Mortgage rates / interest etc

[D_W]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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".

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]

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]

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]

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

This may help:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/

 

[D_W]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

* 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]

This fascination with blaming someone other than fools who spent their incentive dollars and gave them someone else is very humorous.

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]

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]

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.