Inflation

[fabienleclerq]

3 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Maybe it’s on the turn then. Buy to let has massively inflated house prices. It’s been one of the biggest problems, selling to people who are desperate to make money out of them. Should we bollocks be helping anyone who’s struggling to pay a second mortgage 

 

I rent a property, my mortgage is low so I'm not struggling but it's going up and when you add in tax,insurance, safety checks upkeep etc it's not the money maker some folk appear to think it is.

 

The current tenant is due to move out and we've been absolutely inundated with people wanting to rent it without really advertising. I think the bigger picture is we need more social housing but the short term one is we need rental properties, if I sell it the tenants who can't afford a mortgage don't have a place to live etc.

[Diadora Van Basten]

15 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Correct and all mortgage support will do is encourage the housing market to carry on as it has before. The structure of the housing market is a fundamental problem which nobody is prepared to deal with because as you explain, everyone thinks buying a house on a mortgage is what everyone should be aspiring too.

 

The government needs to seriously regulate the buy to let market and tax the **** out of second homes. It needs to stop the ludicrous cycle of houses getting more and more expensive while people have less to spend. But they won’t do anything 

 

 

I think the 6% additional dwelling supplement more than evens the playing field between Buy to Let’s and First time buyers. It also has stopped the Wilson type landlords who hoovered up properties in the 90s

 

To say all Buy to Let’s are bad is a bit naive many people such as students are transient and rely on rental accommodation.

 

They don’t plan to put down roots in an area so why buy a house with all the additional costs and hassle that involves.

 

Demographically, the age of landlords has gone up significantly as less people are wanting to be landlords.

 

Finally the decision to no longer include mortgage interest as a business expense for landlords will now mean landlords will be losing money but paying tax because of the stupid way it is calculated.

 

[fabienleclerq]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

The properties don't disappear though, they're generally still available for rent.

 

I'd say there's less available to rent, the number of people looking to rent is mental ATM.

 

Just now, periodictabledancer said:

Leaving more properties available to buy.

 Sure, but a load of people don't want to or can't afford to buy.

[periodictabledancer]

31 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

Yep. People got used to the low interest rates.

 

But also, the UK fascination that wealth = having a house is flawed, especially now. It isnt. The amount of people who mortgage themselves over 70% of their income to have a nice house yet have no other investments and little savings for a rainy day (or decade), is incredible. You bought a liability not an asset. Unless of course you rent out a room in which case its now an asset.

 

 

Over time, you will not lose money on a house purchase.

And what gets forgotten is that if you're retired and not a home owner you are paying rent for the rest of your days on the back of the worst pension in Europe.

[periodictabledancer]

1 minute ago, fabienleclerq said:

 

I'd say there's less available to rent, the number of people looking to rent is mental ATM.

 

 Sure, but a load of people don't want to or can't afford to buy.

But we had a crazy situation where lenders will not give mortgages to people who were/are already paying MORE in rent than a mortgage would cost.  It's only because the buy to let vermin can no longer pass on the interest costs to tennants  AND still have a sustainable/affordable  level of rent that they're bailing out. The buy to let market has made billions out of screwing tennants for years with ludicrous rents and all the while  they have been a massive cost to the UK taxpayer in causing the levels of Housing Benefit to rocket through extortinate rental charges. 

[fabienleclerq]

1 minute ago, periodictabledancer said:

But we had a crazy situation where lenders will not give mortgages to people who were/are already paying MORE in rent than a mortgage would cost.  It's only because the buy to let vermin can no longer pass on the interest costs to tennants  AND still have a sustainable/affordable  level of rent that they're bailing out. The buy to let market has made billions out of screwing tennants for years with ludicrous rents and all the while  they have been a massive cost to the UK taxpayer in causing the levels of Housing Benefit to rocket through extortinate rental charges. 

 

Lenders weren't doing it to ***** though we're they? They will always have criteria to protect themselves, they aren't gonna cut their nose to spite themselves. 

 

I think your view on it is quite one dimensional, there will always be a need for rental properties especially as the government don't build any social housing. ATM its another problem that's appearing and people are struggling to get somewhere to rent.

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, Dazo said:

Not as quickly no but I don’t think anyone said that, I know you like a good exaggeration to rally the lefties. You did know they were going to go up though, right ? 

 

I did. Anyone old enough would realise that they were artificially low.

 

I mean who could have foresaw was that letting someone economically illiterate to decide to bend over to allow their bankers mates (and former boss) to get larger bonuses and the super wealthy to get tax cuts would leave a hole of anything between £30 -£70 billion in the economy. Mind that was the budget you were cheering from the rafters? 

 

Nobody could have foresaw the inevitable 4% GDP shock from another stellar policy decision and the subsequent supply chain shock which continues to fuel food and real inflation (and we've not even implemented it yet) 

 

It's almost like they've got no idea what they're doing.

 

 

[il Duce McTarkin]

17 minutes ago, Smithee said:

The properties don't disappear though, they're generally still available for rent.

 

Because Mr small time who's held on to his first flat or invested in one or two over a number of years can't take the financial hit, so they sell up and the properties end up in the hands of much larger landlord who can take the hit, but who are much less likely to give a shiny shite about their tenants. 

[periodictabledancer]

Just now, fabienleclerq said:

 

Lenders weren't doing it to ***** though we're they? They will always have criteria to protect themselves, they aren't gonna cut their nose to spite themselves. 

 

I think your view on it is quite one dimensional, there will always be a need for rental properties especially as the government don't build any social housing. ATM its another problem that's appearing and people are struggling to get somewhere to rent.

Yes , there will, that's common sense.

But it cannot possibly be done through buy to let landlords  who will simply up sticks and walk away when they can't make enough profit from it.  I don't have a one-dimensional view,  but I do have the view that  UK taxpayers have been subsidising these leeches for long enough. 

[periodictabledancer]

6 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

I did. Anyone old enough would realise that they were artificially low.

 

I mean who could have foresaw was that letting someone economically illiterate to decide to bend over to allow their bankers mates (and former boss) to get larger bonuses and the super wealthy to get tax cuts would leave a hole of anything between £30 -£70 billion in the economy. Mind that was the budget you were cheering from the rafters? 

 

Nobody could have foresaw the inevitable 4% GDP shock from another stellar policy decision and the subsequent supply chain shock which continues to fuel food and real inflation (and we've not even implemented it yet) 

 

It's almost like they've got no idea what they're doing.

 

 

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

Because Mr small time who's held on to his first flat or invested in one or two over a number of years can't take the financial hit, so they sell up and the properties end up in the hands of much larger landlord who can take the hit, but who are much less likely to give a shiny shite about their tenants. 

Of course aye, the problem's not that less properties are available though, it's that the big players take over. Like everything else when market forces are allowed to run unchecked.

[Diadora Van Basten]

2 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

Yes , there will, that's common sense.

But it cannot possibly be done through buy to let landlords  who will simply up sticks and walk away when they can't make enough profit from it.  I don't have a one-dimensional view,  but I do have the view that  UK taxpayers have been subsidising these leeches for long enough. 

If you are talking about landlords who bought multiple ex local authority properties and rented them to tenants on benefits I might agree with you.

[periodictabledancer]

1 minute ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

If you are talking about landlords who bought multiple ex local authority properties and rented them to tenants on benefits I might agree with you.

I'm talking about people who bought brand new properties (they still are round here) and fill them with benefit claimants. I see it all the time , the transient nature of neighbourhoods and communites where you never see the same people two years in a  row. And all of this is subsidised by the UK taxpayer. In my locale, property prices/rents are much higher than the general area. That means benefit claimants are getting a lovely new house which is subsidised by you and me because they have to have Housing benefit to pay the high rent. 

Buy to let is a curse and I could show you numerous complaints from people in my area who are sick to death of it and the awful impact of it . But let's not digress from my main point -

buy to let landlords have been subsidised by the UK taxpayer for years.

[il Duce McTarkin]

9 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Of course aye, the problem's not that less properties are available though, it's that the big players take over. Like everything else when market forces are allowed to run unchecked.

 

[Diadora Van Basten]

4 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

I'm talking about people who bought brand new properties (they still are round here) and fill them with benefit claimants. I see it all the time , the transient nature of neighbourhoods and communites where you never see the same people two years in a  row. And all of this is subsidised by the UK taxpayer. In my locale, property prices/rents are much higher than the general area. That means benefit claimants are getting a lovely new house which is subsidised by you and me because they have to have Housing benefit to pay the high rent. 

Buy to let is a curse and I could show you numerous complaints from people in my area who are sick to death of it and the awful impact of it . But let's not digress from my main point -

buy to let landlords have been subsidised by the UK taxpayer for years.

Are you sure it’s buy to let as 25% of new developments have to be for social housing. I can remember being in a sales office and they told me that this area here is for social housing and in the breath said it would all be teachers and nurses that I know to be blatantly untrue.

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

Are you sure it’s buy to let as 25% of new developments have to be for social housing. I can remember being in a sales office and they told me that this area here is for social housing and in the breath said it would all be teachers and nurses that I know to be blatantly untrue.

 

I thought it was "affordable" housing not social housing

[Jeffros Furios]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I thought it was "affordable" housing not social housing

The developers tend to ignore the affordable housing and the fine they receive is a pittance to the extra cash from expensive new housing. 

[manaliveits105]

Hopefully when the government ask the banks to assist mortgage payers they also insist that they pass on higher base rate to savers 

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Hopefully when the government ask the banks to assist mortgage payers they also insist that they pass on higher base rate to savers 

They don't want the banks to assist mortgage payers, this move is designed to hurt people's ability to spend

[Unknown user]

Well, to spend on stuff they want, increased spending on banks is fine

[periodictabledancer]

31 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

Are you sure it’s buy to let as 25% of new developments have to be for social housing. I can remember being in a sales office and they told me that this area here is for social housing and in the breath said it would all be teachers and nurses that I know to be blatantly untrue.

These are buy to lets - you can tell by the state of them.

 

[Dazo]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

I did. Anyone old enough would realise that they were artificially low.

 

I mean who could have foresaw was that letting someone economically illiterate to decide to bend over to allow their bankers mates (and former boss) to get larger bonuses and the super wealthy to get tax cuts would leave a hole of anything between £30 -£70 billion in the economy. Mind that was the budget you were cheering from the rafters? 

 

Nobody could have foresaw the inevitable 4% GDP shock from another stellar policy decision and the subsequent supply chain shock which continues to fuel food and real inflation (and we've not even implemented it yet) 

 

It's almost like they've got no idea what they're doing.

 

 

Cheering from the rafters ? There is that exaggeration thing again. 😂

 

Glad you’re one of the wise ones who saw the mortgage rates coming back to some normality. 
 

It isn’t like they’ve got no idea they clearly haven’t. 

[Cade]

The "Free Market" zealots point blank refuse to use the levers of government to impose price ceilings and impose windfall taxes on rampant profiteering.

That is one good way of bringing inflation down, by capping the prices and taxing their profits, which encourages them to lower their prices.

 

They're quite happy to hammer the people instead, making you so poor that you can't afford to buy anything, then the retailer/producers are forced to lower their prices to attract your trade.

 

Then they just shrug their shoulders and say "well that was the Bank of England and nothing to do with us" and the mewling sheep line up at the ballot box to vote Tory again.

 

People get the government they deserve.

[periodictabledancer]

39 minutes ago, Cade said:

The "Free Market" zealots point blank refuse to use the levers of government to impose price ceilings and impose windfall taxes on rampant profiteering.

That is one good way of bringing inflation down, by capping the prices and taxing their profits, which encourages them to lower their prices.

 

They're quite happy to hammer the people instead, making you so poor that you can't afford to buy anything, then the retailer/producers are forced to lower their prices to attract your trade.

 

Then they just shrug their shoulders and say "well that was the Bank of England and nothing to do with us" and the mewling sheep line up at the ballot box to vote Tory again.

 

People get the government they deserve.

This. You never hear tories telling shareholders they have to take a hit when times are tough. In the meantime companies are profiteering on a huge scale and the tories look the other way because the FTSE looks great. 

 

[periodictabledancer]

@Peston

·

6h

The Bank of England notes that markets now expect Bank Rate to average 5.5% for three years - which implies mortgage misery (2 yr mortgage rates of 6% plus) will be with us till long after the general election, or for years

[ri Alban]

A hell of a lot of economist are disputing the BOE's actions.

[skinnybob72]

Just out of interest, here are some numbers showing the monthly cost of a £100k mortgage over 25 years at various interest rates. 
 

2% £425

3% £480

4% £530

5% £590

6% £650

7% £715

8% £780

 

Roughly £60 a month increase per 1% increase in interest rates. I imagine a lot of folk who stretched themselves when base rate was less than 1% will have mortgages of £200-£300k - some eyewatering increases in monthly payments!!

[Bungalow Bill]

3 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

I thought it was "affordable" housing not social housing

It could be either, it could also be ‘mid-market rents’. It’s based on an assessment of what’s required in the local area.  

[kila]

5 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

I bought in 2006, not 1970. 6% was absolutely the norm. People have been stupid in assuming that it will sit at 0% indefinitely 

 

But house prices have continued to rocket since 2006, so this 6% isn't the same as it was back then... plus our wages are down hugely since 2006 so the cost of a mortgage is taking an even bigger dent in salaries.

 

Things are really quite ****ed right now, and I don't think it's fair to blame people for expecting low interest rates. We're heading for a big crash, and it isn't our stupidity that's caused it. Brexit and Tories like Truss and her budget last year are causing the most significant damage.

 

[WorldChampions1902]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

The "Free Market" zealots point blank refuse to use the levers of government

 

Then they just shrug their shoulders and say "well that was the Bank of England and nothing to do with us" and the mewling sheep line up at the ballot box to vote Tory again.

 

People get the government they deserve.

Despite this Junta continually trumpeting “the BoE is independent”, the Junta has the ability to intervene on interest rate-setting. We can draw our own conclusions on why they persistently refuse to do so.

[That thing you do]

 

Sorry, wrong thread but cant seem to delete it !
 

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by That thing you do

[periodictabledancer]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

A hell of a lot of economist are disputing the BOE's actions.

Sunak could have called the shots but chose not to. So, now we've got Ukraine war, energy prices, foodprices and interest rates (BUT not brexit, don't forget) ALL out of the control of the tories. 

What is the point of them ? 

[hughesie27]

24 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

 

Sorry, wrong thread but cant seem to delete it !
 

 

That's the sort of deflation we are after.

[The Mighty Thor]

4 hours ago, Cade said:

The "Free Market" zealots point blank refuse to use the levers of government to impose price ceilings and impose windfall taxes on rampant profiteering.

That is one good way of bringing inflation down, by capping the prices and taxing their profits, which encourages them to lower their prices.

 

They're quite happy to hammer the people instead, making you so poor that you can't afford to buy anything, then the retailer/producers are forced to lower their prices to attract your trade.

 

Then they just shrug their shoulders and say "well that was the Bank of England and nothing to do with us" and the mewling sheep line up at the ballot box to vote Tory again.

 

People get the government they deserve.

The narrative emerging is that they'll allow you to switch to interest only on your mortgage just so you don't default and they can keep you on their hook for even longer. 

 

After the shenanigans of 2008 it appears the banks are a protected species. 

[periodictabledancer]

20 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

The narrative emerging is that they'll allow you to switch to interest only on your mortgage just so you don't default and they can keep you on their hook for even longer. 

 

After the shenanigans of 2008 it appears the banks are a protected species. 

I think a very important comment was made by Faisal Islam on BBC News just : does the BofE actually understand how the mortgage industry works ?

I asked my missus (OK, only anecdotal) what % of mortgage offers she sees are fixed mortgages.

She said the vast majority, she sees very few SVR loans. 

So how does raising interest rates achieve it's aims when "most" mortgages are on fixed rates (for terms of 2 up to 5 years) ?  There's no denying some people are really suffering but based on what my missus is telling me, a lot of people won't be affected for a long, long time yet. 

[Diadora Van Basten]

49 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

I think a very important comment was made by Faisal Islam on BBC News just : does the BofE actually understand how the mortgage industry works ?

I asked my missus (OK, only anecdotal) what % of mortgage offers she sees are fixed mortgages.

She said the vast majority, she sees very few SVR loans. 

So how does raising interest rates achieve it's aims when "most" mortgages are on fixed rates (for terms of 2 up to 5 years) ?  There's no denying some people are really suffering but based on what my missus is telling me, a lot of people won't be affected for a long, long time yet. 

I think about a million people are due to come off fixed rates soon. About 1.3 million are currently on variable rates.

 

The question the journalists should be asking the Governor is how many people are you willing to make bankrupt to get inflation down to 2%. My guess is 50,000 people will go bankrupt in the next year.

[Ked]

9 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

I think about a million people are due to come off fixed rates soon. About 1.3 million are currently on variable rates.

 

The question the journalists should be asking the Governor is how many people are you willing to make bankrupt to get inflation down to 2%. My guess is 50,000 people will go bankrupt in the next year.

How do you arrive at that guess?

[Diadora Van Basten]

Just now, Ked said:

How do you arrive at that guess?

I think most of the people affected will be unable to afford the mortgage payments. 
 

Some will struggle through, some will sell their property without going bankrupt and some will fail to sell their property and go bankrupt.

[periodictabledancer]

19 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

I think about a million people are due to come off fixed rates soon. About 1.3 million are currently on variable rates.

 

The question the journalists should be asking the Governor is how many people are you willing to make bankrupt to get inflation down to 2%. My guess is 50,000 people will go bankrupt in the next year.

A quick look says eleven million mortgage holders in the UK. Based on what my missus is telling me, only those who have switched in the last 6 months or so are affected by rising interest rates.

That menans  in spite of the level of pain households are experiencing , we are looking at years of high interest rates because it will take years for it to filter through to the entire mortgage base. 

50,000 bankruptcies ? A drop in the ocean. 

Edit : bankruptcies aren't the same as homelessness. 

Edited June 22, 2023 by periodictabledancer

[Diadora Van Basten]

1 minute ago, periodictabledancer said:

A quick look says eleven million mortgage holders in the UK. Based on what my missus is telling me, only those who have switched in the last 6 months or so are affected by rising interest rates.

That menans  in spite of the level of pain households are experiencing , we are looking at years of high interest rates because it will take years for it to filter through to the entire mortgage base. 

50,000 bankruptcies ? A drop in the ocean. 

I did say 50,000 in the next year.

 

The higher rates are now predicted to last for three years so there will be more bankruptcies after a year as well.

[periodictabledancer]

1 minute ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

I did say 50,000 in the next year.

 

The higher rates are now predicted to last for three years so there will be more bankruptcies after a year as well.

You need to understand the difference beteem bankruptcies & repossesions. I get you're thinking , but they are very different. 

[periodictabledancer]

11 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

A quick look says eleven million mortgage holders in the UK. Based on what my missus is telling me, only those who have switched in the last 6 months or so are affected by rising interest rates.

That menans  in spite of the level of pain households are experiencing , we are looking at years of high interest rates because it will take years for it to filter through to the entire mortgage base. 

50,000 bankruptcies ? A drop in the ocean. 

Edit : bankruptcies aren't the same as homelessness. 

Martin Lewis on TV now saying only 20% of the population will be affected by rising interest rates. Roughly 1/3 of population on mortgages, the majority are on fixed rates and not affected by current rate hikes.  A tiny % of the popluation is bearing the brunt for bringing inflation down. 

[Diadora Van Basten]

9 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

Martin Lewis on TV now saying only 20% of the population will be affected by rising interest rates. Roughly 1/3 of population on mortgages, the majority are on fixed rates and not affected by current rate hikes.  A tiny % of the popluation is bearing the brunt for bringing inflation down. 

Probably the reason why raising interest rates isn’t working. I know that countries such as Sweden have much more people on variable rates than UK.

[Unknown user]

9 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

Martin Lewis on TV now saying only 20% of the population will be affected by rising interest rates. Roughly 1/3 of population on mortgages, the majority are on fixed rates and not affected by current rate hikes.  A tiny % of the popluation is bearing the brunt for bringing inflation down. 

 

Their only real alternative is to tax middle earners and up. It's the very opposite of what they stand for, but taxes into the state can be spent on helping, while interest rates to the bank just go to the bank and focus the burden on a small number.

 

It's the very last thing the Tories want to do though, to their mind it's better to blame the BoE and pretend they can't do anything than directly raise taxes for their target demographics.

 

We're in a pickle here.

[doctor jambo]

23 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Their only real alternative is to tax middle earners and up. It's the very opposite of what they stand for, but taxes into the state can be spent on helping, while interest rates to the bank just go to the bank and focus the burden on a small number.

 

It's the very last thing the Tories want to do though, to their mind it's better to blame the BoE and pretend they can't do anything than directly raise taxes for their target demographics.

 

We're in a pickle here.

You need to remember that 2008 led to a temporary tax hike they wasn’t reversed.

Then NI was increased.

Then Scotgov hiked tax rates again despite underspending.

And tax bands were frozen again sucking in more people.

tax take has risen over and over since 2008.

from the same people who are about to be slaughtered by the interest rates .

im not convinced there is scope to raise taxes once again on a populace already earning less, paying out more and being taxed heavily already?

they need to produce equity in the tax system so the likes of Sunak pays the same tax rate as me 

HMRC takes roughly as much of what I earn as I do, but he keeps more than 3/4 of what he gets despite earning vastly more….

not really very fair is it?

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

You need to remember that 2008 led to a temporary tax hike they wasn’t reversed.

Then NI was increased.

Then Scotgov hiked tax rates again despite underspending.

And tax bands were frozen again sucking in more people.

tax take has risen over and over since 2008.

from the same people who are about to be slaughtered by the interest rates .

im not convinced there is scope to raise taxes once again on a populace already earning less, paying out more and being taxed heavily already?

they need to produce equity in the tax system so the likes of Sunak pays the same tax rate as me 

HMRC takes roughly as much of what I earn as I do, but he keeps more than 3/4 of what he gets despite earning vastly more….

not really very fair is it?

 

Nothing is going to be fair here, but a tax rise spreads the burden further and more evenly than an interest rise.

 

The only argument against it is preferring others to take an even harder hit, which is understandable from an individual's point of view, but if we're talking about fairness we have to look at the bigger picture. What's fair for you isn't necessarily what's fair on the majority.

 

I do get it, but this is the reality, the rot's creeping further up the ladder 

[Jambof3tornado]

11 hours ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

I think most of the people affected will be unable to afford the mortgage payments. 
 

Some will struggle through, some will sell their property without going bankrupt and some will fail to sell their property and go bankrupt.

Mortgage holders will kick the can down the road by extending mortgage lengths when their current deal is up. If and when rates come down people can try to catchup by overpaying.

I genuinely dont see why the government would intervene because people have overstretched themselves.

 

Juniors mortgage paperwork quite clearly warns that after his fixed rate ends any rise in base rate will push his mortgage up,funnily enough it even uses the example of a 6% base rate!!! Looks like his will rise about £150 a month,he's currently overpaying that much anyway so is fortunate!

[doctor jambo]

6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Nothing is going to be fair here, but a tax rise spreads the burden further and more evenly than an interest rise.

 

The only argument against it is preferring others to take an even harder hit, which is understandable from an individual's point of view, but if we're talking about fairness we have to look at the bigger picture. What's fair for you isn't necessarily what's fair on the majority.

 

I do get it, but this is the reality, the rot's creeping further up the ladder 

The ladder is chuckling because those at the top are too godddam fat, and those under them are finding their knees buckling under the pressure of trying to keep them up there.

proper inheritance tax needs brought in. 
take a house value- what it was bought for, account for inflation, add that on, then everything above that tax it really heavily as it is unearned .

Unearned wealth is untapped , and would seem a fairer target than money you have to go out to work for

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

The ladder is chuckling because those at the top are too godddam fat, and those under them are finding their knees buckling under the pressure of trying to keep them up there.

proper inheritance tax needs brought in. 
take a house value- what it was bought for, account for inflation, add that on, then everything above that tax it really heavily as it is unearned .

Unearned wealth is untapped , and would seem a fairer target than money you have to go out to work for

 

Oh aye absolutely, but that's not enough.

It hasn't been fair since the Tories got in, ideological austerity hammered the lowest and their incompetence and corruption's hammering the rest now.

 

But I think it's better to tax and spend than to raise money for the banks by giving mortgage holders a kicking.

[doctor jambo]

9 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Oh aye absolutely, but that's not enough.

It hasn't been fair since the Tories got in, ideological austerity hammered the lowest and their incompetence and corruption's hammering the rest now.

 

But I think it's better to tax and spend than to raise money for the banks by giving mortgage holders a kicking.

We need a controlled house price collapse.

people need to own their own homes without massive loans.

unfortunately the world turns on debt and what is best for the banks and “the markets”

if liz truss showed one thing it’s that leaders and governments can be removed by large financial institutions