I was slightly taken aback to hear Hunty mentioning the Cloddach Bridge in his budget speech and that it’s getting £1.5m. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it’s in Douglas Ross’s constituency!
And in a SCUP local authority. Jings! Also open to foot and bike, and only 6 miles diversion for cars. Seems an odd choice.
Edit: seems to be about 2.5% annual return on the figures. No idea if that is the norm these days for acceptability. But the council still need to find a lot of money which they don't seem to have?
I was slightly taken aback to hear Hunty mentioning the Cloddach Bridge in his budget speech and that it’s getting £1.5m. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it’s in Douglas Ross’s constituency!
And in a SCUP local authority. Jings! Also open to foot and bike, and only 6 miles diversion for cars. Seems an odd choice.
Politically only of use if it is all spent within 10 miles of MY home.
Even then, the LibDems will have a picture of a pointing councillor taking the credit for filling it!
Will that help?
Much of the issue is due to the too many groups who can dig up roads, and the poor quality of repairs.
It will just spin the merry-go-round a bit faster.
I've got the numbers for Cheshire East:
Actionable potholes identified in last 12 months: 20484. How many repairs are inspected: Dunno - don't collect data. How many repairs were below standard? Dunno - don't collect data. How many repairs fail in one year? Dunno - don't collect data. Does the contractor guarantee quality? We would expect repairs to last 12 months, Does the contractor correct poor work free of charge? Yes (.. and how are they supposed to find out if they don't inspect?)
Sounds as though the contractor will have a business strategy for repairs to last one year and one day.
Like illegal migrants, the system needs fixing, not a stickyplaster.
One of the issues with 'potholes' is that the sorts of repairs a contractor (or the local council) will do will never be able to last more than a year or so. Potholes often (but of course not always) develop where heavy vehicles are turning. The sorts of repairs that are done to 'fix potholes' are insufficient to prevent a re-occurrence almost immediately. What actually needs to happen is that the entire road surface is removed including the lower tarmac sections (roads are generally built of two or three layers of different grades of tarmac based on the stone size) and the whole thing is resurfaced. But this is a much bigger job and of course both more disruptive and more costly.
Yes - it's about fixing the system. One other aspect is proper control of interventions by third parties - eg service providers digging holes in expensive new surfaces put in the previous day.
What also needs to happen is that traffic laws are enforced to prevent, for example, heavy vehicles going down unsuitable roads by blindly following satnavs.
Plus vehicles esp. HGVs parking on pavements smashing up the surface and the tactile paving which exists to help blind people navigate, creating tri[p hazards which put people in hospital. They know the laws are a mess so they don't give a damn. Quite a bit on Leith Walk in Edinburgh at present, but also everywhere.
On our Devon lanes the problem is the modern mega-tractors, that just trash the tarmac road surface as if it were mud. If we get any hot weather and the surface melts, they can just take large chunks out for many yards.
Sounds like remarkably crap road surface. So why is that?
Number of years ago, WA State Dept of Transportation "experimented" with using a new road surfacing material comprised largely of recycled tires. Was NOT a success, for just the reason that you cite re: Devon.
About 30 years ago, a preserved railway was asked to trial out a surface made from old road tires for a level crossing. From memory, it worked quite well: tarmac and/or concrete do not like the interaction with the rails: as a train passes, the rail can depress slightly; and even if it does not, vibrations can destroy concrete.
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
I was slightly taken aback to hear Hunty mentioning the Cloddach Bridge in his budget speech and that it’s getting £1.5m. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it’s in Douglas Ross’s constituency!
And in a SCUP local authority. Jings! Also open to foot and bike, and only 6 miles diversion for cars. Seems an odd choice.
Edit: seems to be about 2.5% annual return on the figures. No idea if that is the norm these days for acceptability. But the council still need to find a lot of money which they don't seem to have?
They may have exaggerated the replacement cost to justify not doing it. Happens.
It’s almost as if retail banks have no business being in investment banking
I really do wish RBS and HBOS had been liquidated back in 2008, the government should have bailed out depositors but everyone else involved with those two banks should have been burned. The moral hazard and expectation bailing them out created has been a pox on the country and the wider world.
I honestly think they should have let the whole thing collapse in 2008. Yes there would have been mass unemployment for a while but the advantages. 1. The bankers would have truly learned their lesson and we would not have the issues we have now. 2. Property prices would have returned to sanity and young people would have been better off. 3. The privileged top 3 to 5% would have taken deserved losses and this would have increased the sense of fairness in society and reduced inequality. 4. We would now likely have a much more dynamic economy based on the respect of risk.
Just that risk of societal meltdown though. Best not to flirt with that on balance.
Not really. It would be the privileged class who would lose the most and they are generally the type not to riot. Yes there would be unemployment but things would quickly readjust.
The collapse of the financial system isn't something that lends itself to modelling with any degree of confidence. It's a plan z to be contemplated only if there's no alternative.
I honestly think they should have let the whole thing collapse in 2008. Yes there would have been mass unemployment for a while but the advantages. 1. The bankers would have truly learned their lesson and we would not have the issues we have now. 2. Property prices would have returned to sanity and young people would have been better off. 3. The privileged top 3 to 5% would have taken deserved losses and this would have increased the sense of fairness in society and reduced inequality. 4. We would now likely have a much more dynamic economy based on the respect of risk.
I think several parts of this seem super-optimistic to me. In particular on 1: history suggests that the financial system does not in the long term "learn its lesson" no matter how bad the losses it takes. New traders come along who weren't there the last time around, and the lessons get forgotten again. On 2 I suspect that property prices are driven more by the fact we aren't building enough houses than anything else, which isn't something caused by the 2008 bailouts.
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Not really, the minimum wage, benefits and the state pension have all gone up 10% this year and house prices are now falling
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Not really, the minimum wage, benefits and the state pension have all gone up 10% this year and house prices are now falling
After how long have [edit] hgouse prices been growing far faster than wages?
I was slightly taken aback to hear Hunty mentioning the Cloddach Bridge in his budget speech and that it’s getting £1.5m. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it’s in Douglas Ross’s constituency!
And in a SCUP local authority. Jings! Also open to foot and bike, and only 6 miles diversion for cars. Seems an odd choice.
Edit: seems to be about 2.5% annual return on the figures. No idea if that is the norm these days for acceptability. But the council still need to find a lot of money which they don't seem to have?
They may have exaggerated the replacement cost to justify not doing it. Happens.
IN which case they've still got to find very roughly the same money after all [edit] as it would have cost if they did exaggerate ...
Exciting news from the world of employment law! Due to inflation the maximum you can get in an "ordinary" unfair dismissal claim (i.e. one without any discrimination, whistleblowing etc.) elements has finally broken the 6 figure barrier. It's gone up from from £93,878 to £105,707 - the biggest single year increase I can remember. By statute, it's increased by RPI since the limit was raised to £50,000 in 1999. That's how I measure inflation over the years in my head - £50k in 1999 is £105,707 now.
Politically only of use if it is all spent within 10 miles of MY home.
Even then, the LibDems will have a picture of a pointing councillor taking the credit for filling it!
Will that help?
Much of the issue is due to the too many groups who can dig up roads, and the poor quality of repairs.
It will just spin the merry-go-round a bit faster.
I've got the numbers for Cheshire East:
Actionable potholes identified in last 12 months: 20484. How many repairs are inspected: Dunno - don't collect data. How many repairs were below standard? Dunno - don't collect data. How many repairs fail in one year? Dunno - don't collect data. Does the contractor guarantee quality? We would expect repairs to last 12 months, Does the contractor correct poor work free of charge? Yes (.. and how are they supposed to find out if they don't inspect?)
Sounds as though the contractor will have a business strategy for repairs to last one year and one day.
Like illegal migrants, the system needs fixing, not a stickyplaster.
One of the issues with 'potholes' is that the sorts of repairs a contractor (or the local council) will do will never be able to last more than a year or so. Potholes often (but of course not always) develop where heavy vehicles are turning. The sorts of repairs that are done to 'fix potholes' are insufficient to prevent a re-occurrence almost immediately. What actually needs to happen is that the entire road surface is removed including the lower tarmac sections (roads are generally built of two or three layers of different grades of tarmac based on the stone size) and the whole thing is resurfaced. But this is a much bigger job and of course both more disruptive and more costly.
Yes - it's about fixing the system. One other aspect is proper control of interventions by third parties - eg service providers digging holes in expensive new surfaces put in the previous day.
What also needs to happen is that traffic laws are enforced to prevent, for example, heavy vehicles going down unsuitable roads by blindly following satnavs.
Plus vehicles esp. HGVs parking on pavements smashing up the surface and the tactile paving which exists to help blind people navigate, creating tri[p hazards which put people in hospital. They know the laws are a mess so they don't give a damn. Quite a bit on Leith Walk in Edinburgh at present, but also everywhere.
On our Devon lanes the problem is the modern mega-tractors, that just trash the tarmac road surface as if it were mud. If we get any hot weather and the surface melts, they can just take large chunks out for many yards.
Sounds like remarkably crap road surface. So why is that?
Number of years ago, WA State Dept of Transportation "experimented" with using a new road surfacing material comprised largely of recycled tires. Was NOT a success, for just the reason that you cite re: Devon.
About 30 years ago, a preserved railway was asked to trial out a surface made from old road tires for a level crossing. From memory, it worked quite well: tarmac and/or concrete do not like the interaction with the rails: as a train passes, the rail can depress slightly; and even if it does not, vibrations can destroy concrete.
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Not really, the minimum wage, benefits and the state pension have all gone up 10% this year and house prices are now falling
Thats one year. Those are not the trends over the last 15 years when asset holders have been enriched at the expense of normal working folk.
Politically only of use if it is all spent within 10 miles of MY home.
Even then, the LibDems will have a picture of a pointing councillor taking the credit for filling it!
Will that help?
Much of the issue is due to the too many groups who can dig up roads, and the poor quality of repairs.
It will just spin the merry-go-round a bit faster.
I've got the numbers for Cheshire East:
Actionable potholes identified in last 12 months: 20484. How many repairs are inspected: Dunno - don't collect data. How many repairs were below standard? Dunno - don't collect data. How many repairs fail in one year? Dunno - don't collect data. Does the contractor guarantee quality? We would expect repairs to last 12 months, Does the contractor correct poor work free of charge? Yes (.. and how are they supposed to find out if they don't inspect?)
Sounds as though the contractor will have a business strategy for repairs to last one year and one day.
Like illegal migrants, the system needs fixing, not a stickyplaster.
One of the issues with 'potholes' is that the sorts of repairs a contractor (or the local council) will do will never be able to last more than a year or so. Potholes often (but of course not always) develop where heavy vehicles are turning. The sorts of repairs that are done to 'fix potholes' are insufficient to prevent a re-occurrence almost immediately. What actually needs to happen is that the entire road surface is removed including the lower tarmac sections (roads are generally built of two or three layers of different grades of tarmac based on the stone size) and the whole thing is resurfaced. But this is a much bigger job and of course both more disruptive and more costly.
Yes - it's about fixing the system. One other aspect is proper control of interventions by third parties - eg service providers digging holes in expensive new surfaces put in the previous day.
What also needs to happen is that traffic laws are enforced to prevent, for example, heavy vehicles going down unsuitable roads by blindly following satnavs.
Plus vehicles esp. HGVs parking on pavements smashing up the surface and the tactile paving which exists to help blind people navigate, creating tri[p hazards which put people in hospital. They know the laws are a mess so they don't give a damn. Quite a bit on Leith Walk in Edinburgh at present, but also everywhere.
On our Devon lanes the problem is the modern mega-tractors, that just trash the tarmac road surface as if it were mud. If we get any hot weather and the surface melts, they can just take large chunks out for many yards.
Sounds like remarkably crap road surface. So why is that?
Number of years ago, WA State Dept of Transportation "experimented" with using a new road surfacing material comprised largely of recycled tires. Was NOT a success, for just the reason that you cite re: Devon.
The surface seems to have done the job until very recently. The lanes are too tight for HGVs, so they haven't really been too stressed by vehicles. I think it is just the emergence of a new generation of very large agricultural kit - both tractors and trailers - that can pull heavier loads - and that the roads are finally breaking under this new level of weight.
And then the repairs aren't able to cope either.
I live in a highly agricultural area. People want food; they want UK produced food and they want it inexpensive on the whole. UK agriculture is pretty good. But like everything else (banks, oil companies etc) it keeps costs down.
As a result we need either to have roads and road surfaces that can cope with the realities of food production in a supermarket age, or to fund agriculture properly. Both would be good. To have neither is the sort of solution urbanites go for, until the moment food supplies fail them.
Like when you can't buy cucumbers in February actually leads the news on serious (very city centred) broadcasters.
Cross country now! A spin on a steeplechase from 200 years ago!
“So as we move away from the Jolly Rancher, Mywifeknowseverything as we approach the Duck Pond… Slack Sally has gone down there at the Kissing Gate…as we make our way on to Mrs Miggins Flower Garden, Sotallytober from The Geespot” 🤭
Oh. Nice finish.
But cheese knockers. Why didn’t I invent a fence called cheese knockers.
Cross country now! A spin on a steeplechase from 200 years ago!
“So as we move away from the Jolly Rancher, Mywifeknowseverything as we approach the Duck Pond… Slack Sally has gone down there at the Kissing Gate…as we make our way on to Mrs Miggins Flower Garden, Sotallytober from The Geespot” 🤭
Oh. Nice finish.
But cheese knockers. Why didn’t I invent a fence called cheese knockers.
Give it time. I'm sure that the wikipedia graph of polls will show some cheese knockers at some point this year.
Off topic? One of our local news ladies referred to SVB as "Silicone Valley Bank". Reminding me that not all news folks know what they are talking about or, more kindly, that we all make mistakes.
Correction: "DisCredit Suisse" Or "discréditer Suisse"?
Debit Suisse
Would you rather have a Credit Suisse debit card, or a Debit Suisse credit card?
Or alternatively, a sock full of nickels?
Could I swap for something viable and secure?
Like a share of three way deal involving Mexican drug cartels, stolen plutonium and a complete list of all CIA agents?
Sock full of nickels (worth at least $10 and also useful as a cudgel, door stop or paperweight) is FAR more viable and secure investment than your dream portfolio!
Though you COULD do as you suggest, but also keep the nickel-filled sock handy for self-defense, for when your investment "partners" show up to "audit" your "accounts".
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Not really, the minimum wage, benefits and the state pension have all gone up 10% this year and house prices are now falling
Thats one year. Those are not the trends over the last 15 years when asset holders have been enriched at the expense of normal working folk.
65-70% of the adult population own a property, with or without a mortgage, they are 'normal folk'
Politically only of use if it is all spent within 10 miles of MY home.
Even then, the LibDems will have a picture of a pointing councillor taking the credit for filling it!
Will that help?
Much of the issue is due to the too many groups who can dig up roads, and the poor quality of repairs.
It will just spin the merry-go-round a bit faster.
I've got the numbers for Cheshire East:
Actionable potholes identified in last 12 months: 20484. How many repairs are inspected: Dunno - don't collect data. How many repairs were below standard? Dunno - don't collect data. How many repairs fail in one year? Dunno - don't collect data. Does the contractor guarantee quality? We would expect repairs to last 12 months, Does the contractor correct poor work free of charge? Yes (.. and how are they supposed to find out if they don't inspect?)
Sounds as though the contractor will have a business strategy for repairs to last one year and one day.
Like illegal migrants, the system needs fixing, not a stickyplaster.
One of the issues with 'potholes' is that the sorts of repairs a contractor (or the local council) will do will never be able to last more than a year or so. Potholes often (but of course not always) develop where heavy vehicles are turning. The sorts of repairs that are done to 'fix potholes' are insufficient to prevent a re-occurrence almost immediately. What actually needs to happen is that the entire road surface is removed including the lower tarmac sections (roads are generally built of two or three layers of different grades of tarmac based on the stone size) and the whole thing is resurfaced. But this is a much bigger job and of course both more disruptive and more costly.
Yes - it's about fixing the system. One other aspect is proper control of interventions by third parties - eg service providers digging holes in expensive new surfaces put in the previous day.
What also needs to happen is that traffic laws are enforced to prevent, for example, heavy vehicles going down unsuitable roads by blindly following satnavs.
Plus vehicles esp. HGVs parking on pavements smashing up the surface and the tactile paving which exists to help blind people navigate, creating tri[p hazards which put people in hospital. They know the laws are a mess so they don't give a damn. Quite a bit on Leith Walk in Edinburgh at present, but also everywhere.
On our Devon lanes the problem is the modern mega-tractors, that just trash the tarmac road surface as if it were mud. If we get any hot weather and the surface melts, they can just take large chunks out for many yards.
Sounds like remarkably crap road surface. So why is that?
Number of years ago, WA State Dept of Transportation "experimented" with using a new road surfacing material comprised largely of recycled tires. Was NOT a success, for just the reason that you cite re: Devon.
About 30 years ago, a preserved railway was asked to trial out a surface made from old road tires for a level crossing. From memory, it worked quite well: tarmac and/or concrete do not like the interaction with the rails: as a train passes, the rail can depress slightly; and even if it does not, vibrations can destroy concrete.
So for certain situations, they can work quite well.
Believe you are correct re: rail/road Xs.
Certainly in these parts, rubberized something between rails and tarmac where the road crosses is very common.
I think we've just had one installed at our crossing in Wye where, in December, the gates went automatic after 177 years of being opened and closed manually. Someone literally used to walk into the road and close the gate.
It’s almost as if retail banks have no business being in investment banking
I really do wish RBS and HBOS had been liquidated back in 2008, the government should have bailed out depositors but everyone else involved with those two banks should have been burned. The moral hazard and expectation bailing them out created has been a pox on the country and the wider world.
I honestly think they should have let the whole thing collapse in 2008. Yes there would have been mass unemployment for a while but the advantages. 1. The bankers would have truly learned their lesson and we would not have the issues we have now. 2. Property prices would have returned to sanity and young people would have been better off. 3. The privileged top 3 to 5% would have taken deserved losses and this would have increased the sense of fairness in society and reduced inequality. 4. We would now likely have a much more dynamic economy based on the respect of risk.
So, are you proposing that depositors outside the protection scheme - i.e. all corporates - were not protected?
OK. Royal Bank of Scotland sees a run on deposits. They are forced to close. Companies are unable to make payroll, because they have no access to their deposits because the bank is being wound up.
Depositors at HSBC, Lloyds, etc. see the writing on the wall, and then try and withdraw all their deposits too, because they see what's happened at RBS.
Everybody tries to withdraw all their money. Which bank, no matter how well capitalized, can survive even 20% of their depositors heading for the exit all at once. That's the nature of banking: you borrow short (deposits) and you lend long (mortgages).
Are you planning on never stepping in in this scenario? I.e. every bank goes bust. Or are you planning on stepping in at some point to stop contagion.
Are you going to protect all deposits, therefore creating moral hazard? Or just some fraction, which encourages bank runs if there is even the slightest concern that a bank might be insolvent or if there is even a fear that other people might think it could be insolvent. As the costs of withdrawing money are zero, the incentive is always to do so.
And the resolution companies that are setup to recover mortgage debt after the dissolution of the banking system, are they going to foreclose on millions of homes simulateneously?
Basically, at some point the Government and the BoE step in. There is no "oh, let it all collapse" option. The only question is when you do so.
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Not really, the minimum wage, benefits and the state pension have all gone up 10% this year and house prices are now falling
Thats one year. Those are not the trends over the last 15 years when asset holders have been enriched at the expense of normal working folk.
65-70% of the adult population own a property, with or without a mortgage, they are 'normal folk'
I wouldnt regard someone in debt to their eyeballs struggling to pay a mortgage as an asset holder.
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Not really, the minimum wage, benefits and the state pension have all gone up 10% this year and house prices are now falling
Thats one year. Those are not the trends over the last 15 years when asset holders have been enriched at the expense of normal working folk.
65-70% of the adult population own a property, with or without a mortgage, they are 'normal folk'
Anyone who has a mortgage does not own their house, in a major practical sense.
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Not really, the minimum wage, benefits and the state pension have all gone up 10% this year and house prices are now falling
Thats one year. Those are not the trends over the last 15 years when asset holders have been enriched at the expense of normal working folk.
65-70% of the adult population own a property, with or without a mortgage, they are 'normal folk'
Anyone who has a mortgage does not own their house, in a major practical sense.
They own their home, and they have a loan secured on it.
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Not really, the minimum wage, benefits and the state pension have all gone up 10% this year and house prices are now falling
Thats one year. Those are not the trends over the last 15 years when asset holders have been enriched at the expense of normal working folk.
65-70% of the adult population own a property, with or without a mortgage, they are 'normal folk'
Anyone who has a mortgage does not own their house, in a major practical sense.
An interesting question. The answer depends on the analysis.
You have bought a house, and its yours. As it happens the way you have bought it is by borrowing the money, just like you might borrow £300 from the bank to buy a widget. And as it happens the house is collateral for the debt to buy the house, because otherwise you could not have borrowed the money.
Answer: I own the house just like I own the widget.
Answer, the SNP needs a leader with a bit of old fashioned morals who will cleanse the Augean stables. The odds for Forbes have been lengthening but intuition tells me she is not out of it.
No doubt the whole earth is one giant Ponzi scheme.
As philosophical reactions to life's ups and downs go, that's one of the more depressing.
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" as a remarkable peasant once said.
And thank goodness for gold!
That too, except he didn't manage to say that. But he did say "Where your treasure is there will your heart be also" which packs a lot into one sentence.
"Fiscal drag": people who get a pay rise paying more tax.
Except it is not a pay rise in real terms if it is at, or worse less than, inflation.
Inflation 10% Pay 5% Tax threshold 0%
Is that a pay rise or cut in real terms? It's a double whammy, pay more tax while having pay cut.
Inflation isn't going to be 10% by the look of it, so that's a bit of a red herring.
And if your 5% pay rise takes you from just below a threshold to just above it, you only pay the higher rate on the small amount that is above it...
But we've had a period of 10-20% inflation already, which hasn't been compensated for in most salaries.
I must have missed the 20% inflation period.
For cheap food, power, etc. So it depends where one lives on the spectrum. Sorry, was not too clear. But folk will be somewhere in that range depending on their circs.
It’s almost as if retail banks have no business being in investment banking
I really do wish RBS and HBOS had been liquidated back in 2008, the government should have bailed out depositors but everyone else involved with those two banks should have been burned. The moral hazard and expectation bailing them out created has been a pox on the country and the wider world.
I honestly think they should have let the whole thing collapse in 2008. Yes there would have been mass unemployment for a while but the advantages. 1. The bankers would have truly learned their lesson and we would not have the issues we have now. 2. Property prices would have returned to sanity and young people would have been better off. 3. The privileged top 3 to 5% would have taken deserved losses and this would have increased the sense of fairness in society and reduced inequality. 4. We would now likely have a much more dynamic economy based on the respect of risk.
So, are you proposing that depositors outside the protection scheme - i.e. all corporates - were not protected?
OK. Royal Bank of Scotland sees a run on deposits. They are forced to close. Companies are unable to make payroll, because they have no access to their deposits because the bank is being wound up.
Depositors at HSBC, Lloyds, etc. see the writing on the wall, and then try and withdraw all their deposits too, because they see what's happened at RBS.
Everybody tries to withdraw all their money. Which bank, no matter how well capitalized, can survive even 20% of their depositors heading for the exit all at once. That's the nature of banking: you borrow short (deposits) and you lend long (mortgages).
Are you planning on never stepping in in this scenario? I.e. every bank goes bust. Or are you planning on stepping in at some point to stop contagion.
Are you going to protect all deposits, therefore creating moral hazard? Or just some fraction, which encourages bank runs if there is even the slightest concern that a bank might be insolvent or if there is even a fear that other people might think it could be insolvent. As the costs of withdrawing money are zero, the incentive is always to do so.
And the resolution companies that are setup to recover mortgage debt after the dissolution of the banking system, are they going to foreclose on millions of homes simulateneously?
Basically, at some point the Government and the BoE step in. There is no "oh, let it all collapse" option. The only question is when you do so.
It should only ever have been depositors, everything else should have been liquidated. There was no viable bank there and everyone except depositors should have been burned and made to hold their tens of billions in losses.
No doubt the whole earth is one giant Ponzi scheme.
As philosophical reactions to life's ups and downs go, that's one of the more depressing.
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" as a remarkable peasant once said.
And thank goodness for gold!
That too, except he didn't manage to say that. But he did say "Where your treasure is there will your heart be also" which packs a lot into one sentence.
I thought the bit about "That night he died" was pretty good too,
When you think about it, Jesus came up with nearly as many famous quotations as Shakespeare.
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Not really, the minimum wage, benefits and the state pension have all gone up 10% this year and house prices are now falling
Thats one year. Those are not the trends over the last 15 years when asset holders have been enriched at the expense of normal working folk.
65-70% of the adult population own a property, with or without a mortgage, they are 'normal folk'
Also, you're wrong again. [Edit] Each person in your category does not necessarily own "a" property, even assuming negligible mortgages. They own either a property, or a part of one (or more than oen in a few cases). Big difference.
"Fiscal drag": people who get a pay rise paying more tax.
Except it is not a pay rise in real terms if it is at, or worse less than, inflation.
Inflation 10% Pay 5% Tax threshold 0%
Is that a pay rise or cut in real terms? It's a double whammy, pay more tax while having pay cut.
Inflation isn't going to be 10% by the look of it, so that's a bit of a red herring.
And if your 5% pay rise takes you from just below a threshold to just above it, you only pay the higher rate on the small amount that is above it...
But we've had a period of 10-20% inflation already, which hasn't been compensated for in most salaries.
I must have missed the 20% inflation period.
For cheap food, power, etc. So it depends where one lives on the spectrum. Sorry, was not too clear. But folk will be somewhere in that range depending on their circs.
Some elements will be above the headline rate, some below. So surely most people will be around the headline rate, not at the extreme.
Off topic, but this may be important for some of you: "Exercise as a treatment for severe depression is at least as effective as standard drugs or psychotherapy and by some measures better, according to the largest study to date of exercise as “medicine” for depression.
The study pooled data from 41 studies involving 2,265 people with depression and showed that almost any type of exercise substantially reduces depression symptoms, although some forms of exercise seemed more beneficial than others." (Link omitted.) source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/03/15/exercise-depression-benefits/
(Exercise has been very effective for me -- after I learned that just walking didn't count. You need to walk "briskly", say at 100 steps per minute. Your heart and lungs should be working harder than when you just amble along.
Of course, even better are exercises like cross country skiing and swiming. I am serious when I suggest that someone who wants to improve their community can do so by making such exercises available.)
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Not really, the minimum wage, benefits and the state pension have all gone up 10% this year and house prices are now falling
Thats one year. Those are not the trends over the last 15 years when asset holders have been enriched at the expense of normal working folk.
65-70% of the adult population own a property, with or without a mortgage, they are 'normal folk'
Anyone who has a mortgage does not own their house, in a major practical sense.
They own their home, and they have a loan secured on it.
"Fiscal drag": people who get a pay rise paying more tax.
Except it is not a pay rise in real terms if it is at, or worse less than, inflation.
Inflation 10% Pay 5% Tax threshold 0%
Is that a pay rise or cut in real terms? It's a double whammy, pay more tax while having pay cut.
Inflation isn't going to be 10% by the look of it, so that's a bit of a red herring.
And if your 5% pay rise takes you from just below a threshold to just above it, you only pay the higher rate on the small amount that is above it...
But we've had a period of 10-20% inflation already, which hasn't been compensated for in most salaries.
I must have missed the 20% inflation period.
For cheap food, power, etc. So it depends where one lives on the spectrum. Sorry, was not too clear. But folk will be somewhere in that range depending on their circs.
Some elements will be above the headline rate, some below. So surely most people will be around the headline rate, not at the extreme.
If only the headline rate was measured against a basket of goods to balance it out and give a guide figure….
"Fiscal drag": people who get a pay rise paying more tax.
Except it is not a pay rise in real terms if it is at, or worse less than, inflation.
Inflation 10% Pay 5% Tax threshold 0%
Is that a pay rise or cut in real terms? It's a double whammy, pay more tax while having pay cut.
Inflation isn't going to be 10% by the look of it, so that's a bit of a red herring.
And if your 5% pay rise takes you from just below a threshold to just above it, you only pay the higher rate on the small amount that is above it...
But we've had a period of 10-20% inflation already, which hasn't been compensated for in most salaries.
I must have missed the 20% inflation period.
For cheap food, power, etc. So it depends where one lives on the spectrum. Sorry, was not too clear. But folk will be somewhere in that range depending on their circs.
Some elements will be above the headline rate, some below. So surely most people will be around the headline rate, not at the extreme.
If only the headline rate was measured against a basket of goods to balance it out and give a guide figure….
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Not really, the minimum wage, benefits and the state pension have all gone up 10% this year and house prices are now falling
Thats one year. Those are not the trends over the last 15 years when asset holders have been enriched at the expense of normal working folk.
65-70% of the adult population own a property, with or without a mortgage, they are 'normal folk'
Anyone who has a mortgage does not own their house, in a major practical sense.
They own their home, and they have a loan secured on it.
Maybe there's a difference in Scots Land Law?
No, not that. I did say 'in an important practical sense'. Though not a strict legal one!
"Fiscal drag": people who get a pay rise paying more tax.
Except it is not a pay rise in real terms if it is at, or worse less than, inflation.
Inflation 10% Pay 5% Tax threshold 0%
Is that a pay rise or cut in real terms? It's a double whammy, pay more tax while having pay cut.
Inflation isn't going to be 10% by the look of it, so that's a bit of a red herring.
And if your 5% pay rise takes you from just below a threshold to just above it, you only pay the higher rate on the small amount that is above it...
But we've had a period of 10-20% inflation already, which hasn't been compensated for in most salaries.
I must have missed the 20% inflation period.
For cheap food, power, etc. So it depends where one lives on the spectrum. Sorry, was not too clear. But folk will be somewhere in that range depending on their circs.
Some elements will be above the headline rate, some below. So surely most people will be around the headline rate, not at the extreme.
"Fiscal drag": people who get a pay rise paying more tax.
Except it is not a pay rise in real terms if it is at, or worse less than, inflation.
Inflation 10% Pay 5% Tax threshold 0%
Is that a pay rise or cut in real terms? It's a double whammy, pay more tax while having pay cut.
Inflation isn't going to be 10% by the look of it, so that's a bit of a red herring.
And if your 5% pay rise takes you from just below a threshold to just above it, you only pay the higher rate on the small amount that is above it...
But we've had a period of 10-20% inflation already, which hasn't been compensated for in most salaries.
I must have missed the 20% inflation period.
For cheap food, power, etc. So it depends where one lives on the spectrum. Sorry, was not too clear. But folk will be somewhere in that range depending on their circs.
Some elements will be above the headline rate, some below. So surely most people will be around the headline rate, not at the extreme.
I am quite impressed by this budget, they are doing stuff that will have a big impact and not just tweaking around at the edges. In the end though, I wouldn't put too much money in to a pension, because my instinct is that the politics mean it will be highly taxed when you eventually get the money.
So another day that reconfirms that free market capitalist economics is one giant Ponzi Scheme.
We know that we are driving towards a brick wall, but we keep our foot on the accelerator on the basis that we haven't hit it yet.
No for the poor and middle class we have free market economics. For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Not really, the minimum wage, benefits and the state pension have all gone up 10% this year and house prices are now falling
Thats one year. Those are not the trends over the last 15 years when asset holders have been enriched at the expense of normal working folk.
65-70% of the adult population own a property, with or without a mortgage, they are 'normal folk'
Anyone who has a mortgage does not own their house, in a major practical sense.
An interesting question. The answer depends on the analysis.
You have bought a house, and its yours. As it happens the way you have bought it is by borrowing the money, just like you might borrow £300 from the bank to buy a widget. And as it happens the house is collateral for the debt to buy the house, because otherwise you could not have borrowed the money.
Answer: I own the house just like I own the widget.
Other analyses are available.
It used to be the case that a mortgage of a house did actually transfer legal title to the lender. After all, the concept of a mortgage is of a transfer of title to a lender subject to agreement to transfer it back on discharge of the loan. LPA 1925 changed that for land (and thus things built on the land), so the legal title is "charged" rather than transferred.
Just back from shopping and I saw somebody who most people probably wouldn't even recognize but for us here in PBland is like spotting a superstar in the Tom Cruise league: Peter Kellner. Peter Kellner!
It’s almost as if retail banks have no business being in investment banking
I really do wish RBS and HBOS had been liquidated back in 2008, the government should have bailed out depositors but everyone else involved with those two banks should have been burned. The moral hazard and expectation bailing them out created has been a pox on the country and the wider world.
I honestly think they should have let the whole thing collapse in 2008. Yes there would have been mass unemployment for a while but the advantages. 1. The bankers would have truly learned their lesson and we would not have the issues we have now. 2. Property prices would have returned to sanity and young people would have been better off. 3. The privileged top 3 to 5% would have taken deserved losses and this would have increased the sense of fairness in society and reduced inequality. 4. We would now likely have a much more dynamic economy based on the respect of risk.
So, are you proposing that depositors outside the protection scheme - i.e. all corporates - were not protected?
OK. Royal Bank of Scotland sees a run on deposits. They are forced to close. Companies are unable to make payroll, because they have no access to their deposits because the bank is being wound up.
Depositors at HSBC, Lloyds, etc. see the writing on the wall, and then try and withdraw all their deposits too, because they see what's happened at RBS.
Everybody tries to withdraw all their money. Which bank, no matter how well capitalized, can survive even 20% of their depositors heading for the exit all at once. That's the nature of banking: you borrow short (deposits) and you lend long (mortgages).
Are you planning on never stepping in in this scenario? I.e. every bank goes bust. Or are you planning on stepping in at some point to stop contagion.
Are you going to protect all deposits, therefore creating moral hazard? Or just some fraction, which encourages bank runs if there is even the slightest concern that a bank might be insolvent or if there is even a fear that other people might think it could be insolvent. As the costs of withdrawing money are zero, the incentive is always to do so.
And the resolution companies that are setup to recover mortgage debt after the dissolution of the banking system, are they going to foreclose on millions of homes simulateneously?
Basically, at some point the Government and the BoE step in. There is no "oh, let it all collapse" option. The only question is when you do so.
The complacency - which I suppose must be rooted in ignorance - about what would happen in a major systemic bank crash is a wonder to behold. People don't seem to realise that money doesn't come out of cash machines without a bank being involved, or that payment of their salaries depends on the integrity of the banking system, or that it's not just the direct customers of the first failed bank who get hit, or that every business in the land depends on their bank remaining solvent if they are not to go bust.
Cross country now! A spin on a steeplechase from 200 years ago!
“So as we move away from the Jolly Rancher, Mywifeknowseverything as we approach the Duck Pond… Slack Sally has gone down there at the Kissing Gate…as we make our way on to Mrs Miggins Flower Garden, Sotallytober from The Geespot” 🤭
Oh. Nice finish.
But cheese knockers. Why didn’t I invent a fence called cheese knockers.
If it's on a country footpath, then the Kissing Gate is probably illegal under the Equality Act 2010 .
It’s almost as if retail banks have no business being in investment banking
I really do wish RBS and HBOS had been liquidated back in 2008, the government should have bailed out depositors but everyone else involved with those two banks should have been burned. The moral hazard and expectation bailing them out created has been a pox on the country and the wider world.
I honestly think they should have let the whole thing collapse in 2008. Yes there would have been mass unemployment for a while but the advantages. 1. The bankers would have truly learned their lesson and we would not have the issues we have now. 2. Property prices would have returned to sanity and young people would have been better off. 3. The privileged top 3 to 5% would have taken deserved losses and this would have increased the sense of fairness in society and reduced inequality. 4. We would now likely have a much more dynamic economy based on the respect of risk.
So, are you proposing that depositors outside the protection scheme - i.e. all corporates - were not protected?
OK. Royal Bank of Scotland sees a run on deposits. They are forced to close. Companies are unable to make payroll, because they have no access to their deposits because the bank is being wound up.
Depositors at HSBC, Lloyds, etc. see the writing on the wall, and then try and withdraw all their deposits too, because they see what's happened at RBS.
Everybody tries to withdraw all their money. Which bank, no matter how well capitalized, can survive even 20% of their depositors heading for the exit all at once. That's the nature of banking: you borrow short (deposits) and you lend long (mortgages).
Are you planning on never stepping in in this scenario? I.e. every bank goes bust. Or are you planning on stepping in at some point to stop contagion.
Are you going to protect all deposits, therefore creating moral hazard? Or just some fraction, which encourages bank runs if there is even the slightest concern that a bank might be insolvent or if there is even a fear that other people might think it could be insolvent. As the costs of withdrawing money are zero, the incentive is always to do so.
And the resolution companies that are setup to recover mortgage debt after the dissolution of the banking system, are they going to foreclose on millions of homes simulateneously?
Basically, at some point the Government and the BoE step in. There is no "oh, let it all collapse" option. The only question is when you do so.
The complacency - which I suppose must be rooted in ignorance - about what would happen in a major systemic bank crash is a wonder to behold. People don't seem to realise that money doesn't come out of cash machines without a bank being involved, or that payment of their salaries depends on the integrity of the banking system, or that it's not just the direct customers of the first failed bank who get hit, or that every business in the land depends on their bank remaining solvent if they are not to go bust.
It’s almost as if retail banks have no business being in investment banking
I really do wish RBS and HBOS had been liquidated back in 2008, the government should have bailed out depositors but everyone else involved with those two banks should have been burned. The moral hazard and expectation bailing them out created has been a pox on the country and the wider world.
I honestly think they should have let the whole thing collapse in 2008. Yes there would have been mass unemployment for a while but the advantages. 1. The bankers would have truly learned their lesson and we would not have the issues we have now. 2. Property prices would have returned to sanity and young people would have been better off. 3. The privileged top 3 to 5% would have taken deserved losses and this would have increased the sense of fairness in society and reduced inequality. 4. We would now likely have a much more dynamic economy based on the respect of risk.
So, are you proposing that depositors outside the protection scheme - i.e. all corporates - were not protected?
OK. Royal Bank of Scotland sees a run on deposits. They are forced to close. Companies are unable to make payroll, because they have no access to their deposits because the bank is being wound up.
Depositors at HSBC, Lloyds, etc. see the writing on the wall, and then try and withdraw all their deposits too, because they see what's happened at RBS.
Everybody tries to withdraw all their money. Which bank, no matter how well capitalized, can survive even 20% of their depositors heading for the exit all at once. That's the nature of banking: you borrow short (deposits) and you lend long (mortgages).
Are you planning on never stepping in in this scenario? I.e. every bank goes bust. Or are you planning on stepping in at some point to stop contagion.
Are you going to protect all deposits, therefore creating moral hazard? Or just some fraction, which encourages bank runs if there is even the slightest concern that a bank might be insolvent or if there is even a fear that other people might think it could be insolvent. As the costs of withdrawing money are zero, the incentive is always to do so.
And the resolution companies that are setup to recover mortgage debt after the dissolution of the banking system, are they going to foreclose on millions of homes simulateneously?
Basically, at some point the Government and the BoE step in. There is no "oh, let it all collapse" option. The only question is when you do so.
The complacency - which I suppose must be rooted in ignorance - about what would happen in a major systemic bank crash is a wonder to behold. People don't seem to realise that money doesn't come out of cash machines without a bank being involved, or that payment of their salaries depends on the integrity of the banking system, or that it's not just the direct customers of the first failed bank who get hit, or that every business in the land depends on their bank remaining solvent if they are not to go bust.
Sure. Well in that case banks should be regulated as a utility and bankers paid public sector wages. If banks arent allowed to fail there is no justification for multi million pound bonuses. The big bucks should go to those actually taking personal risk not the heads i win rails you lose characters working in the big banks.
It’s almost as if retail banks have no business being in investment banking
I really do wish RBS and HBOS had been liquidated back in 2008, the government should have bailed out depositors but everyone else involved with those two banks should have been burned. The moral hazard and expectation bailing them out created has been a pox on the country and the wider world.
I honestly think they should have let the whole thing collapse in 2008. Yes there would have been mass unemployment for a while but the advantages. 1. The bankers would have truly learned their lesson and we would not have the issues we have now. 2. Property prices would have returned to sanity and young people would have been better off. 3. The privileged top 3 to 5% would have taken deserved losses and this would have increased the sense of fairness in society and reduced inequality. 4. We would now likely have a much more dynamic economy based on the respect of risk.
So, are you proposing that depositors outside the protection scheme - i.e. all corporates - were not protected?
OK. Royal Bank of Scotland sees a run on deposits. They are forced to close. Companies are unable to make payroll, because they have no access to their deposits because the bank is being wound up.
Depositors at HSBC, Lloyds, etc. see the writing on the wall, and then try and withdraw all their deposits too, because they see what's happened at RBS.
Everybody tries to withdraw all their money. Which bank, no matter how well capitalized, can survive even 20% of their depositors heading for the exit all at once. That's the nature of banking: you borrow short (deposits) and you lend long (mortgages).
Are you planning on never stepping in in this scenario? I.e. every bank goes bust. Or are you planning on stepping in at some point to stop contagion.
Are you going to protect all deposits, therefore creating moral hazard? Or just some fraction, which encourages bank runs if there is even the slightest concern that a bank might be insolvent or if there is even a fear that other people might think it could be insolvent. As the costs of withdrawing money are zero, the incentive is always to do so.
And the resolution companies that are setup to recover mortgage debt after the dissolution of the banking system, are they going to foreclose on millions of homes simulateneously?
Basically, at some point the Government and the BoE step in. There is no "oh, let it all collapse" option. The only question is when you do so.
The complacency - which I suppose must be rooted in ignorance - about what would happen in a major systemic bank crash is a wonder to behold. People don't seem to realise that money doesn't come out of cash machines without a bank being involved, or that payment of their salaries depends on the integrity of the banking system, or that it's not just the direct customers of the first failed bank who get hit, or that every business in the land depends on their bank remaining solvent if they are not to go bust.
But don't you think in general that the amount of arrant stupidity that gets spouted on the Internet every day of the week about every subject under the sun, with absolute confidence, "is a wonder to behold"?
Politically only of use if it is all spent within 10 miles of MY home.
Even then, the LibDems will have a picture of a pointing councillor taking the credit for filling it!
Will that help?
Much of the issue is due to the too many groups who can dig up roads, and the poor quality of repairs.
It will just spin the merry-go-round a bit faster.
I've got the numbers for Cheshire East:
Actionable potholes identified in last 12 months: 20484. How many repairs are inspected: Dunno - don't collect data. How many repairs were below standard? Dunno - don't collect data. How many repairs fail in one year? Dunno - don't collect data. Does the contractor guarantee quality? We would expect repairs to last 12 months, Does the contractor correct poor work free of charge? Yes (.. and how are they supposed to find out if they don't inspect?)
Sounds as though the contractor will have a business strategy for repairs to last one year and one day.
Like illegal migrants, the system needs fixing, not a stickyplaster.
One of the issues with 'potholes' is that the sorts of repairs a contractor (or the local council) will do will never be able to last more than a year or so. Potholes often (but of course not always) develop where heavy vehicles are turning. The sorts of repairs that are done to 'fix potholes' are insufficient to prevent a re-occurrence almost immediately. What actually needs to happen is that the entire road surface is removed including the lower tarmac sections (roads are generally built of two or three layers of different grades of tarmac based on the stone size) and the whole thing is resurfaced. But this is a much bigger job and of course both more disruptive and more costly.
Yes - it's about fixing the system. One other aspect is proper control of interventions by third parties - eg service providers digging holes in expensive new surfaces put in the previous day.
What also needs to happen is that traffic laws are enforced to prevent, for example, heavy vehicles going down unsuitable roads by blindly following satnavs.
Plus vehicles esp. HGVs parking on pavements smashing up the surface and the tactile paving which exists to help blind people navigate, creating tri[p hazards which put people in hospital. They know the laws are a mess so they don't give a damn. Quite a bit on Leith Walk in Edinburgh at present, but also everywhere.
On our Devon lanes the problem is the modern mega-tractors, that just trash the tarmac road surface as if it were mud. If we get any hot weather and the surface melts, they can just take large chunks out for many yards.
It’s almost as if retail banks have no business being in investment banking
I really do wish RBS and HBOS had been liquidated back in 2008, the government should have bailed out depositors but everyone else involved with those two banks should have been burned. The moral hazard and expectation bailing them out created has been a pox on the country and the wider world.
I honestly think they should have let the whole thing collapse in 2008. Yes there would have been mass unemployment for a while but the advantages. 1. The bankers would have truly learned their lesson and we would not have the issues we have now. 2. Property prices would have returned to sanity and young people would have been better off. 3. The privileged top 3 to 5% would have taken deserved losses and this would have increased the sense of fairness in society and reduced inequality. 4. We would now likely have a much more dynamic economy based on the respect of risk.
So, are you proposing that depositors outside the protection scheme - i.e. all corporates - were not protected?
OK. Royal Bank of Scotland sees a run on deposits. They are forced to close. Companies are unable to make payroll, because they have no access to their deposits because the bank is being wound up.
Depositors at HSBC, Lloyds, etc. see the writing on the wall, and then try and withdraw all their deposits too, because they see what's happened at RBS.
Everybody tries to withdraw all their money. Which bank, no matter how well capitalized, can survive even 20% of their depositors heading for the exit all at once. That's the nature of banking: you borrow short (deposits) and you lend long (mortgages).
Are you planning on never stepping in in this scenario? I.e. every bank goes bust. Or are you planning on stepping in at some point to stop contagion.
Are you going to protect all deposits, therefore creating moral hazard? Or just some fraction, which encourages bank runs if there is even the slightest concern that a bank might be insolvent or if there is even a fear that other people might think it could be insolvent. As the costs of withdrawing money are zero, the incentive is always to do so.
And the resolution companies that are setup to recover mortgage debt after the dissolution of the banking system, are they going to foreclose on millions of homes simulateneously?
Basically, at some point the Government and the BoE step in. There is no "oh, let it all collapse" option. The only question is when you do so.
The complacency - which I suppose must be rooted in ignorance - about what would happen in a major systemic bank crash is a wonder to behold. People don't seem to realise that money doesn't come out of cash machines without a bank being involved, or that payment of their salaries depends on the integrity of the banking system, or that it's not just the direct customers of the first failed bank who get hit, or that every business in the land depends on their bank remaining solvent if they are not to go bust.
Indeed. It'd be Lord of the Flies.
I thought you were a socialist. If you are a socialist dont you agree banks should be regulated as a public utility and big salaries and bonuses ended. A business that isnt allowed to fail is not a real business.
Just back from shopping and I saw somebody who most people probably wouldn't even recognize but for us here in PBland is like spotting a superstar in the Tom Cruise league: Peter Kellner. Peter Kellner!
It used to be the case that a mortgage of a house did actually transfer legal title to the lender. After all, the concept of a mortgage is of a transfer of title to a lender subject to agreement to transfer it back on discharge of the loan. LPA 1925 changed that for land (and thus things built on the land), so the legal title is "charged" rather than transferred.
I have a wonderful original deed, dating from 1877, in which the farmer who owned our house and the farm around it mortgaged it all to three members of a brewing family in Lewes, for the sum of £5,000 (a lot of money in those days). It is indeed, as you say, structured as a transfer of title to the mortgagees, with an option for the farmer to buy it back after one year if the principal and interest is duly paid.
As far as I can tell from subsequent records I've found, it was rolled over for about 12 years, when the farmer's son, (who had taken over after his father died) finally went bust.
It’s almost as if retail banks have no business being in investment banking
I really do wish RBS and HBOS had been liquidated back in 2008, the government should have bailed out depositors but everyone else involved with those two banks should have been burned. The moral hazard and expectation bailing them out created has been a pox on the country and the wider world.
I honestly think they should have let the whole thing collapse in 2008. Yes there would have been mass unemployment for a while but the advantages. 1. The bankers would have truly learned their lesson and we would not have the issues we have now. 2. Property prices would have returned to sanity and young people would have been better off. 3. The privileged top 3 to 5% would have taken deserved losses and this would have increased the sense of fairness in society and reduced inequality. 4. We would now likely have a much more dynamic economy based on the respect of risk.
So, are you proposing that depositors outside the protection scheme - i.e. all corporates - were not protected?
OK. Royal Bank of Scotland sees a run on deposits. They are forced to close. Companies are unable to make payroll, because they have no access to their deposits because the bank is being wound up.
Depositors at HSBC, Lloyds, etc. see the writing on the wall, and then try and withdraw all their deposits too, because they see what's happened at RBS.
Everybody tries to withdraw all their money. Which bank, no matter how well capitalized, can survive even 20% of their depositors heading for the exit all at once. That's the nature of banking: you borrow short (deposits) and you lend long (mortgages).
Are you planning on never stepping in in this scenario? I.e. every bank goes bust. Or are you planning on stepping in at some point to stop contagion.
Are you going to protect all deposits, therefore creating moral hazard? Or just some fraction, which encourages bank runs if there is even the slightest concern that a bank might be insolvent or if there is even a fear that other people might think it could be insolvent. As the costs of withdrawing money are zero, the incentive is always to do so.
And the resolution companies that are setup to recover mortgage debt after the dissolution of the banking system, are they going to foreclose on millions of homes simulateneously?
Basically, at some point the Government and the BoE step in. There is no "oh, let it all collapse" option. The only question is when you do so.
The complacency - which I suppose must be rooted in ignorance - about what would happen in a major systemic bank crash is a wonder to behold. People don't seem to realise that money doesn't come out of cash machines without a bank being involved, or that payment of their salaries depends on the integrity of the banking system, or that it's not just the direct customers of the first failed bank who get hit, or that every business in the land depends on their bank remaining solvent if they are not to go bust.
But don't you think in general that the amount of arrant stupidity that gets spouted on the Internet every day of the week about every subject under the sun, with absolute confidence, "is a wonder to behold"?
Some good ideas there but nothing dramatic, certainly on tax.
Rather a shrug shoulders budget in essence
It was a budget very much of a chancellor who wants to minimize defeat and then, as leader, conduct a party rebuilding project as a 'safe pair of hands'.
'The BBC has said it is “very sorry” for the distress caused to the mother of missing university cook Claudia Lawrence after letters about licence fee payments were sent to her daughter’s property.
The broadcaster plans to apologise directly to Joan Lawrence after she told the Sun the letters, which she said had threatened up to £1,000 in fines, were causing her “untold heartache”.[...]
Lawrence’s mother contacted the BBC in September 2022 but only a temporary pause was put in place and automated letters restarted in February this year.'
[seems to be some confusion over BBC vs Licensing contractor.]
Just back from shopping and I saw somebody who most people probably wouldn't even recognize but for us here in PBland is like spotting a superstar in the Tom Cruise league: Peter Kellner. Peter Kellner!
With his more (?) famous wife?
No, he was alone. Exciting for me though. The only bigger thrill would have been Sir. John. Curtice.
Answer, the SNP needs a leader with a bit of old fashioned morals who will cleanse the Augean stables. The odds for Forbes have been lengthening but intuition tells me she is not out of it.
I watched a little of last nights debate (once I found where BBC One Scotland was hidden in the TV app). Forbes came over quite well - better than Yousaf in my opinion. If she hadn't made a mess of the opening stage I think she'd likely be neck and neck with him.
Just back from shopping and I saw somebody who most people probably wouldn't even recognize but for us here in PBland is like spotting a superstar in the Tom Cruise league: Peter Kellner. Peter Kellner!
Sure. Well in that case banks should be regulated as a utility and bankers paid public sector wages. If banks arent allowed to fail there is no justification for multi million pound bonuses. The big bucks should go to those actually taking personal risk not the heads i win rails you lose characters working in the big banks.
People who work in the bread-and-butter banks and building societies, like RBS, Lloyds, and the old Northern Rock, aren't in general paid megabuck bonuses, and the banks are in any case very heavily regulated.
Of course there have been public-sector banks in the past. Their record is not exactly stellar. Even in modern times, the boring semi-public-sector German and Spanish banks were as badly hit as anyone in the 2008/9 crash.
The general ambivalence to the monarchy over the course of my lifetime has been hard to detect due to the genuine respect and reverence that the Queen was afforded.
It’s almost as if retail banks have no business being in investment banking
I really do wish RBS and HBOS had been liquidated back in 2008, the government should have bailed out depositors but everyone else involved with those two banks should have been burned. The moral hazard and expectation bailing them out created has been a pox on the country and the wider world.
I honestly think they should have let the whole thing collapse in 2008. Yes there would have been mass unemployment for a while but the advantages. 1. The bankers would have truly learned their lesson and we would not have the issues we have now. 2. Property prices would have returned to sanity and young people would have been better off. 3. The privileged top 3 to 5% would have taken deserved losses and this would have increased the sense of fairness in society and reduced inequality. 4. We would now likely have a much more dynamic economy based on the respect of risk.
So, are you proposing that depositors outside the protection scheme - i.e. all corporates - were not protected?
OK. Royal Bank of Scotland sees a run on deposits. They are forced to close. Companies are unable to make payroll, because they have no access to their deposits because the bank is being wound up.
Depositors at HSBC, Lloyds, etc. see the writing on the wall, and then try and withdraw all their deposits too, because they see what's happened at RBS.
Everybody tries to withdraw all their money. Which bank, no matter how well capitalized, can survive even 20% of their depositors heading for the exit all at once. That's the nature of banking: you borrow short (deposits) and you lend long (mortgages).
Are you planning on never stepping in in this scenario? I.e. every bank goes bust. Or are you planning on stepping in at some point to stop contagion.
Are you going to protect all deposits, therefore creating moral hazard? Or just some fraction, which encourages bank runs if there is even the slightest concern that a bank might be insolvent or if there is even a fear that other people might think it could be insolvent. As the costs of withdrawing money are zero, the incentive is always to do so.
And the resolution companies that are setup to recover mortgage debt after the dissolution of the banking system, are they going to foreclose on millions of homes simulateneously?
Basically, at some point the Government and the BoE step in. There is no "oh, let it all collapse" option. The only question is when you do so.
The complacency - which I suppose must be rooted in ignorance - about what would happen in a major systemic bank crash is a wonder to behold. People don't seem to realise that money doesn't come out of cash machines without a bank being involved, or that payment of their salaries depends on the integrity of the banking system, or that it's not just the direct customers of the first failed bank who get hit, or that every business in the land depends on their bank remaining solvent if they are not to go bust.
Indeed. It'd be Lord of the Flies.
I thought you were a socialist. If you are a socialist dont you agree banks should be regulated as a public utility and big salaries and bonuses ended. A business that isnt allowed to fail is not a real business.
I'm a Hard Left Social Democrat. Mixed Economy. High Tax & Spend. Woke. Egalitarian Education System. I do think banking should be viewed more as a utility and I do think the bonus culture is largely to blame for its excesses and malfunctions. Let's debloat and reform it. All for that. But should the financial system be allowed to collapse? No way. Of course it shouldn't. Leave that for the movies and polemical flights of fancy.
The general ambivalence to the monarchy over the course of my lifetime has been hard to detect due to the genuine respect and reverence that the Queen was afforded.
True. But I can't see the electorate reaching a consensus where they want an elected president (i.e. a politician) instead any time soon.
Just back from shopping and I saw somebody who most people probably wouldn't even recognize but for us here in PBland is like spotting a superstar in the Tom Cruise league: Peter Kellner. Peter Kellner!
Just back from shopping and I saw somebody who most people probably wouldn't even recognize but for us here in PBland is like spotting a superstar in the Tom Cruise league: Peter Kellner. Peter Kellner!
Here's some budget small-print - apologies if we've already done this.
Hunt has limited pension TFC. This paves the way for future reductions in this limit (or freezes of this limit, amounting to the same thing).
Below is from BBC website:
"The lifetime allowance will be abolished from April 2024, but hidden in the Budget documents was the fact that the amount of tax-free cash has been limited to £268,275. If you’ve already taken that much out of a pension pot as a lump sum, then it looks like you will be limited to that, unless you had existing rights to higher tax-free amounts."
As this affect DC pension plan values, this measure is even more skewed to favour high-earning public sector DB members.
Here's some budget small-print - apologies if we've already done this.
Hunt has limited pension TFC. This paves the way for future reductions in this limit (or freezes of this limit, amounting to the same thing).
Below is from BBC website:
"The lifetime allowance will be abolished from April 2024, but hidden in the Budget documents was the fact that the amount of tax-free cash has been limited to £268,275. If you’ve already taken that much out of a pension pot as a lump sum, then it looks like you will be limited to that, unless you had existing rights to higher tax-free amounts."
Yes, I'd noticed that. It seems very sensible, and somewhat compensates for what on the face of it looks like an extravagantly generous change in abolishing the LTA. And, yes, you are probably right that this heralds the gradual reduction of the maximum tax-free sum.
Here's some budget small-print - apologies if we've already done this.
Hunt has limited pension TFC. This paves the way for future reductions in this limit (or freezes of this limit, amounting to the same thing).
Below is from BBC website:
"The lifetime allowance will be abolished from April 2024, but hidden in the Budget documents was the fact that the amount of tax-free cash has been limited to £268,275. If you’ve already taken that much out of a pension pot as a lump sum, then it looks like you will be limited to that, unless you had existing rights to higher tax-free amounts."
As this affect DC pension plan values, this measure is even more skewed to favour high-earning public sector DB members.
HSBC branch in Loughborough is currently a raging inferno and looks like it might spread to the town hall and Primark. A metaphor for the looming bank meltown, maybe?
Here's some budget small-print - apologies if we've already done this.
Hunt has limited pension TFC. This paves the way for future reductions in this limit (or freezes of this limit, amounting to the same thing).
Below is from BBC website:
"The lifetime allowance will be abolished from April 2024, but hidden in the Budget documents was the fact that the amount of tax-free cash has been limited to £268,275. If you’ve already taken that much out of a pension pot as a lump sum, then it looks like you will be limited to that, unless you had existing rights to higher tax-free amounts."
As this affect DC pension plan values, this measure is even more skewed to favour high-earning public sector DB members.
To expand on the above post.
This means that individuals with a DC pension pot which is already at, close to or over the old LTA can now not worry about this and pay more cash into their pension plans within the annual allowance. However, any value over the old LTA limit of £1,073,000 will not benefit from 25% tax free cash entitlement - and so a key incentive to pay more into their pensions is taken away.
Off topic, but this may be important for some of you: "Exercise as a treatment for severe depression is at least as effective as standard drugs or psychotherapy and by some measures better, according to the largest study to date of exercise ...."
As this can never be a blind study, the effect may well be that depressed people who are willing to partake in exercise have a better prognosis. I can certainly imagine that many of those with very severe depression would be very reluctant to take part in a study involving strenuous exercise.
Comments
No doubt the whole earth is one giant Ponzi scheme. But we are still here, like Ponzi schemes, until we are not.
I've just checked, and the tyre crossing's still there:
https://goo.gl/maps/pXeJrDVUUWQnB8Cz9
So for certain situations, they can work quite well.
For the privileged top 3 to 5% we have socialism with unlimited upside. Printing money to goose up asset prices and bailing you out when things go wrong.
Certainly in these parts, rubberized something between rails and tarmac where the road crosses is very common.
As a result we need either to have roads and road surfaces that can cope with the realities of food production in a supermarket age, or to fund agriculture properly. Both would be good. To have neither is the sort of solution urbanites go for, until the moment food supplies fail them.
Like when you can't buy cucumbers in February actually leads the news on serious (very city centred) broadcasters.
But cheese knockers. Why didn’t I invent a fence called cheese knockers.
(for all the Anchorman fans)
Orralloy Coin
The physical investment that can keep you warm.
OK. Royal Bank of Scotland sees a run on deposits. They are forced to close. Companies are unable to make payroll, because they have no access to their deposits because the bank is being wound up.
Depositors at HSBC, Lloyds, etc. see the writing on the wall, and then try and withdraw all their deposits too, because they see what's happened at RBS.
Everybody tries to withdraw all their money. Which bank, no matter how well capitalized, can survive even 20% of their depositors heading for the exit all at once. That's the nature of banking: you borrow short (deposits) and you lend long (mortgages).
Are you planning on never stepping in in this scenario? I.e. every bank goes bust. Or are you planning on stepping in at some point to stop contagion.
Are you going to protect all deposits, therefore creating moral hazard? Or just some fraction, which encourages bank runs if there is even the slightest concern that a bank might be insolvent or if there is even a fear that other people might think it could be insolvent. As the costs of withdrawing money are zero, the incentive is always to do so.
And the resolution companies that are setup to recover mortgage debt after the dissolution of the banking system, are they going to foreclose on millions of homes simulateneously?
Basically, at some point the Government and the BoE step in. There is no "oh, let it all collapse" option. The only question is when you do so.
DAX down 3.3%
S&P down 2.0%
FTSE down 4.0%
It's hardly standing out that much as an outlier.
Open letter on behalf of 2 of the 3 candidates bidding to replace Nicola Sturgeon, demanding to know number of SNP members in electorate
SNP HQ keeping details secret - leading to fears of vote rigging
What on earth is SNP HQ thinking?
https://twitter.com/chrismusson/status/1636018278119161858
You have bought a house, and its yours. As it happens the way you have bought it is by borrowing the money, just like you might borrow £300 from the bank to buy a widget. And as it happens the house is collateral for the debt to buy the house, because otherwise you could not have borrowed the money.
Answer: I own the house just like I own the widget.
Other analyses are available.
Carnival Cruise Lines down nearly 10%
because of the U.K. budget….
When you think about it, Jesus came up with nearly as many famous quotations as Shakespeare.
124mph, gosh.
https://www.yeovilexpress.co.uk/news/23388957.motorists-speeding-124mph-a303-near-wincanton/
The study pooled data from 41 studies involving 2,265 people with depression and showed that almost any type of exercise substantially reduces depression symptoms, although some forms of exercise seemed more beneficial than others."
(Link omitted.)
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/03/15/exercise-depression-benefits/
The study was led by Andreas Heissel, an exercise scientist at the University of Potsdam in Germany. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2023/02/14/bjsports-2022-106282.long
(Exercise has been very effective for me -- after I learned that just walking didn't count. You need to walk "briskly", say at 100 steps per minute. Your heart and lungs should be working harder than when you just amble along.
Of course, even better are exercises like cross country skiing and swiming. I am serious when I suggest that someone who wants to improve their community can do so by making such exercises available.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12196322
Hence the talk of a Sam Vimes inflation rate to measure what it looks like for people nearer the bottom of the heap.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-107-6863?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
https://order-order.com/2023/03/15/centre-right-wonks-warmest-to-jeremy-hunts-spring-budget/
‘The monarchy is a weakened institution… if we keep pushing, it will sink’
After protesters heckled the King this week, is support for the royals crumbling?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/15/republicanism-rise-scotland-driving-force/
How can that be controlled?
As far as I can tell from subsequent records I've found, it was rolled over for about 12 years, when the farmer's son, (who had taken over after his father died) finally went bust.
BBC apologise again:
'The BBC has said it is “very sorry” for the distress caused to the mother of missing university cook Claudia Lawrence after letters about licence fee payments were sent to her daughter’s property.
The broadcaster plans to apologise directly to Joan Lawrence after she told the Sun the letters, which she said had threatened up to £1,000 in fines, were causing her “untold heartache”.[...]
Lawrence’s mother contacted the BBC in September 2022 but only a temporary pause was put in place and automated letters restarted in February this year.'
[seems to be some confusion over BBC vs Licensing contractor.]
https://conservativehome.com/2023/03/15/think-tank-response-round-up-for-hunts-budget-today/
Of course there have been public-sector banks in the past. Their record is not exactly stellar. Even in modern times, the boring semi-public-sector German and Spanish banks were as badly hit as anyone in the 2008/9 crash.
Hunt has limited pension TFC. This paves the way for future reductions in this limit (or freezes of this limit, amounting to the same thing).
Below is from BBC website:
"The lifetime allowance will be abolished from April 2024, but hidden in the Budget documents was the fact that the amount of tax-free cash has been limited to £268,275. If you’ve already taken that much out of a pension pot as a lump sum, then it looks like you will be limited to that, unless you had existing rights to higher tax-free amounts."
As this affect DC pension plan values, this measure is even more skewed to favour high-earning public sector DB members.
Astute.
This means that individuals with a DC pension pot which is already at, close to or over the old LTA can now not worry about this and pay more cash into their pension plans within the annual allowance. However, any value over the old LTA limit of £1,073,000 will not benefit from 25% tax free cash entitlement - and so a key incentive to pay more into their pensions is taken away.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/Leon shows him as unbanned.