessions toward the end of the last centaury, as there is that much more money sloshing about high up the wealth scale, looking for assets.

Time will tell, i guess.


----------



## Steve_Scott (3 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> unless you have, in your account, be it as cash or assets, an ADDITIONAL 10 "marbles" per person in your household, then those marbles are somwhere else.
> With someone else.


I agree with the point you’re making, but highlight that if it’s in your account, even before it’s spent, it’s being spent by the bank making the wealthy wealthier.


----------



## IBmatty (3 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> A reminder, just in case anybody has not been paying attention at the back!
> 
> View attachment 146398


Lies, lies and statistics.…. According to the French government (and the UNHCR), the number for France 2021 should be 11.2. It makes us 5th or 6th in terms of destination country, just ahead of UK. HOWEVER, these 2 countries such a high proportion of migrants don‘t actually claim asylum, particularly compared to our neighbours like Germany to a level that it makes asylum figures worthless when considering if the word “invasion” is appropriate or non. Oh, and while you Brits are childish enough to actually spend time arguing about if or not a word is appropriate or not you can’t expect the French authorities to take you seriously and actually help out. Not that we will anyway as the only way to stop the boats is to either reduce the pull factor to the uk or increase it here and the idea the French taxpayer will start to offer even 1 star hotels let alone 4 star ones is laughable. We know how to protest block roads properly over here…our traffic can’t be stopped by pasty white liberal vegans and superglue, so we do it properly!


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2022)

IBmatty said:


> .... the only way to stop the boats ....


Is to recognise that migration is now a global issue and to do something intelligent about it, first on the list being to open safe routes and to look at ways of international cooperation.
Worst possible time for brexit.
Migration is increasing as climate change places additional massive burdens, on regions already destabilised by war and other factors.
The alternative is to have bodies piling up at borders, or washing up on beaches, which is already happening.


----------



## IBmatty (3 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Is to recognise that migration is now a global issue and to do something intelligent about it, first on the list being to open safe routes and to look at ways of international cooperation.
> Worst possible time for brexit.
> Migration is increasing as climate change places additional massive burdens, on regions already destabilised by war and other factors.


Taking the UN top 10 countries of origin for migrants, which account for more than the rest combined, can you point out which ones are because of climate change?
Afganistan, Syria, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Haiti, CAR, Honduras, Iraq, DRC, Colombia.


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2022)

IBmatty said:


> Taking the UN top 10 countries of origin for migrants, which account for more than the rest combined, can you point out which ones are because of climate change?
> Afganistan, Syria, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Haiti, CAR, Honduras, Iraq, DRC, Colombia.


Every country in the world is already being affected by climate change and the pressure to migrate is, or will be, greatest on those already desperate and struggling, for whatever other reason.


----------



## Spectric (3 Nov 2022)

It is the dawn of a new era, the time of the savers now mortgage rates are rising to more realistic interest rates and I accept it will be a shock to many who have never seen the high rates of the past but then they should have been paying off more or not stretching themselves to the limit.


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> It is the dawn of a new era, the time of the savers now mortgage rates are rising to more realistic interest rates and I accept it will be a shock to many who have never seen the high rates of the past but then they should have been paying off more or not stretching themselves to the limit.


Nothing particularly "realistic" about higher rates. Interest is not a natural phenomenon.
Govt will have to prop up those who can't pay their mortgages and use the cost as an excuse for yet more austerity, whilst filling the pockets of financiers and avoiding tax rises for the better off.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (3 Nov 2022)

Imagine you are a fairly wealthy individual - (say) 5 bedroom house in a couple of acres.

Someone, clearly destitute (hungry, cold etc) knocks on your door. Taking sympathy you may offer food, a bed for the night (or at least sleep in an outbuilding). The decent thing to do for another human being.

A family arrive including 2 young children. You are equally sympathetic to their need. You may let them stay a few days, and even help them access other support from the authorities - housing, schooling, healthcare etc.

A group of 20 arrive at your house a few days later - word having got out you are a generous and decent human being. You are nervous and feel somewhat threatened. You provide a warm drink, a snack, and are relieved when they go on their way.

The following week 100 arrive, including a some evidently fit young men who seem entirely capable of looking after themselves. They seem polite but the atmosphere is tense. You don't have enough food in the house, and certainly no where for them to stay. You lock the door, ask them to leave and tell their friends not to keep coming, call the police for support. 

We do need to control borders - a limitless stream of migrants is untenable, unaffordable and diminishes the lot of those already here who should be our prime concern.

We should also support those in genuine need. 

A balance needs to be struck between the two conflicting needs. A tough reality is that unless we are clear where that balance lies, and the means by which it can be properly managed, migrants will arrive in ever increasing numbers. We are completely lacking in both respects.


----------



## IBmatty (3 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Every country in the world is already being affected by climate change and the pressure to migrate is, or will be, greatest on those already desperate and struggling, for whatever other reason.


I’ve been told for 50 years (be it ice, wind, water or heat) that man-made global climate change will cause this within the next 10yrs, so we’re 40yrs late. The reality now is that and for those 50years it’s always been man-made conflict, man-made oppression, man-made religion, man-made whatever pretty much EXCEPT climate change that has caused it.


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Imagine you are a fairly wealthy individual - (say) 5 bedroom house in a couple of acres.
> 
> Someone, clearly destitute (hungry, cold etc) knocks on your door. Taking sympathy you may offer food, a bed for the night (or at least sleep in an outbuilding). The decent thing to do for another human being.
> 
> ...


Striking a "balance"? Allowing some in whilst the others die on the borders or in the sea?


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2022)

IBmatty said:


> I’ve been told for 50 years (be it ice, wind, water or heat) that man-made global climate change will cause this within the next 10yrs, so we’re 40yrs late. The reality now is that and for those 50years it’s always been man-made conflict, man-made oppression, man-made religion, man-made whatever pretty much EXCEPT climate change that has caused it.


Even if true, so what?


----------



## Spectric (3 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Govt will have to prop up those who can't pay their mortgages


Why, no one got help in the eighties as hundreds just gave the keys back. Your personel financial situation is something you take control of along with any risk you take and just because you can mortgage yourself upto the hilt because there is no bank manager saying otherwise does not make it the right decision and now many will feel the consequences.


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> Why, ....


because people have to have somewhere to live


----------



## Spectric (3 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> because people have to have somewhere to live


That was also the case back in the eighties, people must start taking responsibilities for their lives in all departments and not just think that they will be bailed out by someone else, in simple english learn to stand on your own two feet.


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> That was also the case back in the eighties, people must start taking responsibilities for their lives in all departments and not just think that they will be bailed out by someone else, in simple english learn to stand on your own two feet.


So it just serves them right? You sound quite pleased!
That's one point of view, but doesn't help at all with the housing situation.
Are not the reckless lenders equally or more to blame? - they are supposed to be the financial experts and they knew of the risks.


----------



## Spectric (3 Nov 2022)

The problem today is that people want everything now, just buy it and accept the debt without fully understanding their finances or even longer term employment situation rather than only buying what is within their financial ability, in other words you might not have everything today but will have to at least save up for it or reduce outstanding debt. Any of us that are of that age will recal that many newly weds would happily accept secondhand furniture and such to get started and credit was not something so happily accepted because people were happy to work for it and you did not want to be in debt.


----------



## julianf (3 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> That was also the case back in the eighties,



I can't say for sure, but I suspect that with the greater general awareness of what goes on now, the population might get a little feisty.

If you push a population too far it upsets them. If they can find someone to lash out at, they will.

I'm not convinced a government would risk that happening.


----------



## Jameshow (3 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> So it just serves them right? You sound quite pleased!
> That's one point of view, but doesn't help at all with the housing situation.
> Are not the reckless lenders equally or more to blame? - they are supposed to be the financial experts and they knew of the risks.



On one hand your worried about the housing situation....whilst on the other hand you want to welcome every Albanian who wants to come here! 

Ironic I'd say?


----------



## Adam W. (3 Nov 2022)

What's wrong with Albanians ?


----------



## julianf (3 Nov 2022)

Adam W. said:


> What's wrong with Albanians ?



They "can't swim, they attract enemy radar, they attract sharks, they nudge people when they're trying to shoot, they always insist on sitting at The Captain's Table"


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> On one hand your worried about the housing situation....whilst on the other hand you want to welcome every Albanian who wants to come here!
> 
> Ironic I'd say?


Govt figures: "....this year, 7,627 Albanians (year-ending June 2022) claimed asylum in the UK, ....."
Not many. Why are you frightened of Albanians?


----------



## deema (3 Nov 2022)

From the BBC web site
‘Three decades after the collapse of Enver Hoxha's dictatorship and the opening of Albania's borders, about 60% of the country's adult population wanted to leave, according to a Gallup poll published in December 2018.’

‘Albanians make up one of the largest foreign-national groups in prisons across England and Wales.’


----------



## Jameshow (3 Nov 2022)

Nothing wrong with Albanians at all except they all want to come here, fleeing from modern day slavery!


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> The problem today is that people want everything now, just buy it and accept the debt without fully understanding their finances or even longer term employment situation rather than only buying what is within their financial ability, in other words you might not have everything today but will have to at least save up for it or reduce outstanding debt. Any of us that are of that age will recal that many newly weds would happily accept secondhand furniture and such to get started and credit was not something so happily accepted because people were happy to work for it and you did not want to be in debt.


Maybe they believed electioneering promises, particularly over brexit, that everything was going to be marvellous, and they thought a low interest mortgage wasn't too risky?


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Nothing wrong with Albanians at all except they all want to come here, fleeing from modern day slavery!


Govt figures: "....this year, 7,627 Albanians (year-ending June 2022) claimed asylum in the UK, ....."
Not many.


----------



## julianf (3 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> From the BBC web site
> Three decades after the collapse of Enver Hoxha's dictatorship and the opening of Albania's borders, about 60% of the country's adult population wanted to leave, according to a Gallup poll published in December 2018.



I read your post and my instant thought was how similar it was to the infamous "breaking point" poster.


----------



## Cordy (3 Nov 2022)

Interest rates and investments; does anyone know of any fairly safe Bonds to invest in?
Probably for 12 months circa £50K
A decent bond that we know of is with Nationwide B/S which is 4% for 12 months

Just wondering if there is anything else out there. We already have lots of Premium Bonds
We don't want to pay brokerage or commissions 
Any sensible suggestions much appreciated


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

There are a lot of bonds in the US offering in the 6% range for 6 months, but I don't know how that would work for foreign investors. There'd be plenty of currency risk in something like that if you're able to get it in the first place.


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> I think, maybe, my language has confused my point.
> 
> I have probably said "got" a few times, implying that my concern is who initial "got" the funds, whilst that is in the past, and what is of concern right now is who has "got" the funds now. Again, my comment, time and time again, is to money not just vanishing. To say "but it was spent" etc. is focusing on what was, rather what is. The marbles were flung out by whatever method, and they did not just vanish again. They are still about. And, if you don't have them (right now) then someone else does.
> 
> ...



This fascination with blaming someone other than fools who spent their incentive dollars and gave them someone else is very humorous. As if there was some big conspiracy to give money directly to poor people so that rich people could trick them out of it. 

Why are you trying to defend QE as a relevant comparison to private money spending by individuals?


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2022)

Albanians getting peed off about the childish blame games:








Albanian PM slams UK for blaming Albanian migrants for its own failures | bne IntelliNews


Prime Minister Edi Rama strongly criticised British politicians for “targeting Albanians” as scapegoats for the UK’s crime and border problems.




www.intellinews.com


----------



## John Brown (3 Nov 2022)

We didn't have Albanians back in the eighties...


----------



## julianf (3 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> This fascination with blaming someone other than fools who spent their incentive dollars and gave them someone else is very humorous.



Your comment above is noteworthy.

I would like to highlight it, and encourage others consider the statement also.


----------



## baldkev (3 Nov 2022)

Do i win a special woodworkers prize for having a super long thread?  Maybe a domino 500?


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Do i win a special woodworkers prize for having a super long thread?  Maybe a domino 500?



I think we might be able to get you a subsidized mortgage rate if we can get the post count to 1 million


----------



## Jameshow (3 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Do i win a special woodworkers prize for having a super long thread?  Maybe a domino 500?


No only a triton doweller!!


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> Your comment above is noteworthy.
> 
> I would like to highlight it, and encourage others consider the statement also.



Your view in this, that incentive payments to low income folks who in turn use them to extend joblessness is "wealth transfer" is what really struck me. I thought you were kidding. 

I work somewhere that work never stopped - it got "worse". I noticed among higher income colleagues, there wasn't any real interest in doing anything other than keeping work open. 

I also noticed among trade funds that depending on the type, many saw enormous increases in absence as soon as the supplemental unemployment got to a level where working or not was about the same after tax income. I'm sure some worked on the side and pocketed cash, but there wasn't a huge group of private individuals (the source for under the table side work here for trade guys on the sideline drawing unemployment - that's illegal, of course, to do both) providing work out of initial fear. 

My coworker's only statement after that was that he liked the vacation but that he never knew how much money it saves him to be at work. I guess he spent it all because he has given me a lot of complaints about having to come up with $1000 to fix a broken porch on the side of his house.


----------



## Spectric (3 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> whilst on the other hand you want to welcome every Albanian who wants to come here


They are mostly young males looking for a quick buck, why try and get in through the back door if you are above board because

*Eligible Albanian citizens can apply for visas, of varying length, to enter the UK for tourism, business, study and other activities*

So this says they are not eligible using the normal route otherwise they would not pay extortionate fees to take the risk in a dinghie. 

If you look at the battle of hastings, 8000 normans defeated Harold and conquered great britain.


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> My coworker's only statement after that was that he liked the vacation but that he never knew how much money it saves him to be at work. I guess he spent it all because he has given me a lot of complaints about having to come up with $1000 to fix a broken porch on the side of his house.



Not making light of the few who actually had no options and were living hand to mouth not by their choice, but this kind of "that was a wealth transfer" political nonsense relies on a few of those to justify the 95% who used the opportunity to display poor decision making. It's too bad we can't make the people in the 95% give their money to the five who really need it.


----------



## John Brown (3 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> Your comment above is noteworthy.
> 
> I would like to highlight it, and encourage others consider the statement also.


I've read it three times, and I still can't work out what the point is. I guess that makes me a loser, too.


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> I've read it three times, and I still can't work out what the point is. I guess that makes me a loser, too.



The original assertion earlier in this thread was:
* when the government gives money to everyone
* and one group spends said money (unsaid, but in this case without any to follow up because it's being used to avoid working in at least a large fraction of cases)
* julian responded that it's a wealth transfer move as if there has been confiscation, or if it's the same thing as social benefits sent the wrong direction

That's the humorous part. The follow up has been "that's water under the bridge, it only counts where it is now", without saying "wow, this little exercise just illustrated again why one group will end up with the money and another won't". The second group continued to work.

There also seems to be a huge hole in recognizing that the rampant spending by folks now out of money (my neighbor being included in that - how he managed to spend $4k a month at home when he's got little savings and no real expenses beyond utilities and property taxes is beyond me - especially when he knows and often says that he's got almost no retirement savings and needs to change his ways)...

....how that consumption contributed enormously to inflation.

My neighbor is a typical example in this case of folks who had established income and were able to avoid working, but didn't do so initially because not working would've meant unemployment (about $500 a week). they were irate that covid was shutting down sites at first because they had no savings to be able to absorb a $500+/week temporary income cut. As soon as supplemental income was offered, they stopped working as long as possible. We are still feeling the effects, and I would bet that a large part of the cohort won't be able to stop themselves when they hit zero - they'll go past zero and accumulate debt further than they would've without covid plus job because of inertia.

that's pretty much all of it. I have all of the covid stimulus handed out. I banked it. My neigbor received something like 4 or 5 times the stimulus I did - he has none left.

That was apparently a nefarious wealth transfer move on my part. I actually saved the money because it's only a fraction of what my share of the relief bills will ever be either in future inflation or taxes and it seemed like a stupid idea to blow it to "stimulate the economy".


----------



## Adam W. (3 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Nothing wrong with Albanians at all except they all some of them want to come here, fleeing from modern day slavery!


There, fixed that for you.


----------



## John Brown (3 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> The original assertion earlier in this thread was:
> * when the government gives money to everyone
> * and one group spends said money (unsaid, but in this case without any to follow up because it's being used to avoid working in at least a large fraction of cases)
> * julian responded that it's a wealth transfer move as if there has been confiscation, or if it's the same thing as social benefits sent the wrong direction
> ...


Ok. Well you lot all got a "stimulus payment", as far as I know. All. Even my wife who's not lived in the states for 28 years 
Over here, those who were unable to work, because of covid restrictions, got a so called "furlough " payment. Not everyone, just those unable to work. Of course there where probably some who abused the system, but for a lot of folks, they used the furlough for living expenses, they didn't really have the option of foolishly spending it.


----------



## Jacob (3 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> They are mostly young males looking for a quick buck, why try and get in through the back door if you are above board because
> 
> *Eligible Albanian citizens can apply for visas, of varying length, to enter the UK for tourism, business, study and other activities*
> ..............


I expect it's because of the slowness and inefficiency of the process.
There is a deliberately hostile attitude to immigrants, amounting to harassment, introduced by Theresa May.
This serves two purposes; first it pleases the anti immigration lobby and is a presumed vote winner, second it encourages illegal activities and gives them even more to complain about.
In the meantime we hear accounts of record low unemployment and job vacancies all over Britain.
Some un joined-up thinking going on here!
All to please the brexit lobby who are now a minority anyway - brexit is a dead duck as almost everybody now recognises. 
Cruella B is still rabble rousing but I don't think she will be in post much longer.


----------



## Ozi (3 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Can someone tell me why we need all this new housing if the birth rate is below 2 then the need decreases?!


The population is still rising, the birth rate is dropping but lots of us old gits are still coffin dodging it takes a while to work through the system, personally I'm doing all I can to keep it that way. Immigration exceeds emigration which has a small effect despite what the worst of our press would have you believe. Also we are living in smaller households additionally one of the big problems is the type and location of houses, it's not much good having a house if you can't get work in the area to pay for it, or being able to afford a two bed house when all that's built in your area is executive developments of 4,5 & 6 Bed.


----------



## Blackswanwood (3 Nov 2022)

Cordy said:


> Interest rates and investments; does anyone know of any fairly safe Bonds to invest in?
> Probably for 12 months circa £50K
> A decent bond that we know of is with Nationwide B/S which is 4% for 12 months
> 
> ...


This may help:



https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> Ok. Well you lot all got a "stimulus payment", as far as I know. All. Even my wife who's not lived in the states for 28 years
> Over here, those who were unable to work, because of covid restrictions, got a so called "furlough " payment. Not everyone, just those unable to work. Of course there where probably some who abused the system, but for a lot of folks, they used the furlough for living expenses, they didn't really have the option of foolishly spending it.



I'm not sure how "unable to work" works in a system like yours. In the US, it boils down to not working and then dancing the dance of "being available to work" but unable to find it. 

In the end here, the report is written that "all recipients were unable to work" or "an audit finds 99.5% of recipients were", but the definition is a legal definition. As with my neighbor, many were able to work but stated to unemployment officials that they were available for work. Or people in the minefield of retail and restaurant just checked out and the administration was extremely lenient to say the least. with the trades, as with my neighbor, the U.C. office found that he wasn't eligible and "called back to check" to get him to say that his wife misspoke when they originally called. 

They just simply asked if he was available to work and his wife may have thought it was an employer calling and asking.

Individuals like me got some oddball relatively small payment that in my opinion was provided just to keep people quiet when they were working. It's senseless to fight it, but we do have a huge problem with low and mid level absence. above the median types haven't changed their behavior, though - most folks in that group are looking long term and would love to take time off, but they're afraid to find out what that will do to their college and retirement savings, etc. 

By the definitions provided here, my neighbor and the folks who have given up on the idea of personal savings long ago (again, some small percentage of these folks will have circumstances where they've given up for good reason, but most have by choice) have "received wealth transfer". 

I thought it was foolish and would gladly have not received anything if it could've been targeted with better administration at half or less of the bill size. The "stimulus payments" to individuals were some tiny fraction of the actual spending - something someone like me would need only to punch some numbers to find out. It would seem my share as a federal taxpayer is somewhere around $50-75k of additional national debt. Saving the "stimulus" fund instead of spending it is sort of like throwing a ceremonial bucket of water on a house that shouldn't have been burned. But I threw the bucket, anyway and so did many others.


----------



## johna.clements (3 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> I'm not sure how "unable to work" works in a system like yours. In the US, it boils down to not working and then dancing the dance of "being available to work" but unable to find it.
> 
> In the end here, the report is written that "all recipients were unable to work" or "an audit finds 99.5% of recipients were", but the definition is a legal definition. As with my neighbor, many were able to work but stated to unemployment officials that they were available for work. Or people in the minefield of retail and restaurant just checked out and the administration was extremely lenient to say the least. with the trades, as with my neighbor, the U.C. office found that he wasn't eligible and "called back to check" to get him to say that his wife misspoke when they originally called.
> 
> ...


Here in the UK things were slightly different.

The government forced the closure of all places of entertainment, all the pubs restaurants etc. At times non food shops stores were also forced to close and some other places. Most of the time factories were allowed to stay open with restrictions but there was extreme disruption to the supply chain.

The UK government gave 80% of the average salary (don't know which average) over the previous few months (don't know how many) to employees who were furloughed. There was a cap on the payment. The employer decided who to furlough and the employer paid the furlough money to the employee as if it was a normal wage. The government knows how much most people earn because taxes returns are filed nearly continuously (few people have to do end of year tax returns it is all down by the employer) so it would be difficult for an employer to claim more to benefit an employee. If the employer did not want to furlough you you still had to o to work and would just get your normal wage. I think the employer had the option of laying you off but then they would have to hire new people, this has been a problem for some employers since.

The employer was not allowed to give work to people in receipt of the furlough money. The employee was allowed to work in another job, many became part time delivery drivers.


----------



## John Brown (3 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> I'm not sure how "unable to work" works in a system like yours. In the US, it boils down to not working and then dancing the dance of "being available to work" but unable to find it.
> 
> In the end here, the report is written that "all recipients were unable to work" or "an audit finds 99.5% of recipients were", but the definition is a legal definition. As with my neighbor, many were able to work but stated to unemployment officials that they were available for work. Or people in the minefield of retail and restaurant just checked out and the administration was extremely lenient to say the least. with the trades, as with my neighbor, the U.C. office found that he wasn't eligible and "called back to check" to get him to say that his wife misspoke when they originally called.
> 
> ...


As far as I understand things, "unable to work because of covid restrictions" means "unable to work because of covid restrictions", for example, the hospitality industry pretty much closed down. This wasn't by choice, it was by law. 
As I said earlier, I'm sure there was some abuse and cheating, but we didn't have a scheme like you, where every man and his dog received a stimulus payment, so it isn't the same thing, so please stop gassing about something you don't know about.
Furlough != stimulus payment.


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Here in the UK things were slightly different.
> 
> The government forced the closure of all places of entertainment, all the pubs restaurants etc. At times non food shops stores were also forced to close and some other places. Most of the time factories were allowed to stay open with restrictions but there was extreme disruption to the supply chain.
> 
> ...



That was sort of functionally similar to what happened here, but then on top of everything, the bills added a relatively small flat payment to all taxpayers, and then later paid something to households and for dependents. But I have to admit, I don't remember how much of it was giveaway and which of the later bumps were just an advance of refunds or credits that would have been received in the next year's tax returns. 

From the viewpoint of someone apolitical, what I did notice is that Donald Trump had his John Hancock all over letter touting the "free money", and the democrats made a huge deal about it. Then, the next round came with a letter with Joe Biden's John Hancock in equally large print. The whole lot of them from both sides are idiots. 

The forms of how the compensation filtered down here for enhanced unemployment was probably different, though, but the objective was the same. the notional stimulus payments to get everyone pleased sound like they were in addition to what you saw there. I didn't like the idea. The economy didn't need stimulated at the time and the monies were received with no way to direct them at closed by rule or unopened due to lack of employees business types. 

What we did see was the price of inelastic goods go up quickly - like cars, and many others bought pets and some decided it was dumb. In my view, The trouble with handing cash to people is that some will keep it, some will spend it, and many will use it to spend all on the downpayment on something. the effect in that case is far greater than it would be for a non-loan purchase.


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> As far as I understand things, "unable to work because of covid restrictions" means "unable to work because of covid restrictions", for example, the hospitality industry pretty much closed down. This wasn't by choice, it was by law.
> As I said earlier, I'm sure there was some abuse and cheating, but we didn't have a scheme like you, where every man and his dog received a stimulus payment, so it isn't the same thing, so please stop gassing about something you don't know about.
> Furlough != stimulus payment.



In the US, unemployment is different. It's unable to get a job. the trade union guys get some deference in unable to get a job in their trade. 

Unable to work wasn't accurate because sites were quickly not determined to be restricted because of the nature of the site, but the workers had already decided they didn't want to go to work if they could get almost the same in enhanced unemployment. 

Too, the stimulus cash giveaway was a buyoff. It was peanuts compared to getting enhanced unemployment for months. The hospitality industry here also closed initially and then partially reopened. Except they were mostly unable to partially reopen because former employees not only skirted looking for any type of other work, they also decided they weren't going to accept job offers and were going to torpedo offers that weren't better than getting enhanced UC. 

Now, we are still dealing with the after effects of it as the unemployment rate includes people who are searching for a job. When they give up on purpose, the labor pool isn't there and retail shops that have offered 20-30% more than their previous wages still have short hours due to staffing. 

I doubt I'd have much trouble showing something similar going on there, but one could always blame it on brexit and avoid the topic. I see the unemployment rate there is similar to what it is here. What nobody is solved is how did we go from a relatively similar unemployment rate before the pandemic, or a little higher, with all jobs filled more or less other than cyclical changeover to now there are supposedly fewer unemployed but the jobs are not now filled. 

The disengagement from giving too much incentive to stay off work has boomeranged, but at least we don't have the derangement here that links people who kept working to the cause of the inflation. Most of the public is fully aware that throwing enormous amounts of money at people while discouraging them from being part of the supply/delivery framework was stupid and suddenly Biden has changed course because seniors and people who never stopped working are angry. Trump would've done the same thing. Both played the same dumb game. 

Now, as to an easy way to have administered this efficiently and better? I don't see it either in the UK or the US. I think our societies have the stomach for honesty at an individual level in the face of personal perceived gain, and institutionally and governmentally, it's not there, either.


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

Also, I'm calling the shots on this afterward, here, too, but not from "we should've done it differently". I don't think it's realistic to assume that it would've happened any differently. As a society if it means people will literally go hungry, you can't give out too little in fear of potentially giving out too much. 

I mention my neighbor here a lot, but I don't fault him - he's doing what the system allows and so were a lot of restaurant workers who sat back and thought "you know, my job is really crappy...I'm not in a rush to go back to it and be juggling the kids". Thankfully, my neighbor also never asks to do more than borrow a tool here and there. He asked me (I work on retirement plans, but not personal ones) what he should do a while ago because he was 50 and he knew he needed to have at least something to go along with social security and he said "I've saved nothing". 

I knew he was a tradie in another union, and I told him to suck it up and get in a trade and work as a journeyman for 10 years, and gradually ramp up saving over a year or two until he was saving so much it hurt a little. 

He started working more hours, bought an extra car and a second boat. Both used, but still. Lucky for him, his wife is employed full time. So how can you get mad at people who make stupid decisions when there's nothing to keep them from doing it. The fundamental problem here is greater than just pointing fingers at people who make bad decisions, because as long as there are people, some large portion will make bad decisions. 

I struggle with the same thing - bad decisions. They're just an order of magnitude different. There are very few of us who could say "I have made every small decision as well as possible and have never been my own worst enemy ever". 

I think there is a part of society who combination:
1) don't have any interest in thinking about the future and now at the same time fiscally
2) if not 1, are afraid of the burden of being a front runner for themselves. Meaning, they give themselves excuses to not succeed because they don't want to even have the burden of choosing a different decision path on a consistent basis

I don't see this whole scenario having played out any different, but taking payments, spending them and then pointing at someone else is a bridge too far.


----------



## julianf (3 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> * julian responded that it's a wealth transfer move as if there has been confiscation, or if it's the same thing as social benefits sent the wrong direction



If you are under the impression that, for example, young people cant afford houses because of their frivolous living (I made the comment about avocados and netflix), or that people are fools to have spent their stimulus grants, then the reality in your head is somewhat different to the reality that i see.

In which case, it may be best if I ask you not to paraphrase my comments, given the notable gap between what's visible and what's in your head.


----------



## julianf (3 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> This fascination with blaming someone other than fools who spent their incentive dollars and gave them someone else is very humorous.





John Brown said:


> I've read it three times, and I still can't work out what the point is. I guess that makes me a loser, too.



The chap is speaking from a position of affluence, and calling those who may have needed to spend their stimulation cheques "fools".

The comment illustrates how detached he is from a lot of working people. Again, he refers to those who may have had to rely on their grants to survive as "fools".

Edit - im saddened that i need to point this out to you.


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> If you are under the impression that, for example, young people cant afford houses because of their frivolous living (I made the comment about avocados and netflix), or that people are fools to have spent their stimulus grants, then the reality in your head is somewhat different to the reality that i see.
> 
> In which case, it may be best if I ask you not to paraphrase my comments, given the notable gap between what's visible and what's in your head.



Is a freestanding house a basic human right?


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> The chap is speaking from a position of affluence, and calling those who may have needed to spend their stimulation cheques "fools".
> 
> The comment illustrates how detached he is from a lot of working people. Again, he refers to those who may have had to rely on their grants to survive as "fools".
> 
> Edit - im saddened that i need to point this out to you.



you should speak for yourself and not me. I segregated the folks who absolutely had no choice from those who saw the opportunity to take a break from work when they could've gotten it. 

If I were affluent, I'd be retired. I live below my means by choice, though. A small house and a 14 year old car. I could afford to buy another car not because I just have unlimited resources, but because I've generally lived like this for 22 years. I've worked with plenty at the same time who are of higher income or the same who are waiting each year for a bonus to pay off credit card bills and who retire with a mortgage. 

I suppose for the last 22 years, I've worked an average of about 50-60 hours a week, often doing things that I don't like. There are many like me - we make choices not based on what we would like to do, but what we think will leave us better off in the future, especially with an eye toward not knowing what the future holds. 

50 years ago, everyone from lower middle class and up did this. We see them as folks entering nursing homes who had jobs maybe never higher than a school aide. they lived frugally. My grandmother in law is the last remaining in my family. I was shocked to see her describe how she lived while her new husband was off to war - in a travel trailer behind their parents' house while they saved money to be able to afford a large part of what you guys would call a flat (attached townhouse, two rooms downstairs, two up). 

she was proud, and I'm proud of her. Compare her situation after adjusting for income. It wouldn't be favorable for most people, but she was happier than 95% of the people you'd compare her to. that's been lost, and you're full of excuses by trying to create branding for people who make bad decisions. 

it certainly doesn't serve society, but what you fail to realize is that except for the folks who really have dire circumstances flung upon them, it does you and them no good either. Others have put some level of personal responsibility in nicer terms, but you have managed to pick up the potato and try to throw it back over their heads. 

The fundamental flaw of society at this point is treating people who can help themselves like they can't. And trying to do everything you can to attach them to the people who can't to broaden the group. It's a form of idealistic stupidity and it blocks progress of actually moving toward more fairness and transparency.


----------



## baldkev (3 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> No only a triton doweller!!


Lets meet halfway..... a second hand domino? 

This whole conversation has got a bit heavy, so lets change tack.....

Everyone list your favourite food! 
Mine is steak. Or homemade burgers. Or lasagna, fondue, Mexican, crispy duck in pancakes


----------



## johna.clements (3 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Lets meet halfway..... a second hand domino?
> 
> This whole conversation has got a bit heavy, so lets change tack.....
> 
> ...


I have a lidl dowling jig is that any good.

steak is good so is lasagna


----------



## Jameshow (3 Nov 2022)

Lasagna is top too. Beats curry and lamb taggine imho.


----------



## Blackswanwood (3 Nov 2022)

Syrup sponge with custard


----------



## D_W (3 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Lets meet halfway..... a second hand domino?



I've been branded a man of means. I've got a whole set of dominos. you can have one. they're second hand and I'm sure they were when I got them. you like the dark ones with the light dots or the light ones with the dark dots?


----------



## baldkev (3 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> I've been branded a man of means. I've got a whole set of dominos. you can have one. they're second hand and I'm sure they were when I got them. you like the dark ones with the light dots or the light ones with the dark dots?



Im easy David, both are good


----------



## Suffolk Brian (4 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> The problem today is that people want everything now, just buy it and accept the debt without fully understanding their finances or even longer term employment situation rather than only buying what is within their financial ability, in other words you might not have everything today but will have to at least save up for it or reduce outstanding debt. Any of us that are of that age will recal that many newly weds would happily accept secondhand furniture and such to get started and credit was not something so happily accepted because people were happy to work for it and you did not want to be in debt.


So true. I remember when I married in 1975 we had a new cooker only because my parents paid for it. We had a succession of three piece suites, given to us, each slightly better than the previous one, and we laughingly told friends we had a colour TV Simply because it had a bright orange (painted) cabinet. Made by Murphy, I think it was. £5 bought the weeks shopping then, with sometimes enough left over for fish & chips on a Friday night.


----------



## Jameshow (4 Nov 2022)

Suffolk Brian said:


> So true. I remember when I married in 1975 we had a new cooker only because my parents paid for it. We had a succession of three piece suites, given to us, each slightly better than the previous one, and we laughingly told friends we had a colour TV Simply because it had a bright orange (painted) cabinet. Made by Murphy, I think it was. £5 bought the weeks shopping then, with sometimes enough left over for fish & chips on a Friday night.


Ferguson TV 
Velour sofa 
Single glazed windows. 

Don't think it did us any harm.....

Twitch twitch twitch!!!


----------



## Blackswanwood (4 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> The problem today is that people want everything now, just buy it and accept the debt without fully understanding their finances or even longer term employment situation rather than only buying what is within their financial ability, in other words you might not have everything today but will have to at least save up for it or reduce outstanding debt. Any of us that are of that age will recal that many newly weds would happily accept secondhand furniture and such to get started and credit was not something so happily accepted because people were happy to work for it and you did not want to be in debt.


I think there is something in this. Saving up and thrift have become old fashioned concepts.


----------



## Jacob (4 Nov 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> I think there is something in this. Saving up and thrift have become old fashioned concepts.


Thrift wasn't a virtue, or voluntary, it was necessary, because people had less money.
Nowadays people have more money than they need, excepting a large lower percentage who are still thrifty and also have "austerity" thrust upon them to avoid having to tax the better off.


----------



## chrispy108 (4 Nov 2022)

People can't have second-hand hand-me-down furniture anymore - because modern stuff is cheap rubbish that doesn't last.


----------



## cmoops2 (4 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Is to recognise that migration is now a global issue and to do something intelligent about it, first on the list being to open safe routes and to look at ways of international cooperation.
> Worst possible time for brexit.
> Migration is increasing as climate change places additional massive burdens, on regions already destabilised by war and other factors.
> The alternative is to have bodies piling up at borders, or washing up on beaches, which is already happening.


As an engineer, I deal with the CAUSE of a problem, not the EFFECT. In the majority of cases where we find ourselves dealing with the 'effect', the battle is lost because the employment of 'soft' techniques is forced upon you. Taking Jacob's comment about 'bodies piling at borders, the reality is that people are actually encouraged to reach 'soft-touch Britain' by greasing their transit through Europe and not, for example, stopping them from entering France -they don't care where the bodies pile-up providing it's not in France.
Engineers apply well-founded Risk Management techniques to identify the actual 'problem', apply appropriate levels of mitigation and set a backstop for resolution of the 'problem'. If rigour is not applied to the process, the 'problem' (as time passes) simply becomes an ongoing 'issue' but those who are supposedly dealing with the 'problem' bask in the glory of having done 'something', crowing that 'something' is better than nothing ! For those who do not know it, there is a database out there called the 'Lessons Ignored Database' - it is out-of-control and there is insufficient computer storage on the planet to contain its never acted-upon findings.
The immigration /asylum situation is being handled (note I didn't used the term 'managed'), in a slow and plodding manner when Crisis Management techniques should be employed - but who in Goverment is capable of real Crisis Management - certainly none of the current incumbents with their degrees in 'Humanities', Classics and Underwater Basket-Weaving & Macrame !


----------



## D_W (4 Nov 2022)

cmoops2 said:


> crowing that 'something' is better than nothing !


if there were a language of losers official dictionary, "it's better to do something than nothing" would probably be in it. Doing something that doesn't resolve a problem and then ignoring the problem is worse than doing nothing at all. 

It couldn't possibly be that hard to start to train society in general to understand outcomes and their role in their own outcomes. This was automatically done to some extent by most in the past because not doing it led to well understood suffering. 

It's the case that some part of society isn't going to follow this - but trying to tag along and use them as an excuse for everyone else is no good. It becomes a huge problem when intelligent and able people wash themselves of responsibility because it's (perceived as, at least) better for them to play games than it is to try to improve their own outcome and society's at the same time.


----------



## D_W (4 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Im easy David, both are good



I'll send you one of my good ones. We have white ones with white dots and black ones with black dots for bad guests!! make 'em squint!


----------



## baldkev (4 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Thrift wasn't a virtue, or voluntary, it was necessary, because people had less money.
> Nowadays people have more money than they need, excepting a large lower percentage who are still thrifty and also have "austerity" thrust upon them to avoid having to tax the better off.


Hmmm. 
Ok, help me out here.
Are we better off now than 'in the old days' ? 
Can we get realistic comparisons of income vs house prices?
These days there a million things aimed at us ( in terms of things to buy, phones, internet, computers / games machines , coffee machines, and just about anything you can think of, which makes you feel 'poor' because you font have all this stuff!
Take for example, im terrible with my money. At the moment i feel like i have to own a mini digger ( for work ) and 1 happens to have popped up round the corner ( literally ) at a good price. I'll almost certainly make it happen  
Do i REALLY need it? Yes and no. I can hire one ( like renting a house ) but if i buy one, it'll pay for itself after a while and it'll still be worth what i paid in a couple of years..... whereas hiring it is lost money. On my current job ive paid nearly 2k on digger hire, whereas if id bought a cheap one, It'd have paid a 1/3 of its value back already.

To be fair, i dont go to the pub, we dont get takeaways very often ( 5 or 6 times a year )


----------



## Jameshow (4 Nov 2022)

Get the digger you know you want it! 

I almost brought an old fire engine!!


----------



## johna.clements (4 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Get the digger you know you want it!
> 
> I almost brought an old fire engine!!


I was on a road job where someone had the bright idea of buying an old fire engine for pumping water and dust suppression. Completely useless at that.


----------



## johna.clements (4 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Hmmm.
> Ok, help me out here.
> Are we better off now than 'in the old days' ?
> Can we get realistic comparisons of income vs house prices?
> ...


We are better off than in the old days, but some have gained more than others.

I think Jacob posted a link to a graph of income and house prices but both are fairly reliable for the last forty years. 

Buy the excavator.


----------



## Daniel2 (4 Nov 2022)

Yep....Buy the digger.
HTH


----------



## baldkev (4 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Get the digger you know you want it!
> 
> I almost brought an old fire engine!!





johna.clements said:


> We are better off than in the old days, but some have gained more than others.
> 
> I think Jacob posted a link to a graph of income and house prices but both are fairly reliable for the last forty years.
> 
> Buy the excavator.


I must have missed that while i was looking for mortgage advice 


Daniel2 said:


> Yep....Buy the digger.
> HTH




_i most likely will_
if nothing else i can sell it again if it doesn't get enough use.... and it'll go nicely with a 2 ton tracked dumper i bought off ebay


----------



## D_W (4 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Get the digger you know you want it!
> 
> I almost brought an old fire engine!!



enabler!


----------



## johna.clements (4 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> I must have missed that while i was looking for mortgage advice
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where is the mortgage advice. Is that an idea for a thread.

Buy an excavator that is no wider or you can pull the tracks into the same width as the tracked dumper then you can get through the same gates, inside buildings etc.


----------



## D_W (4 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Hmmm.
> Ok, help me out here.
> Are we better off now than 'in the old days' ?
> Can we get realistic comparisons of income vs house prices?
> ...



If I think of two tradies in union jobs in the US (this is possible) living together and living like my grandparents did, they'd have twice as much money as they needed - at least - and probably a more content lifestyle than most americans and most english folks.

I puzzled over it as a kid that my grandparents worked hard longer than they really had to - as a kid, this seems stupid. i get it now. They never got to the point where they spent money foolishly and had "town food" about once a week their entire lives.

The difference now is if you were poor even when I was a kid and it was of your own dumb mistakes, and you wasted your money with no eye on getting into a better situation, people called you a fool.

if you are middle class (I am middle class) and stingy, people call you a loser now. It's as if your spending determines your status, at least as long as you can keep it up, along with a plastic smile to go with it.

"oh, you ride the bus to work? I couldn't do that".

yeah, you could. I could afford to drive and park. It saves me about $3k a year in a same comparison scenario to ride the bus, which for the amount I work in the office is like someone handing me $15 at the end of every day and I get a much needed mile of walking up a gradual hill. 

Even my wife makes fun of me fairly often, but her dad is stingy, too - he's always stingy. I'm stingy with everything else other than the kids and my hobbies.

That bus helps me be able to offer kev used dominos! He only wanted one. i can comfortably give him two, at least.


----------



## baldkev (4 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> If I think of two tradies in union jobs in the US (this is possible) living together and living like my grandparents did, they'd have twice as much money as they needed - at least - and probably a more content lifestyle than most americans and most english folks.
> 
> I puzzled over it as a kid that my grandparents worked hard longer than they really had to - as a kid, this seems stupid. i get it now. They never got to the point where they spent money foolishly and had "town food" about once a week their entire lives.
> 
> ...


Oooo, well then i want a white one with black dots and a black one with white dots


----------



## D_W (4 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Oooo, well then i want a white one with black dots and a black one with white dots



I wonder what tool steel dominos would be like - hardened and tempered. 

probably not good for hot headed players.


----------



## baldkev (4 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Where is the mortgage advice. Is that an idea for a thread.
> 
> Buy an excavator that is no wider or you can pull the tracks into the same width as the tracked dumper then you can get through the same gates, inside buildings etc.


The dumper is about 1350 mm wide. The seller said it'd fit on an 8x4 plant trailer, then, after id won the auction it was suddenly wider. Luckily my brother has lots of trailers so i nicked one if his  
The digger can be 980mm wide or expand the tracks out to 1300


----------



## baldkev (4 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> I wonder what tool steel dominos would be like - hardened and tempered.
> 
> probably not good for hot headed players.


 make a couple! You never know, it might be the next big thing in the domino world.... luxury stainless and brass dominos


----------



## Jameshow (4 Nov 2022)

Baldkev got a digger so why caint I have a green Goddess?!


----------



## baldkev (4 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Baldkev got a digger so why caint I have a green Goddess?!


Whats that?? A halloween stripper?


----------



## johna.clements (4 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Whats that?? A halloween stripper?


A fittness person on TVAM


----------



## baldkev (4 Nov 2022)

That was a few years ago! Mr motivator era?


----------



## julianf (4 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> I suppose for the last 22 years, I've worked an average of about 50-60 hours a week, often doing things that I don't like.





D_W said:


> If I were affluent, I'd be retired.



I thought it was all about "hard work"?

To put put it bluntly, I reckon you are either fibbing, or, if you really have worked for all those hours, for all those years, and are still not affluent, then i don't think that says much for the system you promote so feverishly.


----------



## monster (5 Nov 2022)

Baldkev - whatever you do don't ever start a sharpening thread!


----------



## monster (5 Nov 2022)

In all seriousness though and back to your original query - one thing worth considering when making your decision is that 5 year fixes are being offered at a slightly lower rate than 2 or 3 year fixes!

We can take from that, that those those that are setting these product rates are predicting that B of E base rate will level off and even start to fall back slightly after a few years - obviously just their predictions but its a common theme across the mortgage market so is a widely held opinion and is useful knowledge for your decision making!


----------



## Spectric (5 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> These days there a million things aimed at us ( in terms of things to buy, phones, internet, computers / games machines , coffee machines,


We have become materialistic, we have this problem of judging people by what they own and not who they are, but the modern world of marketing has to be one of the major contributors to global warming and enviromental damage. They have managed to create illusions that so many fall for using terms that are total dangly bits. This has been a major shift from the days of thrift, then so much was need and not want, people brought footwear to keep their feet dry and not because of some label or badge that has allowed someone to import something from a sweatshop and make a huge profit in order to support their luxury lifestyle, the term designer has become synonymous with rip off to those not gullable enough to fall for it, everything has to be designed so again more dangly bits and another form of marketing just aimed at taking money from one end of the spectrum and shifting it to the other end so someone can buy a bigger yacht and drink more expensive champagne. If we want to level up and share the cake more evenly then the way to do it is not fall into traps set by the wealthy to extract your hard earned money, you don't need to pay over the odds for some stupid meaningless name on your cloths or think so called designer products are real because they belong in the land of unicorns and pixies.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (5 Nov 2022)

Although it will hit some folk quite hard, a deep recession, which many are predicting, will at least have the benefit of forcing many to think carefully about how and upon what they spend their money, and reduce consumption of the exploitative in favour of the necessary.

Whilst I am happy to pay a fair price for that which I need, I dislike waste and excess. 

We are entering the season of goodwill towards all. The wider environment and our pockets would benefit from the elimination from shopping and present lists all that by new year will be on its way to the recycling or landfill - plastic cr4p, excess food, cheaply made gadgets and gimmicks which fail within days etc. 

Kids aside, only buy presents that are actually needed - I've told the family that bottles of single malt are fine, anything else if needed I probably already have or can go and buy anyway.

In the new year we can continue the good work - only buy that which is needed, not that which is persuasively marketed. Avoid over-priced brands unless demonstrably better (testing, quality control) - the costs of marketing and placement add nothing but cost to the product.


----------



## baldkev (5 Nov 2022)

monster said:


> Baldkev - whatever you do don't ever start a sharpening thread!


No Chance 


monster said:


> In all seriousness though and back to your original query - one thing worth considering when making your decision is that 5 year fixes are being offered at a slightly lower rate than 2 or 3 year fixes!
> 
> We can take from that, that those those that are setting these product rates are predicting that B of E base rate will level off and even start to fall back slightly after a few years - obviously just their predictions but its a common theme across the mortgage market so is a widely held opinion and is useful knowledge for your decision making!


Yep, i was leaning toward 2 year and hoping for the best. The rates have actually dropped a touch since the 3rd because the banks are more settled, so nows probably the best it'll get for a year or so....


----------



## D_W (5 Nov 2022)

julianf said:


> I thought it was all about "hard work"?
> 
> To put put it bluntly, I reckon you are either fibbing, or, if you really have worked for all those hours, for all those years, and are still not affluent, then i don't think that says much for the system you promote so feverishly.



Way off.


----------



## Jacob (5 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> They are coming here because they are desperate. But other parts of Europe are a softer touch and more go there. It's usually family or other connections which bring them here.
> Statistics do not show that they are significantly criminally inclined except in small groups such as certain drug dealers, but they occur in all branches of society. Howard Marks's lot was one one of the biggest but I don't think the Welsh as a whole got blamed for drug dealing.
> 
> Doesn't work. Another of the free market fundamentalist myths.


More about Albanians ‘We all want to leave’: poverty, not crime, fuels the urge to flee Albania
They also come here because they believe that this is a humane and relatively civilised place. They are in for a shock when they find themselves in illegally run concentration camps like Manston, where the Home Office workers "looking after" them are drug dealers. Drugs scandal hits Manston migrant centre


----------



## Jacob (5 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Although it will hit some folk quite hard, a deep recession, which many are predicting, will at least have the benefit of forcing many to think carefully about how and upon what they spend their money, and reduce consumption of the exploitative in favour of the necessary.
> .....


Absolutely - it'll sort the sheep from the goats!  
Trouble is the most extravagant tend also to be the better off, probably connected to the fact they have more money than they really need. 
How to target them, instead of the burden of austerity falling on the least well off, who need no lessons in living cheaply?


----------



## Thingybob (5 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Although it will hit some folk quite hard, a deep recession, which many are predicting, will at least have the benefit of forcing many to think carefully about how and upon what they spend their money, and reduce consumption of the exploitative in favour of the necessary.
> 
> Whilst I am happy to pay a fair price for that which I need, I dislike waste and excess.
> 
> ...


Power to the savvy shopper


----------



## Valhalla (5 Nov 2022)

deema said:


> everyone becomes wealthier…..just not at the same rate


so you get a better class of rubbish in the slums of numerous countries in Africa, India and elsewhere


----------



## MikeJhn (6 Nov 2022)

At what point did "Illegal Immigrants" become "Migrants" and deportation was not an option.


----------



## Scruples (6 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> More about Albanians ‘We all want to leave’: poverty, not crime, fuels the urge to flee Albania
> They also come here because they believe that this is a humane and relatively civilised place. They are in for a shock when they find themselves in illegally run concentration camps like Manston, where the Home Office workers "looking after" them are drug dealers. Drugs scandal hits Manston migrant centre


We can only hope the message gets back to Albania then? With little the government is allowed to do without some liberal group crying fould, I see no real solution to the problem.


----------



## Jacob (6 Nov 2022)

Scruples said:


> We can only hope the message gets back to Albania then? With little the government is allowed to do without some liberal group crying fould, I see no real solution to the problem.


You OK with illegal concentration camps, harassment by deliberate delays in processing, electronic tags, firebomb attacks, etc?
It's only a problem because that's how the tories like to play it, while it's still a vote winner.


----------



## Jester129 (6 Nov 2022)

Why is absolutely EVERYTHING political with you? You've lived your life, God knows how bad it must have been to make you so bitter!
Rant over.


----------



## Jacob (6 Nov 2022)

Jester129 said:


> Why is absolutely EVERYTHING political with you? You've lived your life, God knows how bad it must have been to make you so bitter!
> Rant over.


Mortgage rates, interest, immigrants, all political subjects!
I always think the bitterness is on the other side e.g. Suella Braverman was warned ‘hate speech’ could inspire far right and this thread is no different.
In fact I don't think I'm bitter at all, I'm very optimistic! I see immigration as a positive opportunity for us and for them, particularly as we have record low unemployment levels and high numbers of job vacancies.


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2022)

MikeJhn said:


> At what point did "Illegal Immigrants" become "Migrants" and deportation was not an option.


Immigrants are a subset of migrants, and illegal immigrants are a subset of immigrants.


----------



## MikeJhn (6 Nov 2022)

As I see it, "migrants" are those that migrate within their own countries boundaries, "Illegal immigrants" are those that illegally enter another country without passing through the boarder controls and are subject to deportation.


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2022)

MikeJhn said:


> As I see it, "migrants" are those that migrate within their own countries boundaries, "Illegal immigrants" are those that illegally enter another country without passing through the boarder controls and are subject to deportati


You can't go around redefining words! You'll have D_W on your back!


----------



## MikeJhn (6 Nov 2022)

I have not redefined anything, it's how I have understood the meaning to be for my lifetime.


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2022)

Jester129 said:


> Why is absolutely EVERYTHING political with you? You've lived your life, God knows how bad it must have been to make you so bitter!
> Rant over.


Bitter? Or compassionate?

I agree with a lot of what Jacob says. Not sure I can be bothered to swim against the tide as much as he does, though. I doubt anyone on here is going to change sides any time soon.


----------



## johna.clements (6 Nov 2022)

MikeJhn said:


> As I see it, "migrants" are those that migrate within their own countries boundaries, "Illegal immigrants" are those that illegally enter another country without passing through the boarder controls and are subject to deportation.


Meaning of *migrant* in English​ 

migrant
noun [ C ]


uk 

/ˈmaɪ.ɡrənt/ us 

/ˈmaɪ.ɡrənt/


a person that travels to a different country or place, often in order to find work:









migrant


1. a person that travels to a different country or place, often in order to…




dictionary.cambridge.org





Above from Cambridge Dictionary.


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2022)

MikeJhn said:


> I have not redefined anything, it's how I have understood the meaning to be for my lifetime.


Well I'm sorry to have to tell you that you're wrong. Migrants move from one place to another. Could be London to Birmingham, could be Lima to Beirut.
The fact that you've misunderstood it for your whole lifetime doesn't really affect anything.


----------



## julianf (6 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> You can't go around redefining words! You'll have D_W on your back!



Watch out, as it's also possible to just tell everyone else that someone has said somthing or other, and a lot will not bother to go back and actually check.

I wonder if that's a common trend.


----------



## D_W (6 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> You can't go around redefining words! You'll have D_W on your back!



I only do that when people use the word "average" to describe someone in the lowest quartile and then fall back on some broadened definition that's more or less word theft. 

I haven't got any thoughts on the whole illegal immigrant thing aside from watching politicians try to change language to shift focus and then sling arrows at each other. 

as in, how do you get people to change what they think about someone? forbid everyone around them from using factually correct terminology and then encourage slapping a brand on anyone who uses said forbidden terminology.


----------



## johna.clements (6 Nov 2022)

The main problem with people having their own meaning for words is that people do not understand what they are talking about.

If people have little confidence in the meaning of the words a person is using they may as well go outside and howl at the moon.


MikeJhn said:


> I have not redefined anything, it's how I have understood the meaning to be for my lifetime.



Could this mean that Mike has not redefined the meaning of anything but he is not disputing that he has redefined the meaning of migrants.

This thread has been going for awhile! Does Mike define my lifetime as the length of the thread and when a new thread starts on the subject he is free to redefine it in another lifetime.

I failed O level English twice, I know I mangle the language at times but I hope people undertand what I am saying whether they agree or not.


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2022)

"I only do that when people use the word "average" to describe someone in the lowest quartile and then fall back on some broadened definition that's more or less word theft."

I'm confused. Did I do that? I didn't think I did.


----------



## Jameshow (6 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> Bitter? Or compassionate?
> 
> I agree with a lot of what Jacob says. Not sure I can be bothered to swim against the tide as much as he does, though. I doubt anyone on here is going to change sides any time soon.


Sorry but the tide is very much in the far left/ immigrants favour!


----------



## D_W (6 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> I always think the bitterness is on the other side



Bitter people always think other people are the only ones bitter or are more bitter (mo bitta?)


----------



## niall Y (6 Nov 2022)

Re the definition of words, I'm rather fond of the quote by Lewis Carroll -
" When I use a word................ it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less"


----------



## Terry - Somerset (6 Nov 2022)

Lewis Carroll quote - arrogance personified - words are the way we communicate - far more important to use words whose meaning can be understood by the recipient.

If cutting a dovetail and ask my gofer to go an get the "oil can" he is unlikely to return with the much needed chisel, no matter how convinced I am that "oil can" is an appropriate descriptor for a sharp pointy thing.


----------



## Spectric (6 Nov 2022)

This immigration crisis could be solved if we had a working, functioning government that had the will to do so but instead they are spineless. One way to solve a problem is to look at how others have solved a similar problem and Australia is where you find the answers. They had a migrant crisis but no where near on our scale and was solved by Scott Morrison by declaring it as a threat to national security and stating that no one entering Australia illegally by boat would be given residency, it was zero so gave out a clear message to any thinking of trying. 







Ok we would need a trophy to resemble a dinghy but it is a clear statement that the Australian immigration minister had balls and could do his job unlike the useless excuses we have for home office and immigration.


----------



## D_W (6 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> This immigration crisis could be solved if we had a working, functioning government that had the will to do so but instead they are spineless. One way to solve a problem is to look at how others have solved a similar problem and Australia is where you find the answers.



Inevitably, an optimal solution will involve some things you advocate and when you look further, some things others have advocated that you thought you didn't agree with. 

The clash with political processes is pretty obvious. Can you imagine someone saying "I've adopted 60% my solution and 40% my opponents more or less". 

What actually happens is that both sides try to rebrand a part of any solution that matches a prior solution by an opponent and then claim that they're not the same thing. 

We have several medicare options in the US that are a point of this credit taking - the enormously expensive medicare part D that was rushed into place by republicans to beat democrats on it. And MAPD that the democrats have always hated because the republicans put it in place, so even though it's widely favored (not universally, but by a lot of retirees), it is the target of cuts as "profitable for greedy insurers" while the supplemental plans (also insured) somehow aren't, and are much more confusing for retirees to navigate. If democrats had created the plan type, they'd love it and republicans would call it "Wasteful spending". 

politics is incompatible with problem solving, monitoring, improving, eliminating solutions to solved problems, etc. More or less normal productive things -in politics, no bueno.


----------



## Jacob (6 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> Bitter? Or compassionate?
> 
> .....


Just "normal".  
I've met thousands of first, second, third generation immigrants over the years and I can't recall one I wouldn't consider to have been just another normal human being going about their business in a normal way.
I don't know why so many people find them frightening, perhaps they just don't get out enough.
I do think their fear is used by politicians to create divisions and irrational behaviour, such as voting for brexit.


----------



## baldkev (6 Nov 2022)

Luckily since the 3rd nov, interest rates on mortgages are dropping a bit, so nows a good time to fix  
In other news its been wet n windy here


----------



## johna.clements (6 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Luckily since the 3rd nov, interest rates on mortgages are dropping a bit, so nows a good time to fix
> In other news its been wet n windy here


It certainly has been. Supposed to be showers for a bit. I m going out in the garden hopefully the showers will wiz past north or south of me.


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2022)

I wouldn't want to swap places.


Jameshow said:


> Sorry but the tide is very much in the far left/ immigrants favour!


----------



## D_W (6 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Luckily since the 3rd nov, interest rates on mortgages are dropping a bit, so nows a good time to fix
> In other news its been wet n windy here



they are about 7.4 here. 

Somewhere around 16 years ago when I moved here, I got a mortgage with a 6% rate. Like full FHA type here thinking houses would keep going up as they had been doing - right before 2008, and being less stingy then than I am now, I thought we'd be moving on. 

I think I refinanced here one time, but that wasn't that productive if you were intending to prepay because you just add the closing costs to the balance of the loan. When I refinanced, it was at something like 4.25 and I thought "we'll never see 6% again!!

I haven't followed them but would guess they got down into the high 2s or low 3s. 

I got itchy some time ago and paid off the balance (the benefit of living in the US at the time when at least the smaller houses were cheap, they are double now, same house, 16 years older) and instantly was inundated with mail and email literature "take a loan out and make your home the home of your dreams! Your home is your biggest investment!". 

Well, not remotely close to even numerically true, it's an expense unless you get really lucky timing. The power of branding in the states with the realtors makes people think that structures are investments - stupidity. Some of our original neighbors have moved twice, to bigger houses each time with their new found equity (but a much bigger balance to pay). They think they're going forward - doubling or tripling property taxes and I guess never planning to actually own their houses. Each time you transfer real estate here, unless you can do the contract work yourself, you end up paying about 8% of the property value in realtor costs, legal costs, transfer taxes and closing costs.


----------



## D_W (6 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> I wouldn't want to swap places.



False dilemmas for sale today, folks! Get them cheap!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (6 Nov 2022)

> the Australian immigration minister had balls and could do his job unlike the useless excuses we have for home office and immigration.



Whether one agrees with his actions or not, it is clarity and lack of ambiguity which gets things done.

The UK has politicians on both sides of the political divide for whom energetic fence sitting to create the illusion of action and ideas has become endemic for fear of upsetting one set of voters or another. 

The current incumbents have proven they are incapable of effective action on immigration over several years - I have zero confidence that were the opposition to win power they would be any better.


----------



## baldkev (6 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> they are about 7.4 here.
> 
> Somewhere around 16 years ago when I moved here, I got a mortgage with a 6% rate. Like full FHA type here thinking houses would keep going up as they had been doing - right before 2008, and being less stingy then than I am now, I thought we'd be moving on.
> 
> ...



I dont know the total % cost of moving here, but it soon adds up.
Buying bigger houses and taking the pain on the extra costs generally works over here. Prices on the whole only really go up ( sure, you get a 'crash' where they drop a bit, then when they recover, they rocket  back up. )
So the bigger the house / move valuable, generally the higher the gain. I.e pre pandemic we looked at moving and needed another 40 to 50k ish.... now the step is more like 80! A 500k house would now be worth over 600k...
It gets to a point where that drops off though, because after a million, theres less people who can buy them


----------



## monster (6 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> I failed O level English twice, I know I mangle the language at times but I hope people undertand what I am saying whether they agree or not.


Did you mean 'understand'


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2022)

niall Y said:


> Re the definition of words, I'm rather fond of the quote by Lewis Carroll -
> " When I use a word................ it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less"


Surely that's a quote from a slightly deranged character in a work of fiction by LC.


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> False dilemmas for sale today, folks! Get them cheap!


What is your problem? I was merely disputing the idea that the tide was in favour of immigrants, I don't believe that constitutes a false dichotomy. Let's have some more stories about your neighbor, or some guy you met once from England, who told you everything there is to know about the place.


----------



## D_W (6 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> What is your problem? I was merely disputing the idea that the tide was in favour of immigrants, I don't believe that constitutes a false dichotomy. Let's have some more stories about your neighbor, or some guy you met once from England, who told you everything there is to know about the place.



It's not a realistic thing - "put yourself in their shoes" with the bend toward "it could happen to you". 

Would you rather be you with immigrants or you without immigrants. Those are your choices. Their choices are "would we rather stay where we are or try to move to the UK". 

To try to get people into the "they're you in different circumstances" kind of knuckle smacking is just beating people over their heads with their own virtues.


----------



## D_W (6 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> What is your problem? I was merely disputing the idea that the tide was in favour of immigrants, I don't believe that constitutes a false dichotomy. Let's have some more stories about your neighbor, or some guy you met once from England, who told you everything there is to know about the place.



Nice try. The guy I met 400 times? His view of England is outdated - from when he left, except for the times that he's visited and expressed distaste with certain things, such as his dad's end of life care and the conditions in the care home where he was. 

I do know a few people from England I've met once or twice, i could open it up further.


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> It's not a realistic thing - "put yourself in their shoes" with the bend toward "it could happen to you".
> 
> Would you rather be you with immigrants or you without immigrants. Those are your choices. Their choices are "would we rather stay where we are or try to move to the UK".
> 
> To try to get people into the "they're you in different circumstances" kind of knuckle smacking is just beating people over their heads with their own virtues.


Then it's ridiculous to say that the tide is with them. Of course it isn't.


----------



## niall Y (6 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> Surely that's a quote from a slightly deranged character in a work of fiction by LC.


It is, indeed the words spoken by one of his characters, and aren't they all a bit strange? But it does contain a grain of truth - which is that words change their meaning, simply because people use them to mean specifically what they want them to mean, Is this not how language mutates? After all 'simplistic' did not use to mean 'over simplified,' Someone at some stage decided to use it for what they wanted, and the idea caught on.


----------



## John Brown (6 Nov 2022)

I


niall Y said:


> It is, indeed the words spoken by one of his characters, and aren't they all a bit strange? But it does contain a grain of truth - which is that words change their meaning, simply because people use them to mean specifically what they want them to mean, Is this not how language mutates? After all 'simplistic' did not use to mean 'over simplified,' Someone at some stage decided to use it for what they wanted, and the idea caught on.


I'm not disputing that. Word meaning is defined by common usage. Unless you're French.


----------



## Thingybob (6 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Luckily since the 3rd nov, interest rates on mortgages are dropping a bit, so nows a good time to fix
> In other news its been wet n windy here


Trust you to keep on topic and spoil things


----------



## Thingybob (6 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> It certainly has been. Supposed to be showers for a bit. I m going out in the garden hopefully the showers will wiz past north or south of me.


But they didnt John


----------



## Thingybob (6 Nov 2022)

What chance world peace this is a woodworkers forum and the knives are out


----------



## Marcusthehat (6 Nov 2022)

Thingybob said:


> What chance world peace this is a woodworkers forum and the knives are out


I do hope they have been correctly sharpened . . .


----------



## johna.clements (6 Nov 2022)

Thingybob said:


> But they didnt John


Half an hour then the skies opened.


----------



## D_W (6 Nov 2022)

Thingybob said:


> What chance world peace this is a woodworkers forum and the knives are out



be careful with your banana if you've got yours out!! Imagine, a sneeze and this could happen to yours.


----------



## MikeJhn (7 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Meaning of *migrant* in English​
> 
> migrant
> noun [ C ]
> ...


Meaning of illegal immigrant in English.

illegal immigrant
noun [ C ]

UK 

/ɪˌliː.ɡəl ˈɪm.ɪ.ɡrənt/ US 

/ɪˌliː.ɡəl ˈɪm.ɪ.ɡrənt/

(US also illegal alien)

someone who lives or works in another country when they do not have the legal right to do this

Above from Cambridge Dictionary.


----------



## Scruples (7 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> You OK with illegal concentration camps, harassment by deliberate delays in processing, electronic tags, firebomb attacks, etc?
> It's only a problem because that's how the tories like to play it, while it's still a vote winner.


Illegal immigrants who have passed through many safe countries to get here are subject to the least help. It is a way of persuading them to think twice before leaving their own country. As for illegal processes in the UK, there aren't any. You're a Liberal, right?


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2022)

Scruples said:


> Illegal immigrants who have passed through many safe countries to get here are subject to the least help. It is a way of persuading them to think twice before leaving their own country.


I think you'd find that most of them had thought really hard before they left their own country, probably over a number of years


Scruples said:


> As for illegal processes in the UK, there aren't any.











Manston asylum centre not operating legally, concedes minister


Immigration minister says legal action has begun on behalf of some detainees in Kent processing centre




www.theguardian.com












The Hostile Environment explained


What is the hostile environment? Who is impacted by the hostile environment? How is the hostile environment connected to the Windrush scandal? All your questions answered.




www.jcwi.org.uk






Scruples said:


> You're a Liberal, right?


What is a liberal?


----------



## John Brown (7 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> be careful with your banana if you've got yours out!! Imagine, a sneeze and this could happen to yours.



Bananas were tougher than that back in the eighties.


----------



## John Brown (7 Nov 2022)

MikeJhn said:


> Meaning of illegal immigrant in English.
> 
> illegal immigrant
> noun [ C ]
> ...


I don't think anyone is disputing the definition of "illegal immigrant". But they still fall under the general heading of "migrant". So not all migrants are illegal immigrants, but all illegal immigrants are migrants.

In exactly the same way, all Ford Cortinas are road vehicles, but not all road vehicles are Ford Cortinas.

Anyway, here's a picture of an animal I saw yesterday.


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> ...
> 
> The current incumbents have proven they are incapable of effective action on immigration over several years


Don't forget that the chaos is deliberate tory policy. They think it's a vote winner. The Hostile Environment explained


Terry - Somerset said:


> - I have zero confidence that were the opposition to win power they would be any better.


You are probably right. Here's Starmer waffling as usual with feet in both camps. He thinks anti immigration is a vote winner too. Keir Starmer says too many people from overseas hired to work in NHS
He's right of course that more people should be trained here, but that should include immigrants usually desperately seeking work.


----------



## peter spratt (7 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> You OK with illegal concentration camps, harassment by deliberate delays in processing, electronic tags, firebomb attacks, etc?
> It's only a problem because that's how the tories like to play it, while it's still a vote winner.


definitely they ARE illegal imigrants coming here to sponge off our welfare state that we have paid into all of our lives


----------



## John Brown (7 Nov 2022)

peter spratt said:


> definitely they ARE illegal imigrants coming here to sponge off our welfare state that we have paid into all of our lives


Some may be.

Admittedly this is from 2016, but I suspect it's still relevant.

"
The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) has today (2 June) *released a report* looking at the impact on the State pension of reduced immigration to the UK in both the medium and the long term, key findings include:


Reducing annual migration numbers, for example by c150,000*, could cost the State more than £3bn per year by 2032 and more than £8bn per year by 2057
To offset this funding gap in 2057 might require a further increase in the State Pension Age from 68 to 69 or a reduction in State Pension of £300 per year
Government could also use policy levers such as National Insurance contributions, or the level of State Pension benefits to mitigate against the net increase in Government costs
Raising the potential earnings profile of immigrants could also mitigate, or even reverse, impacts"


----------



## Julie (7 Nov 2022)

Thingybob said:


> Power to the savvy shopper


Hello Terry, whilst I too hate waste, I think your rather off hand comment about a deep recession hitting "some people" quite hard speaks volumes, the "Some People" you refer to are likely to go bankrupt trying to pay their mortgage and utility bills, they will not have money for presents for their children, or anything else to spare, and as for "Excess Food" lots of people will not have enough, never mind any excess, I think you ought to consider your words before speaking, and actually do some research on poverty, according to Shelter the national Homeless charity as many as 1 in 3 of us could be made homeless in the new year, so no, a deep recession and stringent austerity measures are not what is called for, a rapid change of Government is what is called for, a General Election, as is our democratic right, but one which the sitting tenants are continuing to deny us in the face of total loss of public confidence 

I don't know you, or know anything about you, but your words suggest you have always been well provided for, and not had any real struggles in your life, I have worked hard all of mine, I have had a small business which failed due to the last recession, following that I have had a number of jobs including 25 years in retail, not a well paid profession, my partner is a former nurse who left the profession after much soul searching and a bout of severe depression following the near impossible demands placed on her and her colleagues by the pandemic, we have known hardship in our lives, my partner was at one time homeless too, and I have come close to it myself as a mortgage holder, so please don't be glib about these awful pressing issues, it does you no credit regards Julie


----------



## johna.clements (7 Nov 2022)

Scruples said:


> Illegal immigrants who have passed through many safe countries to get here are subject to the least help. It is a way of persuading them to think twice before leaving their own country. As for illegal processes in the UK, there aren't any. You're a Liberal, right?


We have left the EU.


----------



## johna.clements (7 Nov 2022)

peter spratt said:


> definitely they ARE illegal imigrants coming here to sponge off our welfare state that we have paid into all of our lives


I doubt you contributed much before you left school.

Do you think that people who have left school contribute more.


----------



## johna.clements (7 Nov 2022)

3. Outcomes of asylum applications​3.1 At initial decision​...
....


Almost three quarters* (72%) of the initial decisions in 2021 were grants (of asylum*, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave), which is substantially higher than the previous years. For much of the past decade, around a third of initial decisions were grants. The grant rate in 2021 is the highest grant rate in over thirty years (since 82% in 1990).

...
...

3.2 At appeal​
Some initial decisions (mainly, but not entirely, refusals) will go on to be appealed.


There were 4,035 appeals lodged on initial decisions in 2021. This is 17% fewer than the previous year, in part reflecting the smaller number of applications processed due to the pandemic and the smaller number of applications refused in the latest year, but this continues a downward trend for numbers of appeals lodged since 2015 (when there were 14,242 appeals lodged).


Of the *appeals resolved in 2021, almost half (49%) were allowed* (meaning the applicant successfully overturned the initial decision). The proportion of appeals allowed has risen from 29% in 2010, when the time series began.






How many people do we grant asylum or protection to?







www.gov.uk





My highlight above. The government accepts the overwhelming majority of asylum claims.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (7 Nov 2022)

> Hello Terry, whilst I too hate waste, I think your rather off hand comment about a deep recession hitting "some people" quite hard speaks volumes,...............


This was not intended to offend or suggest complacency - more a refection of my normal communication style which is often "relaxed" or "understated". It is clear this caused offence and I apologise.

I was was not endowed with a silver spoon, nor have I struggled against adversity. I worked for 40 years - albeit interrupted by 9 months without a job. I have never really struggled, never indulged in unaffordable extravagance, and always lived within my means. 

I stand by the generalisation that as a society we are profligate and wasteful, and that a recession may promote more thoughtful consumption of the financially and environmentally destructive. 

The capacity to for individuals to change depends on personal circumstances - for some hugely irreconcilable, and at the other end of the spectrum, unnecessary.


----------



## Thingybob (7 Nov 2022)

Julie said:


> Hello Terry, whilst I too hate waste, I think your rather off hand comment about a deep recession hitting "some people" quite hard speaks volumes, the "Some People" you refer to are likely to go bankrupt trying to pay their mortgage and utility bills, they will not have money for presents for their children, or anything else to spare, and as for "Excess Food" lots of people will not have enough, never mind any excess, I think you ought to consider your words before speaking, and actually do some research on poverty, according to Shelter the national Homeless charity as many as 1 in 3 of us could be made homeless in the new year, so no, a deep recession and stringent austerity measures are not what is called for, a rapid change of Government is what is called for, a General Election, as is our democratic right, but one which the sitting tenants are continuing to deny us in the face of total loss of public confidence
> 
> I don't know you, or know anything about you, but your words suggest you have always been well provided for, and not had any real struggles in your life, I have worked hard all of mine, I have had a small business which failed due to the last recession, following that I have had a number of jobs including 25 years in retail, not a well paid profession, my partner is a former nurse who left the profession after much soul searching and a bout of severe depression following the near impossible demands placed on her and her colleagues by the pandemic, we have known hardship in our lives, my partner was at one time homeless too, and I have come close to it myself as a mortgage holder, so please don't be glib about these awful pressing issues, it does you no credit regards Julie


I think you have taken my responce to Terrys post out of context i was agreeing with his sentiments on waste ie spending too much on christmas presents and paying over the odds for essentials because people think a pint of milk is dearer in supermarket A it is better than supermarket B thats an unsavvy shopper


----------



## D_W (7 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> Bananas were tougher than that back in the eighties.



I have to admit, that's a good one


----------



## Thingybob (7 Nov 2022)

P S it was nt my post it was Terrys


----------



## Lefley (7 Nov 2022)

MikeJhn said:


> As I see it, "migrants" are those that migrate within their own countries boundaries, "Illegal immigrants" are those that illegally enter another country without passing through the boarder controls and are subject to deportation.


Your half right. A migrant is someone that goes elsewhere to find work but not stay permanently. Can be within own country or too another country. An immigrant is a person that goes to another country to stay permanently.


----------



## John Brown (7 Nov 2022)

Lefley said:


> Your half right. A migrant is someone that goes elsewhere to find work but not stay permanently. Can be within own country or too another country. An immigrant is a person that goes to another country to stay permanently.


An emigrant is someone who goes to another country. An immigrant is someone who comes to your country. They're both types of migrant. The clue is in how the words are constructed.


----------



## sploo (7 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> An emigrant is someone who goes to another country. An immigrant is someone who comes to your country. They're both types of migrant. The clue is in how the words are constructed.


Unless you're British; then you emigrate to another country (thus becoming an immigrant), but call yourself an expat; whilst then voting for Brexit because you don't like immigrants


----------



## D_W (7 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> An emigrant is someone who goes to another country. An immigrant is someone who comes to your country. They're both types of migrant. The clue is in how the words are constructed.



We don't usually use the term emigrant and immigrant interchangeably with migrant. 

The former imply a permanent or long term stay, and the latter imply transience or potential transience. 

Out of curiosity, I looked up an explanation of the various common uses of "migrant" and National Geographic has a piece defining the bits for the uninitiated. 









Introduction to Human Migration


Students discuss types of migration and people who migrate. Then they brainstorm reasons for migrating.




www.nationalgeographic.org





Interestingly, intracountry migrants are also defined here, despite the hand wringing about that not being correct.


----------



## John Brown (7 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> We don't usually use the term emigrant and immigrant interchangeably with migrant.
> 
> The former imply a permanent or long term stay, and the latter imply transience or potential transience.
> 
> ...


I never said it wasn't correct. All I said was that "migrant" wasn't restricted to intra country.
The US is much bigger than little ole British land, and I know you have a history of migrant workers, at lot of whom will not have come from another country. The dust bowl victims of Steinbeck and Woody Guthrie, or the apple pickers of John Irving. We used to have more of these too, hop pickers decamping to Kent for the harvest, girls following fish down the coastline etc., but I suppose in recent times these jobs have been performed by foreign workers. They're still migrants, according to most definitions. They migrate, just like arctic terns or swallows, and I believe that's what makes them migrants. Once again, the clue is in the make up of the word.


----------



## John Brown (7 Nov 2022)

I do concede, however, that in popular usage, the term "migrant" can imply movement of a more temporary nature.
Such as those arriving in the UK in inflatable boats, who will only stay for a while before being shipped out to Rwanda.


----------



## John Brown (7 Nov 2022)

"We don't usually use the term emigrant and immigrant interchangeably with migrant."

Once again, I never suggested that they were interchangeable. I said that emigrants and immigrants were subsets of migrants. 
It's rather tiresome having to defend myself against things I haven't said. You still haven't shown me where I said anything about "quartiles". It seems unlikely, as I have never used the word before. Whether I missed that lesson at school 60 odd years ago, or whether it's a term more frequently used in the US, I can't say. I do know that I first heard it from an American, and had to look it up.


----------



## John Brown (7 Nov 2022)

@baldkev.
Go for the fixed rate. A tracker might save you a bit, might not, but at least you can budget for a few years


----------



## Spectric (7 Nov 2022)

Does it mater what you call them, at the end of the day they are entering the UK illegally and are potentially a threat to national security. They are not families fleeing a war zone but mostly young male Albanians either being sent here to work for the gangs or seeking economic benefits so they must be rounded up and returned directly to Albania. The attitude towards them would change drastically if the chancellor raised income tax from 20 to 24 percent to fund this crisis, at that point we would see migration centres burning.


----------



## D_W (7 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> "We don't usually use the term emigrant and immigrant interchangeably with migrant."
> 
> Once again, I never suggested that they were interchangeable. I said that emigrants and immigrants were subsets of migrants.
> It's rather tiresome having to defend myself against things I haven't said. You still haven't shown me where I said anything about "quartiles". It seems unlikely, as I have never used the word before. Whether I missed that lesson at school 60 odd years ago, or whether it's a term more frequently used in the US, I can't say. I do know that I first heard it from an American, and had to look it up.



You weren't the intended recipient of the quartile comment. Actually, I haven't seen you try to imply anything like we see others on here do, referring to someone who can't pay bills as "the average person".

I probably didn't delineate clearly enough, but some folks who do things like that tend to complain loudly if you name them.

You're right about the migrant history in the US - but the US is so regional (and I guess the united kingdom is, too) that migrants in my part of the country tend or tended to have been from mexico and not the old popular stories of folks who left the dust bowl and went to California. I'd forgotten about those folks. Most of them went west or went south or north and stuck where they landed. The migrants where I grew up had an annual cycle. The orchards have not declined in size, and they still do use some migrant labor (the pros who do that work are cut from a different cloth than the average person - they are the best of the best and can do ungodly work volume, which is piece rate where I grew up, or per bushel, whatever the measure).

There are some migrant concrete workers and other seasonal jobs - I have a fairly dim view of their employers, who are local business owners who use them just as a way to get bids and not have any employee rights. Two poured the foundation for my dad's garage - 40 hours. Not 40 hours of work over some number of days, 40 hours in a row start to finish. One was transient, no drivers license, no english. The other local and a more permanent undocumented employee of the small concrete contractor, according to him.

Typical hourly wage in mexico is something like $4 an hour. Transient work like that is probably worth $25 an hour for a skilled crew member, but the work is ungodly.

I don't have a well formed thought on it - the transient of the crew is working as much as he can for a very specific reason - to send money back and then eventually go back periodically and then re-do. The same is true for the fruit pickers - they can work 15 hours a day and make many multiples of what they could where they come from, lay low and send most of it back. I think they are sacrificing themselves, but I'm not in their shoes - it's probably life changing money. If the government got involved, they'd just screw it up and make it worse for everyone, so nobody local really objects to it.

My lens is very different than people near borders - I hadn't considered that some of the folks are in country for less than savory purposes, but the eastern european mob dominance in the southeast is a sign of that, I guess.


----------



## John Brown (7 Nov 2022)

"You weren't the intended recipient of the quartile comment. Actually, I haven't seen you try to imply anything like we see others on here do, referring to someone who can't pay bills as "the average person".

I probably didn't delineate clearly enough, but some folks who do things like that tend to complain loudly if you name them."

Ok. Fair enough. It looked like I was the target of that accusation, but I'm glad to hear otherwise.


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> Does it mater what you call them, at the end of the day they are entering the UK illegally


not if they present themselves to the authorities in the proper fashion as they nearly all do. Difficult not to if you arrive in full view in a small boat


Spectric said:


> and are potentially a threat to national security.


Of course they are not!


Spectric said:


> They are not families fleeing a war zone


Many are, but the boundaries between war, political breakdown, economic stress, climate change, are never clear.


Spectric said:


> but mostly young male Albanians


a small percentage Evidence for claim that 60% of small boat arrivals are Albanian not yet published - Full Fact


Spectric said:


> either being sent here to work for the gangs or seeking economic benefits so they must be rounded up and returned directly to Albania. The attitude towards them would change drastically if the chancellor raised income tax from 20 to 24 percent to fund this crisis, at that point we would see migration centres burning.


Oh, so you are in favour of fire bombs?
Why are you so anxious to denigrate and fear these poor sods? There are many much bigger issues in front of us, mainly climate change of course. 
Migration will be a big feature of climate change and we are only just seeing the beginning.


----------



## johna.clements (7 Nov 2022)

Spectric said:


> Does it mater what you call them, at the end of the day they are entering the UK illegally and are potentially a threat to national security. They are not families fleeing a war zone but mostly young male Albanians either being sent here to work for the gangs or seeking economic benefits so they must be rounded up and returned directly to Albania. The attitude towards them would change drastically if the chancellor raised income tax from 20 to 24 percent to fund this crisis, at that point we would see migration centres burning.


posted By UK government July 22

The make-up of people on small boats has been changing. From January 2018 to June 2022, Iranian (28%) and Iraqi (20%) nationals represented nearly half of all small boat arrivals. In the first six months of 2022, over half (51%) of small boat arrivals were from three nationalities – Albanian (18%), Afghan (18%) and Iranian (15%)






Factsheet: Small boat crossings since July 2022







www.gov.uk





Do you realy think that Iraq and Afghanistan are peaceful places.

Do you think that 18% is most.

There was a terrorist attack in Dover last week.


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> .......
> 
> Do you really think that Iraq and Afghanistan are peaceful places.
> 
> .....


Both been bombed to bits by, er, the UK amongst others.
At a cost to us of £34.7bn. !!!!
Possibly large numbers would not now be refugees if Britain had not spent £34,700,000,000 in pointlessly wrecking their countries


----------



## Jameshow (7 Nov 2022)

sploo said:


> Unless you're British; then you emigrate to another country (thus becoming an immigrant), but call yourself an expat; whilst then voting for Brexit because you don't like immigrants


Or like the Scottish who want to Brexit from us and then rejoin the EU!!!


----------



## Jameshow (7 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Both been bombed to bits by, er, the UK amongst others.
> At a cost to us of £34.7bn. !!!!
> Possibly large numbers would not now be refugees if Britain had not spent £34,700,000,000 in pointlessly wrecking their countries


Nice labour leader Mr Blair!


----------



## D_W (7 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> "You weren't the intended recipient of the quartile comment. Actually, I haven't seen you try to imply anything like we see others on here do, referring to someone who can't pay bills as "the average person".
> 
> I probably didn't delineate clearly enough, but some folks who do things like that tend to complain loudly if you name them."
> 
> Ok. Fair enough. It looked like I was the target of that accusation, but I'm glad to hear otherwise.



My apologies - I didn't know that's what kept the tension going. I've not seen you pose a bunk argument - we don't have to agree on things, I appreciate anyone who posts legitimate opinions that aren't extrapolations or idealistic stretches and I've never noticed you to do any of that.


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Nice labour leader Mr Blair!


Yep. Corbyn was against it.


----------



## Jameshow (7 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Yep. Corbyn was against it.


That would be a mirror image disaster of trussonomucs!!


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> That would be a mirror image disaster of trussonomucs!!


We'll never know. But I doubt it - there were some brains behind Corbyn, not many old etonians and privileged idiots with degrees in PPE!


----------



## selectortone (7 Nov 2022)

.


Jameshow said:


> Or like the Scottish who want to Brexit from us and then rejoin the EU!!!


One can hardly blame them!


----------



## Jameshow (7 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> We'll never know. But I doubt it - there were some brains behind Corbyn, not many old etonians and privileged idiots with degrees in PPE!


I think nationalising utilities etc would have spooked the markets just as much as liz did!!


----------



## johna.clements (7 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Oh, so you are in favour of fire bombs?


I doubt he will be investigated by special branch but


----------



## Flynnwood (7 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I think nationalising utilities etc would have spooked the markets just as much as liz did!!


There was no demand for the debt that Liz Lettuce created. So money wanted to flee that debt and currency. Quickly.
It did.


----------



## baldkev (7 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Yep. Corbyn was against it.


Corbyn would have been a disaster. Mind you, had corbyn been p.m, russia wouldnt have invaded ukraine. They'd have invaded us instead! Corbyns first move woukd have been to scrap trident and post the keys for no10 to putin 

I bet you the Ukranians wish they hadnt given up their nukes


----------



## D_W (7 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Corbyn would have been a disaster. Mind you, had corbyn been p.m, russia wouldnt have invaded ukraine. They'd have invaded us instead! Corbyns first move woukd have been to scrap trident and post the keys for no10 to putin
> 
> I bet you the Ukranians wish they hadnt given up their nukes



to the first part  

To the last part, boy do I wish the Ukraine still had nukes, too. They're an educated stable society with nuclear energy. Convincing them to give up nuclear defense was really stupid.


----------



## D_W (7 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Or like the Scottish who want to Brexit from us and then rejoin the EU!!!


Isn't this kind of their thing?


He Scots...what do you want to do today?

"Let's tell the English we're not English again and tell them how much we will never be English, Love. Aye?"


----------



## Noel (7 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> Isn't this kind of their thing?
> 
> 
> He Scots...what do you want to do today?
> ...



Helluva hot take that DW.


----------



## baldkev (7 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> Isn't this kind of their thing?
> 
> 
> He Scots...what do you want to do today?
> ...


A big part of the problem is transport.
Theres a lot more opportunity in the south / south east, partly due to transport ( onward shipping etc )
What all the governments seem to balls up is the basic premise of 'levelling up'
What it really means is spreading the opportunities around fairly... so, offer big businesses something ( incentives ) to set up factories and offices in the north and wales for instance. Improve transport links. 

If you offer communities work, mostly they'll snap it up and in return they can improve their personal situations. If that happened, scotland would be more content. We wont get into the finances of Scotland, because both sides are fed propoganda, so we dont know the true story.


----------



## D_W (7 Nov 2022)

Noel said:


> Helluva hot take that DW.



How far off is it. We only have one regular visiting Scot. He lives in London and reminds us that he's "not English" fairly often, but he must like England enough if he's living in London. 

When he's over here, there's not a whole lot of politics talk - he says "let me see what big cars you guys have got now, and can we see an NFL game?". 

And every ten minutes if we're at a bar, tipsy women stream to him and say "Talk like Shrek!". 

For the converse of that, my English friend here, who probably remembers an England of 40 years ago is easy to fire up. "This is Kevin. He's British". 

"F____! I'm English, a__hole!! British could be anything!!"


----------



## D_W (7 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> A big part of the problem is transport.
> Theres a lot more opportunity in the south / south east, partly due to transport ( onward shipping etc )
> What all the governments seem to balls up is the basic premise of 'levelling up'
> What it really means is spreading the opportunities around fairly... so, offer big businesses something ( incentives ) to set up factories and offices in the north and wales for instance. Improve transport links.
> ...



This may reveal how long ago our Scottish friend was here - he went and got married and then couldn't get as far from home. But he was lamenting some change to the university system there where it would no longer be no cost or near no cost to go to "university". We know him because he did an exchange with a college here and he often said "I learned more in one semester from two professors than I did in the entirety of my courses in Scotland", but there's a catch. A year of college at the school he's talking about is $60k if you have the means to pay it, which is quite a lot of money for a liberal arts college. 

The little cultural differences are a treat. that and the constant ..."wot did you just say? was that English?"

(and I'd have gone to a less good school than I went to if it were free. I'd trade what I pay in healthcare to go to NHS for half the cost, too, if I had the option. )


----------



## baldkev (7 Nov 2022)

You'll never please everyone.
What we really need is to dump the politicians and find a new system to 'govern' the uk. 
A lot of the time they dont explain their actions, presumably because we are all too dumb to understand?, but we all see through the lies, whether its tory, labour etc. They are no better than estate agents.

So i need to decide 2 year or 5 year fix. 2 year is currently higher interest, but if somehow the rates come down after next years hardship, i dont want to be paying higher interest for another 3 years. Conversely, 5 year might work out cheaper if the rates stay up for 3 or 4 years  

Or i could sell the house, buy a field and wear a grass skirt for a while, shower when it rains, forage the land and turn into swampy ( without the hair ) but im not sure the mrs and kids will quite cope with that


----------



## John Brown (7 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I think nationalising utilities etc would have spooked the markets just as much as liz did!!


I think that if the Labour party ever get back into government, they should start up a not-for-profit utility company and compete in the open market. After all, any Tom Dick or Harry can start a utility company these days. If the price was lower, then I guess they'd prosper. If not, then chalk it up as a failed experiment and sell up to Octopus.
Sounds simple to me, so I suppose there must be some gaping hole in my reasoning.


----------



## D_W (7 Nov 2022)

are there costs to mortgage issuance there similar to "closing costs" in the US? We typically pay a couple of grand to originate a loan. 

I haven't got any thoughts about rates except if there is a big economic decline, there could be a loose money policy again and lower rates, which would favor 2 thinking the current high rates will exist only until there is some stability combined with consequences of high rates.


----------



## D_W (7 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> I think that if the Labour party ever get back into government, they should start up a not-for-profit utility company and compete in the open market. After all, any Tom Dick or Harry can start a utility company these days. If the price was lower, then I guess they'd prosper. If not, then chalk it up as a failed experiment and sell up to Octopus.
> Sounds simple to me, so I suppose there must be some gaping hole in my reasoning.



can they do it without making it uncompetitive due to their own virtues and love for red tape and inefficiency?


----------



## John Brown (7 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> can they do it without making it uncompetitive due to their own virtues and love for red tape and inefficiency?


I don't know. That's kind of the point of my post.


----------



## baldkev (7 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> are there costs to mortgage issuance there similar to "closing costs" in the US? We typically pay a couple of grand to originate a loan.
> 
> I haven't got any thoughts about rates except if there is a big economic decline, there could be a loose money policy again and lower rates, which would favor 2 thinking the current high rates will exist only until there is some stability combined with consequences of high rates.


Some companies charge 'fees' for setting up the mortgage, others are fee free... hsbc for instance are feefree and offering a slightly lower rate than my mortgage broker is recommending. Maybe the different companies pay the brokers different amounts? 
You get charged to leave a mortgage early. Our current deal is £3500 per year left to run if we want out early, although we now have only 4 months left, so they wouldnt charge us.


----------



## D_W (8 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> I don't know. That's kind of the point of my post.



That's a "box score question". 

as in "i'll tell you the answer after they do it". 

 It's very difficult when anything isn't competitive to keep it efficient and not allow people to beat whatever it is to death with legal challenges or red tape. 

In the US, we have not for profit electric co-ops. They are so rule laden that I think they do share a little more of the rates with their employees, but they also lobby the utility commissions to get higher rates and then the whole point of having not for profits is lost. Then, they start getting in disputes with their labor and giving away benefits or giving in to requests that nobody else would. 

I'd say if anything, those would be great places to get a terminal job if one wanted out of the rat race. Sewer authorities, etc, much the same. Well capitalized, disinterested in efficiency and full of well connected people getting a 90K job that has benefits you couldn't dream of. The 90k part isn't exactly executive pay, but they come with pensions, postretirement medical and no cost medical while active and all kinds of other fringes.


----------



## ian33a (8 Nov 2022)

I do wish Kev would stop trying to ask questions about mortgages. This is a thread about immigration and politics


----------



## Chris70 (8 Nov 2022)

omg, I love this forum with all its seriousness and humour. You've got to laugh, else you'd cry.

I once heard about a meritocracy as an alternative to a democracy. I wonder, has any country every tried such a goverment? Checking its definition on the web returned "Britain is a meritocracy, and everyone with skill and imagination may aspire to reach the highest level". Well, it's not evident where comedians like Bozo, Liz Lettuce, the MP for the 18th century and Matt Hancock abound.

My friend Wikipedia says "Occasionally circumstances arise where normally opposing parties may find it desirable to form a government. One is a national crisis such as a war or depression, where people feel a need for national unity and stability that overcomes ordinary ideological differences"

Perhaps, as the current malaise deteriorates further, a coalition will come to pass. I certainly hope so. And while we're pondering all this, the planet burns, omg


----------



## IBmatty (8 Nov 2022)

Chris70 said:


> omg, I love this forum with all its seriousness and humour. You've got to laugh, else you'd cry.
> 
> I once heard about a meritocracy as an alternative to a democracy. I wonder, has any country every tried such a goverment? Checking its definition on the web returned "Britain is a meritocracy, and everyone with skill and imagination may aspire to reach the highest level". Well, it's not evident where comedians like Bozo, Liz Lettuce, the MP for the 18th century and Matt Hancock abound.
> 
> ...


All you need to know about democracy:


----------



## Scruples (8 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> We have left the EU.


And that is relevant because?


----------



## Jameshow (8 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> You'll never please everyone.
> What we really need is to dump the politicians and find a new system to 'govern' the uk.
> A lot of the time they dont explain their actions, presumably because we are all too dumb to understand?, but we all see through the lies, whether its tory, labour etc. They are no better than estate agents.
> 
> ...



If you can afford it I'd fix for 5 years I cannot see rates coming down much if at all. 

With inflation at 10% your payments are 10% less each year anyhow.


----------



## baldkev (8 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> If you can afford it I'd fix for 5 years I cannot see rates coming down much if at all.
> 
> With inflation at 10% your payments are 10% less each year anyhow.


Im not sure i get the inflation comment  my wages havent inflated, although being self employed i could try it on the next quote


----------



## Keith Cocker (8 Nov 2022)

Julie said:


> Hello Terry, whilst I too hate waste, I think your rather off hand comment about a deep recession hitting "some people" quite hard speaks volumes, the "Some People" you refer to are likely to go bankrupt trying to pay their mortgage and utility bills, they will not have money for presents for their children, or anything else to spare, and as for "Excess Food" lots of people will not have enough, never mind any excess, I think you ought to consider your words before speaking, and actually do some research on poverty, according to Shelter the national Homeless charity as many as 1 in 3 of us could be made homeless in the new year, so no, a deep recession and stringent austerity measures are not what is called for, a rapid change of Government is what is called for, a General Election, as is our democratic right, but one which the sitting tenants are continuing to deny us in the face of total loss of public confidence
> 
> I don't know you, or know anything about you, but your words suggest you have always been well provided for, and not had any real struggles in your life, I have worked hard all of mine, I have had a small business which failed due to the last recession, following that I have had a number of jobs including 25 years in retail, not a well paid profession, my partner is a former nurse who left the profession after much soul searching and a bout of severe depression following the near impossible demands placed on her and her colleagues by the pandemic, we have known hardship in our lives, my partner was at one time homeless too, and I have come close to it myself as a mortgage holder, so please don't be glib about these awful pressing issues, it does you no credit regards Julie


Thanks Julie. Well said.


----------



## Jameshow (8 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Im not sure i get the inflation comment  my wages havent inflated, although being self employed i could try it on the next quote


The actual value of your repayments is decreasing due to inflation. 

Also I think inflation is stubbornly high due to Ukraine war, fuel prices, cost of covid etc. 

But I'm not an economist!!


----------



## Keith Cocker (8 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I stand by the generalisation that as a society we are profligate and wasteful, and that a recession may promote more thoughtful consumption of the financially and environmentally destructive.


We are indeed. And no it won’t. It will just cause hardship and damage to a section of the population. Those most responsible will suffer least if at all. And when it’s “over” we will go back to our old ways until the “next one”.


----------



## sploo (8 Nov 2022)

Noel said:


> Helluva hot take that DW.


To be fair to DW (and the Scots); wasn't one of the arguments against the previous Scottish independence vote something along the lines of "if you leave the UK then you'll be out of the EU"... then a few years later we English voted to leave the EU and dragged the Scots (who voting majority remain) out anyway.

I'm not pro Scottish independence, but I couldn't exactly blame them for telling us to "something" off...


----------



## sploo (8 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> The actual value of your repayments is decreasing due to inflation.
> 
> Also I think inflation is stubbornly high due to Ukraine war, fuel prices, cost of covid etc.
> 
> But I'm not an economist!!


That kinda only works if your wage is also rising by the rate of inflation. But depending on your outstanding mortgage balance and interest rate it may not be true regardless (my mortgage repayment is nearly 30% higher now than it was at the start of the year; due to being on a tracker).


----------



## Jameshow (8 Nov 2022)

sploo said:


> That kinda only works if your wage is also rising by the rate of inflation. But depending on your outstanding mortgage balance and interest rate it may not be true regardless (my mortgage repayment is nearly 30% higher now than it was at the start of the year; due to being on a tracker).


Hence why you want to fix!!


----------



## John Brown (8 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> That's a "box score question".
> 
> as in "i'll tell you the answer after they do it".
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if you read what I wrote. There are folks on the left(you know, "commies"), who clamour for renationalisation of the utility companies. Their point is that the private utility companies are run for the benefit of the shareholders, added to which a lot of our utility companies are owned by nasty foreigners. My point is/was that, because of the way the energy market works these days, whereby you can buy your gas or electricity from anywhere(even though it comes through the same pipes/cables, and looks, smells and feels exactly the same - which is very confusing), a state owned utility company would have to be competitive, or it wouldn't get off the ground. So we don't have to renationalise the entire industry.
I don't personally know if a state run energy supplier, competing in the open market would work or not. I'm merely saying that it would only need a minimal cost experiment to find out.


----------



## sploo (8 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Hence why you want to fix!!


I guess it depends on whether the available fix rates are actually higher than your tracker (for me at the moment, probably yes). Granted that doesn't consider the future.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (8 Nov 2022)

There is no crystal ball which reliably indicates what will happen to interest rates in the future. 

The best estimate is the current market for loans of differing terms. This is what professionals trading in the money markets are betting on - whether you have any fondness for them as a breed is unimportant, but they are the best informed.

The real issue for individuals is about risk and affordability. There is no right answer as we all have a different circumstances and attitudes towards risk:

a tracker mortgage wholly exposes you to interest rate changes, but in principle should be the cheapest long term as this carries the biggest risks. Not my choice as I am risk averse.
fixing the mortgage eliminates risk. In simple economic terms the longer the fix, the more risk passes to the lender who will want to be compensated. They do not absorb risk for free.
 A 2 year deal would get past the next election, hopefully to the end of imminent recession, and inflation back under some sort of control. What happens then is a risk.
A 5+ year deal is a long term commitment - lots can change both in the wider economy and personal circumstances. The attraction is that risk is removed long term - but understand what it might cost if you needed to end the loan early.
If it is affordable, fixing the rate = no worries. 

My personal choice would be a 2 year deal. If rates increased significantly after that it would likely indicate a broken economic model. All bets on the fallout would be very difficult to anticipate - fall in house prices, negative equity, widespread inability to pay, unemployment, trashed exchange rate etc.


----------



## johna.clements (8 Nov 2022)

Scruples said:


> And that is relevant because?


Because we can no longer benfit from the EU's agreement about sending people back to safe countries in the EU. We voted to leave the EU and its agreements.


----------



## Jacob (8 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There is no crystal ball which reliably indicates what will happen to interest rates in the future.
> 
> The best estimate is the current market for loans of differing terms. This is what professionals trading in the money markets are betting on - whether you have any fondness for them as a breed is unimportant, but they are the best informed.
> 
> ...


No need for crystal balls - one way or another it needs tight state control so that that innocent non-speculating home buyers/occupiers will be secure. And also to constrain prices instead of the mad free-for-all disruption of the last 50 or more years, with our lives ruled by gamblers and profiteers.


----------



## evildrome (8 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> If you can afford it I'd fix for 5 years I cannot see rates coming down much if at all.
> 
> With inflation at 10% your payments are 10% less each year anyhow.



The Fed has overtightened and there is a severe Global recession coming. 

CB's are gagging to get back to doing QE. I think rates will be back to 2% within 18 months.


----------



## Jameshow (8 Nov 2022)

evildrome said:


> The Fed has overtightened and there is a severe Global recession coming.
> 
> CB's are gagging to get back to doing QE. I think rates will be back to 2% within 18 months.
> 
> View attachment 146771


I think in 2 years time we will be at 5% inflation and 5% interest rates. 

According to economist mystic meg this morning!!


----------



## Thingybob (8 Nov 2022)

What gets me is as commodities rise in price companys will hold Sales so they sell more and tell us they are helping with the cost of living , Be ready for pre/post Christmas /January/2023 Sales any name they can think of to get us back in store or online they wont disapear just come back rebranded re owned ready to take our cash its a cycle


----------



## Terry - Somerset (8 Nov 2022)

> No need for crystal balls - one way or another it needs tight state control so that that innocent non-speculating home buyers/occupiers will be secure. And also to constrain prices instead of the mad free-for-all disruption of the last 50 or more years, with our lives ruled by gamblers and profiteers.


This betrays a touching belief in the competence of the state - not one I can subscribe to.

They have proven incapable of properly regulating the private sector where effective regulation is clearly of social benefit - eg: banking, energy, communications, building standards etc etc etc.

Examples of state control consistently improving the wealth and health of a society are somewhat hard to find. Perhaps I am no looking hard enough! 

Or perhaps they don't exist - the two traditional large socialist proponents (China and USSR) failed to eliminate poverty and inequality. One has now evolved into a dominant market economy and the other a corrupt and violent dictatorship.


----------



## Jacob (8 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> This betrays a touching belief in the competence of the state - not one I can subscribe to.


It's all we have, there is no alternative.


Terry - Somerset said:


> They have proven incapable of properly regulating the private sector where effective regulation is clearly of social benefit - eg: banking, energy, communications, building standards etc etc etc.


Were doing fine but these things have steadily been eroded by free market idealogues. Grenfell Tower a good example of what happens when building control is dispersed and privatised.


Terry - Somerset said:


> Examples of state control consistently improving the wealth and health of a society are somewhat hard to find. Perhaps I am no looking hard enough!


You are not looking at all.
Think of NHS, state education, state sponsorship, investment, development support, infrastructure across the board


Terry - Somerset said:


> Or perhaps they don't exist - the two traditional large socialist proponents (China and USSR) failed to eliminate poverty and inequality.


Which non-socialist state has achieved either of these?


Terry - Somerset said:


> One has now evolved into a dominant market economy and the other a corrupt and violent dictatorship.


"Socialist" is just a word, China and USSR obviously doing very different things. Fall of communism unfortunately arrived with the rise of fundamentalist free-market theories, so Russia was effed over twice;* Gorbachev was being advised by Thatcher and Reagan!   What a tragic wasted opportunity; one deranged ideology replaced by one possibly worse!
*PS or three times if you count the empire.
n.b. if you adopt a loose but sensible description of "socialism" then it's apparent that all modern economies are "socialist" to a large extent. Wouldn't work otherwise.
_"24 Aug 2022 — The government of the United Kingdom's total managed expenditure as a share of gross domestic product was 44.6 percent" UK government spending as a share of GDP 2022 | Statista_


----------



## D_W (8 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> I'm not sure if you read what I wrote. There are folks on the left(you know, "commies"), who clamour for renationalisation of the utility companies. Their point is that the private utility companies are run for the benefit of the shareholders, added to which a lot of our utility companies are owned by nasty foreigners. My point is/was that, because of the way the energy market works these days, whereby you can buy your gas or electricity from anywhere(even though it comes through the same pipes/cables, and looks, smells and feels exactly the same - which is very confusing), a state owned utility company would have to be competitive, or it wouldn't get off the ground. So we don't have to renationalise the entire industry.
> I don't personally know if a state run energy supplier, competing in the open market would work or not. I'm merely saying that it would only need a minimal cost experiment to find out.



I get all of that. The co-ops operate in the same environment here. Utilities have been "deregulated" leaving a supplier able to provide you with the power based on their grid control, but they have to file with the utility commission. Aside from that, you can shop around or use the distribution's default generation source. Where I live, the default is owned by a sister company - which is the remnants of what used to be the local "you got no choice" utility. 

Subjectively, separating the two led to flat costs for a while as the utilities had gotten pretty lax, and also realized at the same time that if they increased costs, their regulated margin would be a bigger nominal amount. Increasing costs means spending money on equipment, structures as well as offering and enormous menu of benefits to employees that aren't generally available in the private sector. 

Costs for all utilities are going up due to compliance and replacement, though. Electric less so than others like Sewer and Water. Environmental compliance for water and sewer has tripled rates. 

which brings me to a point - when the government is the only player, there's nobody to really lobby hard about adding more and more red tape. There is bureaucracy, of course. But once the government becomes a regulator of various businesses, they lose "that's too many rules" sense that they had when they were the generator and distributor with no choice. I don't know how well they would do in a new stand-in if they were subjected to the same amount of scrutiny now, lawsuits, etc. public power generation here wasn't the cleanest thing in the world, but since it was a public utility at that point, people sort of looked away. Power generation here now is extremely clean compared to what it was just 20 years ago. I have asthma, it's mild, but could tell the difference when all of the coal plants in the valley west of me (for a couple of hundred miles) suddenly got mothballed due to cheap natural gas.


----------



## D_W (8 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> Which non-socialist state has achieved either of these?



None - you will never have a society where some people don't mind being poor. One of my dad's brothers seems to enjoy it, he chose it as a career as a rational choice and based on the way he likes to operate, I can't say he's that irrational. 

Too, if you take someone who lives reasonably well in a socialist state on relative terms and call them not poor, but take someone who lives twice as well in a crony capitalist society and call them poor, of course you won't eliminate poverty. 

Plus, you have the opportunity, like Cuba or Venezuela, to blame someone else as long as you can stay in power doing so.


----------



## Jester129 (9 Nov 2022)

In 2 years or thereabouts there will be an election. If Labour wins, then inflation will go up. Fix your rate for 5 years at least.


----------



## Keith Cocker (9 Nov 2022)




----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2022)

Jester129 said:


> In 2 years or thereabouts there will be an election. If Labour wins, then inflation will go up. Fix your rate for 5 years at least.


Inflation is good news for mortgages and other forms of debt, as long as your income is index linked or otherwise also inflating. It means the real value of the debt is falling and is easier to repay.
So if Labour causes inflation and you are in debt then make sure you vote Labour!
It's easy to forget that "economics" as a subject is largely created by the better off and is about how to preserve/increase their wealth.
It's a different picture if you aren't one of them yourself, and more concerned with reducing your debts.
PS My parents I recall always talked nervously of "being in the red" (in debt) until some time in the early 60s they suddenly realised that they could pay off their little mortgage. I don't know who they credited but it was inflation what dunnit.


----------



## Mark65 (9 Nov 2022)

Deleted


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2022)

Mark65 said:


> I can't understand why as soon as they land on the beach they are not put back on a ferry straight away and returned to France, the French are laughing all the way to the bank.


It's called a "humanitarian" issue.
Tells you all about it here: Humanitarianism - Wikipedia hope that helps.


Mark65 said:


> Sooner or later the spineless government will just let them stay, labour would be a hundred times worse, we have an East euro car wash near my house, do you think the bloke that runs it is paying his workers minimum wage or paying what taxes he should, I doubt it, it will come to a head sooner or later and the dung may just hit the fan.


It's come to a head already and we are suffering the consequences of shortage of labour at all levels of skill.
And as far as the immigrants are concerned the dung has already hit the fan back home and that is why they are here instead.
The trouble is - as life gets more difficult the angry brigade tend to get even angrier and more irrational.


----------



## Jameshow (9 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> It's called a "humanitarian" issue.
> Tells you all about it here: Humanitarianism - Wikipedia hope that helps.
> 
> It's come to a head already and we are suffering the consequences of shortage of labour at all levels of skill.
> ...


Did you not say earlier unemployment would rise?!! 
Either you have a labour shortage or you have unemployment?!


----------



## Jameshow (9 Nov 2022)

Keith Cocker said:


> View attachment 146837


Tony Blair came to power in 1997. 

Free tuition came to end in 1998 

PFI started in late 1990's

Internal market was promoted by Blair...






NHS internal market - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Did you not say earlier unemployment would rise?!!


er - no? Not that I can recall.


Jameshow said:


> Either you have a labour shortage or you have unemployment?!


We have a labour shortage and record low unemployment. Most visibly in the NHS (UK's largest employer) but also elsewhere.


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Tony Blair came to power in 1997.
> 
> Free tuition came in 1998


You mean student loans. Tuition got more expensive.


Jameshow said:


> PFI started in late 1990's
> 
> Internal market was promoted by Blair...
> 
> ...


Yep. Blair was a big let down and all hot air.


----------



## Jameshow (9 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> You mean student loans. Tuition got more expensive.
> 
> Yep. Blair was a big let down and all hot air.


Sorry to end .


----------



## Mark65 (9 Nov 2022)

not worth going over


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> ......
> The trouble is - as life gets more difficult the angry brigade tend to get even angrier and more irrational.


Forget to add: ... and then the craziest of the crazies gets spurred into action; Jo Cox murder, or fire bomb in immigration centre. Then there may be a pause for thought!


----------



## D_W (9 Nov 2022)

Reality with the NHS and other programs that were "free" not being as easy to do now has a whole lot more to do with utilization and cost than it does sneaky thieves taking away all that's good from the "working people", which is a strange label itself. 

Statista's summary site here shows NHS as 5% of GDP in 1980. 12% currently. 10% prior to the collapse of GDP in the UK, so costs effectively doubled even before considering the current economy-shrink spiral. 

5% of GDP isn't "nothing". It's the product of end users being more comfortable seeking health care and no complementary utilization management to stop it. 

it does dovetail well with the "yes, someone else should pay the extra 5%" mentality, though.


----------



## D_W (9 Nov 2022)

in 1980, 15% of the population enrolled in full time education after age 18

That figure is currently 38%. 

Is that inconvenient to talk about? Who took the money, the 23% more who are going to school instead of working?

Who owes the money to everyone? "someone else" who isn't going to college or isn't a stakeholder?


----------



## johna.clements (9 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> Reality with the NHS and other programs that were "free" not being as easy to do now has a whole lot more to do with utilization and cost than it does sneaky thieves taking away all that's good from the "working people", which is a strange label itself.
> 
> Statista's summary site here shows NHS as 5% of GDP in 1980. 12% currently. 10% prior to the collapse of GDP in the UK, so costs effectively doubled even before considering the current economy-shrink spiral.
> 
> ...


Statista shows that the USA spent 8.9% of GDP on health care in 1980. Whilst the UK was 5.1%.

The US spent 75% more as a percentage of GDP than the UK in 1980.

In 2019 (expenditure jumped in 2020 for some reason) the USA spent 17.6% and the UK spent 9.9% of GDP on health care. 

The US spent 77% more as a percentage of GDP than the UK in 2019.









U.S. health expenditure as GDP share 1960-2020 | Statista


In 2020, U.S.




www.statista.com













Healthcare expenditure as share of GDP UK 2021 | Statista


Healthcare spending in the United Kingdom (UK) as a share of the gross domestic product (GDP) has increased since 1990, where it was 5.1 percent.




www.statista.com





Life expectancy in the USA is 79.1 in the UK it is 81.8 years.

The USA pays 75% more to live nearly three fewer years.


----------



## D_W (9 Nov 2022)

Johna - are you trying to avoid why care may not be free and university may not be free?

We have a problem in my opinion, in the US. People like to go to get health care for things they caused themselves (obesity, etc, poor sleep habits, whatever it may be). The health care system doesn't mind seeing those patients if they come through the door and pay, or the government pays on their behalf.

The quality of care here is better than the quality of care there.

The average health of the patients outside of the healthcare system isn't.

You worked hard to avoid the actual topic here, and your statistic implying that health care in the UK is the cause for the difference in life expectancy is errant. For example, california, new york and hawaii all have higher life expectancies than the UK.

Both New York and California have higher obesity rates, and in combination, substantially vs. the UK, but higher life expectancies.

Hawaii has a very low obesity rate for the states, slightly lower than the UK, but a life expectancy 1.5 years longer.

You could answer the original implied question, though - health care spending on a nominal basis due to the difference in GDP share is up somewhere around 300 billion. Should you just "get it from the rich"? (anyone who is of higher means than the person being surveyed?)

University stats are a little less easy to quantify. googler says 43 billion pounds of spending on higher education (public funds). What share of that covers the 2 1/2 times as large crowd as 1980, anyone know?

Let's say that in the end, the additional funds needed would be another 50 billion pounds for "Free for all" university.

Who is the gatekeeper given the enrollment has already more than doubled and quite a lot of the enrollees probably do not improve society by going?

We are now up to total "should be free" costs increasing to somewhere around 10% of the whole GDP. Not as a share of the GDP, that's just the increase.

Maybe some of the cost should be laid on the people creating those costs.

maybe when someone puts a political poster up claiming things have been taken away, they should include some information about what's more likely - the nominal government amount paid on behalf of citizens for both health care and university subsidies is probably higher than it's ever been. The takers are just getting too good at taking and not good enough at making.


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Statista shows that the USA spent 8.9% of GDP on health care in 1980. Whilst the UK was 5.1%.
> 
> The US spent 75% more as a percentage of GDP than the UK in 1980.
> 
> ...


_"It is important to state that Americans do not pay more because they have a higher health care utilization, but mainly because of higher prices."_

Yep it's well known that USA public (i.e. free, not private) health expenditure is much more expensive and less cost effective than UK's . 
We are going the USA way here, lower state funding, hence longer waiting lists and a slowly declining quality of health service as more is given over to private industry.
USA system is really complicated Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia


----------



## johna.clements (9 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> Johna - are you trying to avoid why care may not be free and university may not be free?
> 
> We have a problem in my opinion, in the US. People like to go to get health care for things they caused themselves (obesity, etc, poor sleep habits, whatever it may be). The health care system doesn't mind seeing those patients if they come through the door and pay, or the government pays on their behalf.
> 
> ...


I don't know anyone who thinks that health care or education is free. It is paid with tax or you pay direct.


----------



## D_W (9 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> I don't know anyone who thinks that health care or education is free. It is paid with tax or you pay direct.



Both are some of each here. The picture posted talked about subsidized buses, no cost health care, no tuition university. 

The issue with socialized benefits isn't that they're not efficient. It's that if there isn't a gate determining who gets them and how much, they don't age well as utilization goes up. 

We have the opposite problem in the US - the system is more open and can expand quickly. If people decide they want to blow 17% of the GDP on health care, it will happily comply. 

I'm not pleased with this, but because it is regional, it's not like there is an NHS-like system that I could participate in, or I would do it. Sticking to my story on the life expectancy thing - (past a point, I think it has no effect on life expectancy, or at least not a significant one, and that point is most socialized systems - we pay for convenience and customer preening here). The real issue in the US is disregard for doing healthy things in some regions. I mentioned the life expectancies in california and hawaii and NY. 

if I looked for alabama or mississippi, I'm sure I could find life expectancies 3 or 5 years lower than the UK. There is a lot of health care in those places, but the lifestyle cancels it out and then some, and the folks who live there wear it like a badge. "we'll show you by living unhealthy and showing you we can do whatever we want".


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> I don't know anyone who thinks that health care or education is free. It is paid with tax or you pay direct.


Those in USA who can afford the best get the best, but 35 million americans get worse than UK New Reports Show Record 35 Million People Enrolled in Coverage Related to the Affordable Care Act, with Historic 21 Million People Enrolled in Medicaid Expansion Coverage

I found this out myself when I had a quad tendon rupture. It's a big issue especially with sports and out door activities and delay in treatment beyond 24 hours gets critical to a good recovery. There was a US web page chat group. Lots of them were moaning about the problems of getting treated, then about getting secondary treatment to counter the delays and inadequacies first time around, bills, insurances, poor recoveries, permanent disability etc etc
OTOH I was picked up by ambulance in heavy snow, driven off in bad weather to nearest accessible hospital, operated on within 24 hours, fitted with splints, crutches, medicines, other aids supplied and returned home two days later. 6 months of follow up with adjustments to splints etc etc.
As good as you can get and money, insurance, not mentioned once.
My only complaints were that they kept waking me up to see if I was OK and offering me cups of tea (free). The breakfast (free) was a bit cr-ap.


----------



## johna.clements (9 Nov 2022)

In the USA the state with the best life expectancy is Hawaii at 82.3 years Democrat
2nd California 81.7 Democrat
3rd New York 81.4 Democrat
4th Minnesota 80.9 Democrat
5th Connecticut 80.9 Democrat

46th Arkansas 76.0 Republican
47th Kentucky 75.6 Republican
48th Alabama 75.5 Republican
49th Mississippi 74.9 Republican
50th West Virginia 74.8 Republican


----------



## John Brown (9 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> In the USA the state with the best life expectancy is Hawaii at 82.3 years Democrat
> 2nd California 81.7 Democrat
> 3rd New York 81.4 Democrat
> 4th Minnesota 80.9 Democrat
> ...


That's interesting, as Hawaii is apparently the most Democrat state in the USA as well.


----------



## johna.clements (9 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> That's interesting, as Hawaii is apparently the most Democrat state in the USA as well.


I was not expecting it to be so one or two sided.

I am aware that Democrat states are generally richer which helps with health. I would assume that the Democrats have programs that boost general health but that is just a guess.


----------



## D_W (9 Nov 2022)

John Brown said:


> That's interesting, as Hawaii is apparently the most Democrat state in the USA as well.



hawaii has a very low obesity rate. California is a very high income state and so is NY. 

life expectancy parallels with income, so NYC and the burbs with sky high income will correlate with longer living (and generally people who are wealthier got there because they make better choices than people who are not). 

I don't know enough about Hawaii to know what the income level is, but the obesity rate is lower there than a lot of countries, and for the US, we know that's not normal. 

Too, they have some native populations with very high obesity rates (hawaii does), so the remainder of the population must be ultra fit compared to the US. 

California and NY are "plenty fat", though i believe NY probably thanks to NYC and people wanting to be seen by each other, less fat. 

Urbanized population probably also correlates highly with utilization of medicine. 

If you took regions (especially suburban) that are highly republican, you'd find they live just as long. When you toss in rural and especially rural lower income areas, you're going to find lower life expectancy and especially more people who boast about things like "I haven't seen a doctor in 40 years".


----------



## D_W (9 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> I was not expecting it to be so one or two sided.
> 
> I am aware that Democrat states are generally richer which helps with health. I would assume that the Democrats have programs that boost general health but that is just a guess.



They're urbanized - the health care isn't different, but there may be (are) more local options. You're more or less comparing two areas, One is a financial and corporate center, and the other is the corporate center of tech. 

I doubt either has anything to do with party affiliation. 

It may be a surprise, but low income low or no cost health care is pretty much universal in the US. Getting people to use it isn't always that easy, though. 

We have a term in rural areas (if I said I grew up rural compared to the south, that would be false, but I grew up rural compared to city suburban). "mailbox liberals". 

A lot of people who call themselves conservative are mailbox liberals: They talk like republicans and go to the mailbox hoping for a check from the government.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (9 Nov 2022)

Criticism without objectivity is easy - it just puts personal preconceptions ahead of reality.

Public spending as a % of GDP increased from ~37% during the Thatcher era to ~46% at the end of the Blair/brown period. Tory austerity reduced this to ~40% pre-covid but now stands at ~45%. 

Claims that public spending has been slashed is nonsense - expectations may have increased, services become more poorly managed, or ££bn more wasted, or needs changed etc. Objectivity desperately needed before solutions can be resolved. Knee jerk higher taxes are not a solution.

The NHS needs to be subjected to similar scrutiny - healthcare spending has increased from~5% of GDP to ~8% pre covid. Have expectations increased at a faster rate than actual spend, or is the problem management or admin, or integration of social and health care. Writing out bigger cheques delays a solution - it cannot fix the problem if we don't know what the problem is

Comparisons of healthcare across Europe suggest that (a) the performance of the UK is about average (better in some specialisms, worse in others), (b) the UK spends average amounts of GDP on healthcare, and (c) the funding method makes little difference to performance - NHS (free at the point of us, social insurance, contribution to individual healthcare costs etc. 

So what is the problem - poor management, lack of integration of social care, increasing expectations, greater diversity of treatments etc.

Similar observations and questions can be raised on other key areas of public spending - education, defence, law and order etc. 

Or is the real problem that the aggregate of expectations is simply unaffordable. We are simply not productive enough to make all aspirations a reality.

Far greater objectivity is needed and very clear priorities agreed. Simply complaining about how inequitable or unfair it is actually sets resolution back as it gives preference to those who can argue their case most seductively, not those addressing critical needs.


----------



## IBmatty (9 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> I was not expecting it to be so one or two sided.
> 
> I am aware that Democrat states are generally richer which helps with health. I would assume that the Democrats have programs that boost general health but that is just a guess.


It’s more complex than that. Demographics for instance as the top states have higher hispanic/asian/pacific island populations who in the US have significantly higher life expectancy than whites and african-american.


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Criticism without objectivity is easy - it just puts personal preconceptions ahead of reality.
> 
> Public spending as a % of GDP increased from ~37% during the Thatcher era to ~46% at the end of the Blair/brown period. Tory austerity reduced this to ~40% pre-covid but now stands at ~45%.
> 
> ...











Pay of FTSE 100 chief executives rose an average of 23% in 2022


Campaigners and TUC say rise to almost £4m is unjustifiable during cost of living crisis




www.theguardian.com


----------



## RobinBHM (9 Nov 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Comparisons of healthcare across Europe suggest that (a) the performance of the UK is about average (better in some specialisms, worse in others), (b) the UK spends average amounts of GDP on healthcare, and (c) the funding method makes little difference to performance - NHS (free at the point of us, social insurance, contribution to individual healthcare costs etc



NHS is quite good value in terms of spend per capita and services offered.

however compared to the best European health service systems, like Germany, France, Italy, NHS funding is well behind.

Germany has way better metrics than NHS, much higher nurses, doctors, beds per capita etc.


----------



## johna.clements (9 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> They're urbanized - the health care isn't different, but there may be (are) more local options. You're more or less comparing two areas, One is a financial and corporate center, and the other is the corporate center of tech.
> 
> I doubt either has anything to do with party affiliation.
> 
> ...


Lets look at West Virginia the US state with the lowest life expectancy.

All counties voted for Trump in 2020 so this is by who much the majority was ignoring others.

1st Pendleton County male life expectancy 77.7 years 54% majority
2nd Monongalia 77.2 - 1% majority for Trump
3rd Tucker 76.2 - 50%
4th Grant 76.1 - 77%
5th Jefferson 75.6 11%
.....
.....
51st Wyoming 70.3 years male life expectancy 72%
52nd Boone 70.1 - 53% majority for Trump
53rd Logan 69.5 - 63%
54th Mingo 68.5 - 71.3%
55th McDowell 67.0 - 59%

Not as clear cut as nationally but it looks like there is some correlation between voting Democrat and living longer.



https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/west-virginia










WEST VIRGINIA MALE LIFE EXPECTANCY BY COUNTY


See the gap in Male Life Expectancy between West Virginia counties. This hard to find data adds perspective to health research within each State.




www.worldlifeexpectancy.com





Monongalia county which nearly went for Biden has a University and some pharmaceutical type industry. 

The low life expectancy counties are in the south of the state, I assume more up in the Appalachians but I have not checked. 


Generally more educated people are more left leaning. They will leave rural area and head for places with better paying jobs. The rural area will be left with less educated people who are generally more right leaning. People also get more right leaning as they age, so areas with an older population will be more to the right.









America Is Divided by Education


The gulf between the party identification of white voters with college degrees and those without is growing rapidly. Trump is widening it.




www.theatlantic.com





The health care that is provided is not the only influence on health. Lifestyle and social measures are likely to be a bigger factor. It is striking that the people who were against financially neutral measures against covid, such as masks, tended to be from the right.


----------



## D_W (9 Nov 2022)

I'm not sure why you think there's some tie in to WV being republican and life expectancy. It's a poor state with many areas very poor and a lot of people with issues above and beyond obesity. 

If you could imagine, it's an area where you can live and not get any television signal or cell phone signal. There is at least one large generic pharma company there, though, and parts of the states with universities have robust health care, as do outlying areas. Getting people to live in a way that will make it make a difference in really rural areas is a challenge, though, and the heritage of the state before switching to natural gas was coal mining. 

One of the things that's always baffled me as an independent is why people think it's "smarter" to be liberal, or why people who are poor think it's smarter to be republican. the lack of independent thinking among academics, and the peer pressure to be liberal is just as strong as the pressure to be conservative in some rural areas. It's dumb on both sides. 

I doubt there's much correlation between masks and excess mortality. We had the opportunity at the beginning to educate people on wearing maks that would fit well enough and filter well enough to make a difference, but the CDC lied to people about it and then set everyone about with cloth masks. 

It was stupidity, and I'm sure it cost lives. I followed the rules and didn't make a stink just like most people did, but it was a farce. sit in a room with droplets in the air with a cloth mask and you're getting covid. I had N95 masks for any times they were really needed and opted to stay out of places where droplets would be suspended while people who don't understand much (i guess?) stood in stale air "I have a mask and we're six feet apart!". 

When I hear people talk about who did and didn't wear masks, it reminds me of california, who has the same excess mortality as florida over the last three years. In PA where people are fatter and half of the state is anti mask, our excess mortality is lower.


----------



## D_W (9 Nov 2022)

IBmatty said:


> It’s more complex than that. Demographics for instance as the top states have higher hispanic/asian/pacific island populations who in the US have significantly higher life expectancy than whites and african-american.



Hispanic populations generally have higher obesity and lower life expectancy. Caucasian life expectancy is higher than average. 

I'm sure the asian population has better mortality data than caucasians, though - some of my relatives are Chinese. they pat my belly (at 210 pounds) and say to me "I'm worried about you". it's far less acceptable to be overweight or unhealthy for any reason other than working hard.


----------



## johna.clements (10 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> I'm not sure why you think there's some tie in to WV being republican and life expectancy. It's a poor state with many areas very poor and a lot of people with issues above and beyond obesity.
> 
> If you could imagine, it's an area where you can live and not get any television signal or cell phone signal. There is at least one large generic pharma company there, though, and parts of the states with universities have robust health care, as do outlying areas. Getting people to live in a way that will make it make a difference in really rural areas is a challenge, though, and the heritage of the state before switching to natural gas was coal mining.
> 
> ...



West Virginia has the second lowest average (median) income in the USA. $49.202 and $67,340 respectively.

Here are the average (median) income figures added

1st Pendleton County male life expectancy 77.7 years 54% majority $41K 28th
2nd Monongalia 77.2 - 1% majority for Trump $50k 5th
3rd Tucker 76.2 - 50% $46k 17th
4th Grant 76.1 - 77% $41k 29th
5th Jefferson 75.6 11% $77k 1st
.....
.....
51st Wyoming 70.3 years male life expectancy 72% $40k 35th
52nd Boone 70.1 - 53% majority for Trump $39k 44th
53rd Logan 69.5 - 63% $38k 47th
54th Mingo 68.5 - 71.3% $31k 54th
55th McDowell 67.0 - 59% $27k 55th

The counties with a higher income have a higher life expectancy. Higher income, in a county, also appears correspond to not voting for Trump. 

As I note people with higher education will tend to leave poor areas and move to richer areas where they can make more money. I did not think you would dispute this. 

I take it that you accept that many educated people are more liberal even though you are baffled by it.

When the more educated people leave an area they take with them the potential to make the place richer. 

The Republican and low life expectancy correlation is most likely a bit of chicken and egg.


----------



## D_W (10 Nov 2022)

I think you're confusing my saying that i think it's dippy with me saying that there isn't a cohort. There are two groups that are very liberal (both of my parents were teachers) - academia, and teachers. How liberal the rest of society is away from that, I'm not sure. 

I've worked for 22+ years now in a business environment and have noticed more politically liberal people who are like the photographic negative of the mailbox liberals than I'd known would exist. Actually, coming from a rural area, I hadn't met too many of these types. 40% of the population where I grew up was liberal, but it tended to be government employees, college employees and teachers. 

The photographic negative part is that I'm convinced the well-to-do types who call themselves liberal and behave nothing like it at all do so because it's a social norm to call themselves a liberal. Especially if they live in one of the well to do urban neighborhoods instead of the suburbs. This may be difficult to understand (the greedy liberals) if you haven't worked in an office environment. 

In the US, we generally don't talk politics at work. I definitely don't as I tend to irritate both sides and can't help myself when someone offers an opinion that seems like an easy target. 

I could be wrong about the well to do urban liberal types, too - they may literally think one set of rules applies to everyone else with their ideals, and then justification is good for them. Same as the mailbox liberal (for anyone not reading the prior posts, the mailbox liberal is a republican happy to collect a government check from their mailbox).


----------



## IBmatty (10 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> Hispanic populations generally have higher obesity and lower life expectancy. Caucasian life expectancy is higher than average.
> 
> I'm sure the asian population has better mortality data than caucasians, though - some of my relatives are Chinese. they pat my belly (at 210 pounds) and say to me "I'm worried about you". it's far less acceptable to be overweight or unhealthy for any reason other than working hard.


According to the CDC, hispanics have had the best life expectancy since the 1970’s though it’s a well known paradox due to the propensity to on average carry more weight.


----------



## Chris70 (10 Nov 2022)

Whoa, guys. Haven't you gone a bit off topic, now talking about obesity in the good ol' US of A. I thought this was about "Mortgage Rates/Interest etc", or is this the &cetera?


----------



## ian33a (10 Nov 2022)

Chris70 said:


> Whoa, guys. Haven't you gone a bit off topic, now talking about obesity in the good ol' US of A. I thought this was about "Mortgage Rates/Interest etc", or is this the &cetera?



It only dips into mortgages and interest rates because Kev keeps going off topic. We've tried to warn him


----------



## Jameshow (10 Nov 2022)

He's too busy playing with his digger to care!


----------



## evildrome (10 Nov 2022)

I'm rubbish at woodwork but have been studying macro-economics for 5 years. In particular, government finance & banking.

Now I'm going to tell you some things you are not going to like.

Are we sitting comfortably? Then I will begin.


1) *When banks lend you money, they create it. *

Billy buys a house from Johnny for £120k.

Billy & Johnny both bank at the Nat West.

Billy borrows £120k from the Nat West. (Nat West create a debit account for £120k and a credit account for £120k, note that the sum is ZERO)

Billy pays Johnny £120k.

The Nat West are now even (they lent £120k and got back £120k) but they now have Billy's mortgage upon which he pays 5% interest.

So Billy is going to pay them 5% for 20 years on £120k the Nat West conjured out of double entry book keeping.


So, you will ask, what if Billy and Johnny had different banks?


The banks only have to borrow settlement funds. Many transactions pass between, for example, LLoyds and the Nat West.

Lets say on Monday, for mortgages, the Nat West pays LLoyds £130m and Lloyds pay the Nay West £120m.

Lloyds needs to borrow £10m for a day from other banks at the LIBOR (interbank lending rate).

But that payment is peanuts compared to the interest on the £120m that Lloyds created out of thin air.









2) *When banks pay you interest, government actually pays the interest.*

Lets say you've got a bank. Billy comes and deposits £100k at your bank.

You run out and buy £100k of 10 year Gilts paying 4.25%.

You pay Billy 2% a year and trouser the difference.

Sweeeeet !


3) *Gilts have no purpose other than giving free money to banks.*

When government wants to spend it instructs the Exchequer to instruct the BOE to credit the reserve account of the payee's bank.

That banks then credits the deposit account of the payee.

This is how all governments spend. Reserve creation by central banks is "ex novo" i.e. out of thin air.

No Fiat currency government borrows in its own currency. That's retarded. Does the umpire borrow points from the players?







But don't governments have "debt"? Well, sort of.  All money is debt.

Take a piece of paper, draw a line down the middle.

Write "One pound" on one side and "I owe One pound" on the other.

Tear down the line. Spend the bit of paper with "One pound" written on it into the economy and put the bit with "I owe One pound" in a drawer labelled "National Debt".

Congratulations! You have just created money, spent it and are now running a deficit.

For every pound that exists there is a pound of “national debt”.

So you can see that every pound of “national debt” is the counterpart of every pound created.

*Every public liability is a private asset. *

The "National debt" is just the sum total of a country's currency which has been issued and not yet taxed back.

This is why the USA & China have huge "national debts" because their citizens have huge amounts of money.



4) *Tax pays for nothing. All tax is destroyed.*


If the UK stopped taking in tax tomorrow, could it continue to make all payments required of it?

The answer, clearly, is yes. It is a Fiat currency government & it can simply create as much money as it likes.

However, while it would be *mechanically* possible for the UK to simply print all the money it needs, there would be dire financial repercussions.

Namely inflation.

Therefore the purpose of taxation is?

Come on! Strain those mental muscles! The purpose of taxation is?

Its….

Its….

*The control of inflation.*


Taxation is there to sink money out of the economy.

Even if government wanted to spend it they couldn’t or they’d negate the very purpose of collecting it in the first place.

Don't believe me? Go and look at the UK's tax take as a percentage of GDP. Its about 33% and has been since 1950.

Which seems odd doesn't it given some of the exception line items we've had in the last 70 years.

We all remember that special tax we paid for:

Korea

Argentina

Iraq

Afghanistan

The Bankster's bailout


There were no 'special taxes' and tax did not rise to pay for anything because tax pays for nothing.

It is not its purpose.


----------



## Jacob (10 Nov 2022)

evildrome said:


> I'm rubbish at woodwork but have been studying macro-economics for 5 years. In particular, government finance & banking.
> 
> Now I'm going to tell you some things you are not going to like.
> 
> ...


So, what?


----------



## johna.clements (10 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> West Virginia has the second lowest average (median) income in the USA. $49.202 and $67,340 respectively.
> 
> ....
> 
> The Republican and low life expectancy correlation is most likely a bit of chicken and egg.





D_W said:


> I think you're confusing my saying that i think it's dippy with me saying that there isn't a cohort. There are two groups that are very liberal (both of my parents were teachers) - academia, and teachers. How liberal the rest of society is away from that, I'm not sure.
> 
> I've worked for 22+ years now in a business environment and have noticed more politically liberal people who are like the photographic negative of the mailbox liberals than I'd known would exist. Actually, coming from a rural area, I hadn't met too many of these types. 40% of the population where I grew up was liberal, but it tended to be government employees, college employees and teachers.
> 
> ...


Despite the pretend liberals in wealthy areas there appears to be a tendency to vote Democrat.

If the only jobs for more educated people in rural areas "tended to be government employees, college employees and teachers" then the people who are not suited or want to do those jobs will leave, generally to a more wealthy area.


----------



## D_W (10 Nov 2022)

Chris70 said:


> Whoa, guys. Haven't you gone a bit off topic, now talking about obesity in the good ol' US of A. I thought this was about "Mortgage Rates/Interest etc", or is this the &cetera?



Mortgage rates are overweight.


----------



## johna.clements (10 Nov 2022)

Mortgage rates are going to go higher then they will fall.


----------



## John Brown (10 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Mortgage rates are going to go higher then they will fall.


Or vice versa.


----------



## Thingybob (10 Nov 2022)

Chris70 said:


> Whoa, guys. Haven't you gone a bit off topic, now talking about obesity in the good ol' US of A. I thought this was about "Mortgage Rates/Interest etc", or is this the &cetera?


All subjects in the world will be aired before this thread ends . Im waiting avidly for UFO s


----------



## D_W (10 Nov 2022)

Thingybob said:


> All subjects in the world will be aired before this thread ends . Im waiting avidly for UFO s



say something rude to your wife, and you'll see them in person!


----------



## Thingybob (10 Nov 2022)

D_W said:


> say something rude to your wife, and you'll see them in person!


???????


----------



## sploo (10 Nov 2022)

Thingybob said:


> ???????


Unidentified Flying Object. Likely a frying pan or rolling pin.


----------



## Thingybob (10 Nov 2022)

sploo said:


> Unidentified Flying Object. Likely a frying pan or rolling pin.


Not in our house i can identify every thing she throws at me from the sound it makes on contact


----------



## johna.clements (10 Nov 2022)

A confirmed UFO sighting or more likely conformation of life on another planet around another star would certainly effect the money markets. 

Would people be scarred take out all their money and buy top of the range sharpening kit. Sharp tools may be needed. That would cause inflation which would be countered by higher interest rate.

Or would we all pull together and cooperate more. Share our honing devices. That may result in lower inflation and so lower interest rates.


----------



## evildrome (10 Nov 2022)

Jacob said:


> So, what?



I dunno... maybe you think its cool & normal that governments provide free money for banks to pay depositors interest and when they lend they create the money (for free) to lend to you at interest.

Personally I find that disturbing AF.

And you'll also not be bothered that the government is raising tax when:

A) It has no need to do so.

B) It will certainly cause a recession.

And the lying.... they're just lying to us about how government finance works. 

I know we all expect governments to lie but Jesus...

Its not a little white lie either... people will die. People have died.


----------



## Jacob (10 Nov 2022)

evildrome said:


> I dunno... maybe you think its cool & normal that governments provide free money for banks to pay depositors interest and when they lend they create the money (for free) to lend to you at interest.
> 
> Personally I find that disturbing AF.
> 
> ...


Is this "Modern Monetary Theory"? I've heard about it but haven't tried bending my brain around it yet!
My favourite radical theory so far is Gary Stevensons's. What do you think of this? The Plan Is to Make You Permanently Poorer | Aaron Meets Gary Stevenson | Novara Media


----------



## baldkev (10 Nov 2022)

Jameshow said:


> He's too busy playing with his digger to care!


Not yet, the guy is seriously slow to respond! He confirmed a few things i had asked, but it took 4 days! Ive asked to go see it and no reply yet!! He's probably using it


----------



## johna.clements (10 Nov 2022)

That does not sound to great. Obviously he will not respond to any questions after you have paid and taken the excavator.


----------



## baldkev (10 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> That does not sound to great. Obviously he will not respond to any questions after you have paid and taken the excavator.


No, but to be honest It's cheap enough not to worry. It needs the arm repinning and king pin doing, which my brother and i can do easy enough. My brother has worked on it for th guy before, so we know theres a cpuple of issues, but the price would make up for that


----------



## Thingybob (10 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Not yet, the guy is seriously slow to respond! He confirmed a few things i had asked, but it took 4 days! Ive asked to go see it and no reply yet!! He's probably using it


He s a subscriber on here and he read you were remortgaging so hes going to put the price up


----------



## Thingybob (11 Nov 2022)

johna.clements said:


> A confirmed UFO sighting or more likely conformation of life on another planet around another star would certainly effect the money markets.
> 
> Would people be scarred take out all their money and buy top of the range sharpening kit. Sharp tools may be needed. That would cause inflation which would be countered by higher interest rate.
> 
> Or would we all pull together and cooperate more. Share our honing devices. That may result in lower inflation and so lower interest rates.


See I told you it would come round on this global topic thread . Its a bit off world topic though


----------



## Keith Cocker (11 Nov 2022)

evildrome said:


> I'm rubbish at woodwork but have been studying macro-economics for 5 years. In particular, government finance & banking.
> 
> Now I'm going to tell you some things you are not going to like.
> 
> ...


No wonder Economics is called the dismal science.


----------



## Phill05 (11 Nov 2022)

baldkev said:


> Not yet, the guy is seriously slow to respond! He confirmed a few things i had asked, but it took 4 days! Ive asked to go see it and no reply yet!! He's probably using it


He's reading this thread!!! from page 1:


----------

