It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Although I might negotiate hard I suspect I would give 100% of my wealth to be 21 again.
Gosh, ok. I think you're an outlier there. But maybe not. Once the market is developed - with sufficient liquidity - we'll find out.
Technical note: You'll need to find a willing counterparty. Either a single one, a 21 year old who will sell you the 44 years, you becoming 21, them 65, or multiples, eg you buy 10 years off a 25 year old, 20 off an 18 year old, and 14 off a 30 year old, you emerging as 21, them becoming 35, 38, 44 respectively.
One can see it working well as an exchange rather like Betfair. One thing's for sure, it will change the calculus of the 'intergenerational unfairness' debate quite markedly.
I'm obviously completely misunderstanding kinabalu. I thought you were offering me the ability to be 21 again. Who wouldn't swap that for all their wealth. My understanding though is the technology does exist yet. If you know otherwise please let me have the contact details and I will be on the phone straight away.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Unless you're both very, very high earners, without a sizeable deposit you're going to struggle, yes
Thanks. I had thought it was just limited to a few areas, rather than the entire city.
Pretty much everywhere in London.
Back in 2000 when I moved to London I was going to rent, buying in London wasn't going to be an option until my mother intervened.
I love the way one of the groups hides behind the 'anti-fascist' moniker. To me, it seems like two groups of generally-not-very-nice people looking for a barney.
I'd love to ask a few of them when 'fascism' actually means, to see if they know.
(As an aside, when I lived in Docklands there was graffiti, allegedly from the Anti-Nazi League, saying 'Kill the fascist scum'. Which probably made the graffiti writer as bad as the people he was campaigning against.)
I am conflicted by the Police chief's statement that the unsanctioned demonstrators should not expect the police to keep them apart. 1. Sympathy, let the two sets of idiots at each other, if that is what they so dearly want. Why should he put his police officers at risk for idiots? 2. What about the high potential for innocent outsiders to get enmeshed and hurt in this, and the police's duty to keep public order?
On balance, I think the police chief is being irresponsible, abrogating his responsibility to keep law and order, and by his actions stating that his force will not seek to prevent all major infractions of the law.
When I was in Oxford c.2005-06, there was a big clash outside my college between those opposed to the animal testing lab and those in favour of it. I was surprised the authorities allowed both demos to happen on the same day, but after that they got a lot stricter on who could do what and when.
Like the undergraduate who, when some workmen were digging up the street in the Cornmarket, told them that a lot of undergraduates dressed as policemen were on their way to interfere with their activities, and told the police that a lot of undergraduates had dressed up as workmen and were digging up the Cornmarket.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Property down here has been a magic money tree for ages. Once on the ladder all a person had to do was, each time they move, don't sell, keep the old one and rent out, do this a few times over say 30 years, and barring accidents they're rich. Periodically remortgage the older items in the portfolio to generate cash (if required) for deposits on later purchases. I know a bloke (used to work with him) who did this, starting at age 25 or so. No big tycoon type activity, just this slow, no drama, largely administrative plod as described. He had a good City career but he made more from this. No real added value, of course, (and same goes for the City career) but much personal wealth garnered. This, I think, tells us something about how our economy works.
It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Although I might negotiate hard I suspect I would give 100% of my wealth to be 21 again.
Gosh, ok. I think you're an outlier there. But maybe not. Once the market is developed - with sufficient liquidity - we'll find out.
Technical note: You'll need to find a willing counterparty. Either a single one, a 21 year old who will sell you the 44 years, you becoming 21, them 65, or multiples, eg you buy 10 years off a 25 year old, 20 off an 18 year old, and 14 off a 30 year old, you emerging as 21, them becoming 35, 38, 44 respectively.
One can see it working well as an exchange rather like Betfair. One thing's for sure, it will change the calculus of the 'intergenerational unfairness' debate quite markedly.
Would I get to be 21 again, but know all the stuff I know now? In which case 'all my wealth' seems like an amazing deal. I'd be able to do the job I do now, and get paid what I get paid now, but have many years doing it. I'd be pretty well paid for a 21 year old. But if I just get to be 21 again, only today, rather than in 1996 - I don't think I'd pay for that. And I'd do rather better at being in my 20s second time around. I think the 40 years or so I've got left will be better, if rather shorter, than the 65 years or so that the average 21 year old today will have.
EDIT - changed my mind almost immediately. No deal. I'm staying at 46. What I'd like to do is have the opportunity to go back to 1996 and do my 20s again, only better. But I don't think that's what you're offering me.
No, that's not on offer. In fact, as we explore further, we hit intractable problems - both practical and philosophical - with any such market. Eg, you buy 27 years, become 19, what happens with your wife? Does she want a toyboy? Fine if she does - it can be you, you're right there in situ - but she might not. And she's had no say in the transaction. It's a can of worms.
Back to the drawing board.
But, still, I find myself unvexed by the thought of this illogical hike to the state pension due to the artificial volatility in average earnings, and this here - the value of time - is why.
Yes, there are avenues here it might be best not to explore in too much detail on a public forum. At the risk of tearing open the can of worms with a chainsaw, we really need @Leon 's perspective on this.
Your basic premise seems sound though - there is an intrinsic value in being young - in simply having more life left, and also being fit, agile and having good hair - which those who are not young may be theoretically willing to pay money for.
It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Although I might negotiate hard I suspect I would give 100% of my wealth to be 21 again.
Gosh, ok. I think you're an outlier there. But maybe not. Once the market is developed - with sufficient liquidity - we'll find out.
Technical note: You'll need to find a willing counterparty. Either a single one, a 21 year old who will sell you the 44 years, you becoming 21, them 65, or multiples, eg you buy 10 years off a 25 year old, 20 off an 18 year old, and 14 off a 30 year old, you emerging as 21, them becoming 35, 38, 44 respectively.
One can see it working well as an exchange rather like Betfair. One thing's for sure, it will change the calculus of the 'intergenerational unfairness' debate quite markedly.
Would I get to be 21 again, but know all the stuff I know now? In which case 'all my wealth' seems like an amazing deal. I'd be able to do the job I do now, and get paid what I get paid now, but have many years doing it. I'd be pretty well paid for a 21 year old. But if I just get to be 21 again, only today, rather than in 1996 - I don't think I'd pay for that. And I'd do rather better at being in my 20s second time around. I think the 40 years or so I've got left will be better, if rather shorter, than the 65 years or so that the average 21 year old today will have.
EDIT - changed my mind almost immediately. No deal. I'm staying at 46. What I'd like to do is have the opportunity to go back to 1996 and do my 20s again, only better. But I don't think that's what you're offering me.
No, that's not on offer. In fact, as we explore further, we hit intractable problems - both practical and philosophical - with any such market. Eg, you buy 27 years, become 19, what happens with your wife? Does she want a toyboy? Fine if she does - it can be you, you're right there in situ - but she might not. And she's had no say in the transaction. It's a can of worms.
Back to the drawing board.
But, still, I find myself unvexed by the thought of this illogical hike to the state pension due to the artificial volatility in average earnings, and this here - the value of time - is why.
Yes, there are avenues here it might be best not to explore in too much detail on a public forum. At the risk of tearing open the can of worms with a chainsaw, we really need @Leon 's perspective on this.
Your basic premise seems sound though - there is an intrinsic value in being young - in simply having more life left, and also being fit, agile and having good hair - which those who are not young may be theoretically willing to pay money for.
7. So can people now please let my civil servants and military get on with dealing with one of the most dangerous and challenging evacuations for a generation. As professionals they will do their best for all those eligible and with my full support.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Property down here has been a magic money tree for ages. Once on the ladder all a person had to do was, each time they move, don't sell, keep the old one and rent out, do this a few times over say 30 years, and barring accidents they're rich. Periodically remortgage the older items in the portfolio to generate cash (if required) for deposits on later purchases. I know a bloke (used to work with him) who did this, starting at age 25 or so. No big tycoon type activity, just this slow, no drama, largely administrative plod as described. He had a good City career but he made more from this. No real added value, of course, (and same goes for the City career) but much personal wealth garnered. This, I think, tells us something about how our economy works.
But this is not normal or sustainable. It is a quirk of various policies, immigration, living longer, green belt, QE, BTL, preference for urban over rural all coming together over the last couple of decades.
It tells us how the London & SE economy has worked, not how it works.
It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Although I might negotiate hard I suspect I would give 100% of my wealth to be 21 again.
Gosh, ok. I think you're an outlier there. But maybe not. Once the market is developed - with sufficient liquidity - we'll find out.
Technical note: You'll need to find a willing counterparty. Either a single one, a 21 year old who will sell you the 44 years, you becoming 21, them 65, or multiples, eg you buy 10 years off a 25 year old, 20 off an 18 year old, and 14 off a 30 year old, you emerging as 21, them becoming 35, 38, 44 respectively.
One can see it working well as an exchange rather like Betfair. One thing's for sure, it will change the calculus of the 'intergenerational unfairness' debate quite markedly.
Would I get to be 21 again, but know all the stuff I know now? In which case 'all my wealth' seems like an amazing deal. I'd be able to do the job I do now, and get paid what I get paid now, but have many years doing it. I'd be pretty well paid for a 21 year old. But if I just get to be 21 again, only today, rather than in 1996 - I don't think I'd pay for that. And I'd do rather better at being in my 20s second time around. I think the 40 years or so I've got left will be better, if rather shorter, than the 65 years or so that the average 21 year old today will have.
EDIT - changed my mind almost immediately. No deal. I'm staying at 46. What I'd like to do is have the opportunity to go back to 1996 and do my 20s again, only better. But I don't think that's what you're offering me.
No, that's not on offer. In fact, as we explore further, we hit intractable problems - both practical and philosophical - with any such market. Eg, you buy 27 years, become 19, what happens with your wife? Does she want a toyboy? Fine if she does - it can be you, you're right there in situ - but she might not. And she's had no say in the transaction. It's a can of worms.
Back to the drawing board.
But, still, I find myself unvexed by the thought of this illogical hike to the state pension due to the artificial volatility in average earnings, and this here - the value of time - is why.
Yes, there are avenues here it might be best not to explore in too much detail on a public forum. At the risk of tearing open the can of worms with a chainsaw, we really need @Leon 's perspective on this.
Your basic premise seems sound though - there is an intrinsic value in being young - in simply having more life left, and also being fit, agile and having good hair - which those who are not young may be theoretically willing to pay money for.
My best years were actually the last 12 or so (until Covid); my 20s and very early 30s were wildly entertaining, but a fucking scary ride
Ideally I'd go back to about 30, if I can also have the wisdom I have now, and keep just some of my money
My 30s were the decade I really screwed up and I'd like a second go at getting them right
Looking through the Tory Party annual accounts, nothing mentioned about the loan to Boris Johnson mentioned as far as I can see.
Interesting to note the Tory Party ran a deficit of nearly £5.5 million (although that's expected in a 12 month period that featured a GE.) Surely they shouldn't be giving out loans to officers of the party.
Could it be in the current FY accounts? The brown stuff didn't publicly hit the fan till late April, ddid it?
It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Although I might negotiate hard I suspect I would give 100% of my wealth to be 21 again.
Gosh, ok. I think you're an outlier there. But maybe not. Once the market is developed - with sufficient liquidity - we'll find out.
Technical note: You'll need to find a willing counterparty. Either a single one, a 21 year old who will sell you the 44 years, you becoming 21, them 65, or multiples, eg you buy 10 years off a 25 year old, 20 off an 18 year old, and 14 off a 30 year old, you emerging as 21, them becoming 35, 38, 44 respectively.
One can see it working well as an exchange rather like Betfair. One thing's for sure, it will change the calculus of the 'intergenerational unfairness' debate quite markedly.
I'm obviously completely misunderstanding kinabalu. I thought you were offering me the ability to be 21 again. Who wouldn't swap that for all their wealth. My understanding though is the technology does exist yet. If you know otherwise please let me have the contact details and I will be on the phone straight away.
Ah, no, this is low tech and grounded in reality rather than some fanciful Sci/Fi nonsense. So you can buy the time, yes, but only off a willing seller. Because time can't be created. It's a zero sum game.
But I will definitely let you know if this changes. You're top of the list.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Property down here has been a magic money tree for ages. Once on the ladder all a person had to do was, each time they move, don't sell, keep the old one and rent out, do this a few times over say 30 years, and barring accidents they're rich. Periodically remortgage the older items in the portfolio to generate cash (if required) for deposits on later purchases. I know a bloke (used to work with him) who did this, starting at age 25 or so. No big tycoon type activity, just this slow, no drama, largely administrative plod as described. He had a good City career but he made more from this. No real added value, of course, (and same goes for the City career) but much personal wealth garnered. This, I think, tells us something about how our economy works.
Yes, I wish I'd done that. But in retrospect, at no stage did I think house prices were going to go on rising, and - though I was wrong - even in retrospect I don't think my conclusion was obviously misplaced.
I still don't understand how even with ultra-low interest rates, even with the demand of 20 years population growth, houses are as expensive as they are. I'd have thought there's be a point at which they'd outstrip people's ability to own them. But ultimately it turns out there's a lot more money sloshing around in the country than I'd expected.
Interesting line in here: Taliban not bothered by the loss of Western aid because “They assume that any money that the west doesn’t give them will be replaced by China, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.” Will be interesting to see if that's true. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430848001036197892
Do the middle two have any to spare ? And if they think China gives money out without rather more strings than we do, they are more delusional than I thought.
Looking through the Tory Party annual accounts, nothing mentioned about the loan to Boris Johnson mentioned as far as I can see.
Interesting to note the Tory Party ran a deficit of nearly £5.5 million (although that's expected in a 12 month period that featured a GE.) Surely they shouldn't be giving out loans to officers of the party.
Could it be in the current FY accounts? The brown stuff didn't publicly hit the fan till late April, ddid it?
I misread it.
It is mentioned in the report.
Anyhoo, it is classed as a bridging loan that straddles 2020 and 2021 so Boris Johnson needs to make sure his P11D was accurate for last year/this year.
It is something HMRC usually jumps on for much smaller amounts for employees/company directors/officers of companies/organisations if it isn't declared properly.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Property down here has been a magic money tree for ages. Once on the ladder all a person had to do was, each time they move, don't sell, keep the old one and rent out, do this a few times over say 30 years, and barring accidents they're rich. Periodically remortgage the older items in the portfolio to generate cash (if required) for deposits on later purchases. I know a bloke (used to work with him) who did this, starting at age 25 or so. No big tycoon type activity, just this slow, no drama, largely administrative plod as described. He had a good City career but he made more from this. No real added value, of course, (and same goes for the City career) but much personal wealth garnered. This, I think, tells us something about how our economy works.
Yes, I wish I'd done that. But in retrospect, at no stage did I think house prices were going to go on rising, and - though I was wrong - even in retrospect I don't think my conclusion was obviously misplaced.
I still don't understand how even with ultra-low interest rates, even with the demand of 20 years population growth, houses are as expensive as they are. I'd have thought there's be a point at which they'd outstrip people's ability to own them. But ultimately it turns out there's a lot more money sloshing around in the country than I'd expected.
I think it comes down to:
A majority of the UK population (especially those who can afford to buy) believe house prices are a one way bet guaranteed by the government. Examples such as Tokyo house prices dropping 90% are completely ignored in favour of a small UK sample.
They will borrow whatever the banks will lend them and then find ways to cheat the rules to borrow even a bit more to buy a house.
Eventually there will be a deep and painful crash but it could be many years away.
Interesting line in here: Taliban not bothered by the loss of Western aid because “They assume that any money that the west doesn’t give them will be replaced by China, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.” Will be interesting to see if that's true. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430848001036197892
Do the middle two have any to spare ? And if they think China gives money out without rather more strings than we do, they are more delusional than I thought.
China's only strings will be that the Taliban does not mess with the new Chinese mines that will be dug. Easy for the Taliban and in return they will get squillions from dig and sell.
Interesting line in here: Taliban not bothered by the loss of Western aid because “They assume that any money that the west doesn’t give them will be replaced by China, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.” Will be interesting to see if that's true. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430848001036197892
Do the middle two have any to spare ? And if they think China gives money out without rather more strings than we do, they are more delusional than I thought.
China's only strings will be that the Taliban does not mess with the new Chinese mines that will be dug. Easy for the Taliban and in return they will get squillions from dig and sell.
Interesting line in here: Taliban not bothered by the loss of Western aid because “They assume that any money that the west doesn’t give them will be replaced by China, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.” Will be interesting to see if that's true. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430848001036197892
Do the middle two have any to spare ? And if they think China gives money out without rather more strings than we do, they are more delusional than I thought.
China's only strings will be that the Taliban does not mess with the new Chinese mines that will be dug. Easy for the Taliban and in return they will get squillions from dig and sell.
It won't be that easy. China is deeply allergic to radical Islam, ask the people of Xinjiang. And the collapse of Kabul will have encouraged every would-be jihadi in China.
The Chinese might be making emollient noises now, but they will also be wary about going into Afghanistan, and of course they share a short border. I imagine that border is being reinforced as we chat
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Property down here has been a magic money tree for ages. Once on the ladder all a person had to do was, each time they move, don't sell, keep the old one and rent out, do this a few times over say 30 years, and barring accidents they're rich. Periodically remortgage the older items in the portfolio to generate cash (if required) for deposits on later purchases. I know a bloke (used to work with him) who did this, starting at age 25 or so. No big tycoon type activity, just this slow, no drama, largely administrative plod as described. He had a good City career but he made more from this. No real added value, of course, (and same goes for the City career) but much personal wealth garnered. This, I think, tells us something about how our economy works.
Yes, I wish I'd done that. But in retrospect, at no stage did I think house prices were going to go on rising, and - though I was wrong - even in retrospect I don't think my conclusion was obviously misplaced.
I still don't understand how even with ultra-low interest rates, even with the demand of 20 years population growth, houses are as expensive as they are. I'd have thought there's be a point at which they'd outstrip people's ability to own them. But ultimately it turns out there's a lot more money sloshing around in the country than I'd expected.
I think it comes down to:
A majority of the UK population (especially those who can afford to buy) believe house prices are a one way bet guaranteed by the government. Examples such as Tokyo house prices dropping 90% are completely ignored in favour of a small UK sample.
They will borrow whatever the banks will lend them and then find ways to cheat the rules to borrow even a bit more to buy a house.
Eventually there will be a deep and painful crash but it could be many years away.
The current situation is also pretty painful for those hoping to own a house and for those mortgaged to the hilt. Is there any way of getting to a non-painful level of house prices that is not in itself painful? I'd have thought the least worst situation was several years of moderate inflation while house prices remain roughly static.
It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Although I might negotiate hard I suspect I would give 100% of my wealth to be 21 again.
Gosh, ok. I think you're an outlier there. But maybe not. Once the market is developed - with sufficient liquidity - we'll find out.
Technical note: You'll need to find a willing counterparty. Either a single one, a 21 year old who will sell you the 44 years, you becoming 21, them 65, or multiples, eg you buy 10 years off a 25 year old, 20 off an 18 year old, and 14 off a 30 year old, you emerging as 21, them becoming 35, 38, 44 respectively.
One can see it working well as an exchange rather like Betfair. One thing's for sure, it will change the calculus of the 'intergenerational unfairness' debate quite markedly.
Would I get to be 21 again, but know all the stuff I know now? In which case 'all my wealth' seems like an amazing deal. I'd be able to do the job I do now, and get paid what I get paid now, but have many years doing it. I'd be pretty well paid for a 21 year old. But if I just get to be 21 again, only today, rather than in 1996 - I don't think I'd pay for that. And I'd do rather better at being in my 20s second time around. I think the 40 years or so I've got left will be better, if rather shorter, than the 65 years or so that the average 21 year old today will have.
EDIT - changed my mind almost immediately. No deal. I'm staying at 46. What I'd like to do is have the opportunity to go back to 1996 and do my 20s again, only better. But I don't think that's what you're offering me.
No, that's not on offer. In fact, as we explore further, we hit intractable problems - both practical and philosophical - with any such market. Eg, you buy 27 years, become 19, what happens with your wife? Does she want a toyboy? Fine if she does - it can be you, you're right there in situ - but she might not. And she's had no say in the transaction. It's a can of worms.
Back to the drawing board.
But, still, I find myself unvexed by the thought of this illogical hike to the state pension due to the artificial volatility in average earnings, and this here - the value of time - is why.
Yes, there are avenues here it might be best not to explore in too much detail on a public forum. At the risk of tearing open the can of worms with a chainsaw, we really need @Leon 's perspective on this.
Your basic premise seems sound though - there is an intrinsic value in being young - in simply having more life left, and also being fit, agile and having good hair - which those who are not young may be theoretically willing to pay money for.
Best not to risk that. Leon might turn it into something sordid. I'm happy to move on.
Interesting line in here: Taliban not bothered by the loss of Western aid because “They assume that any money that the west doesn’t give them will be replaced by China, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.” Will be interesting to see if that's true. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430848001036197892
Do the middle two have any to spare ? And if they think China gives money out without rather more strings than we do, they are more delusional than I thought.
China's only strings will be that the Taliban does not mess with the new Chinese mines that will be dug. Easy for the Taliban and in return they will get squillions from dig and sell.
That sounds pretty delusional to me, too.
Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the world. But in 2010, US military officials and geologists revealed that the country, which lies at the crossroads of Central and South Asia, was sitting on mineral deposits worth nearly $1 trillion.
Supplies of minerals such as iron, copper and gold are scattered across provinces. There are also rare earth minerals and, perhaps most importantly, what could be one of the world's biggest deposits of lithium — an essential but scarce component in rechargeable batteries and other technologies vital to tackling the climate crisis. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/18/business/afghanistan-lithium-rare-earths-mining/index.html
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Property down here has been a magic money tree for ages. Once on the ladder all a person had to do was, each time they move, don't sell, keep the old one and rent out, do this a few times over say 30 years, and barring accidents they're rich. Periodically remortgage the older items in the portfolio to generate cash (if required) for deposits on later purchases. I know a bloke (used to work with him) who did this, starting at age 25 or so. No big tycoon type activity, just this slow, no drama, largely administrative plod as described. He had a good City career but he made more from this. No real added value, of course, (and same goes for the City career) but much personal wealth garnered. This, I think, tells us something about how our economy works.
Yes, I wish I'd done that. But in retrospect, at no stage did I think house prices were going to go on rising, and - though I was wrong - even in retrospect I don't think my conclusion was obviously misplaced.
I still don't understand how even with ultra-low interest rates, even with the demand of 20 years population growth, houses are as expensive as they are. I'd have thought there's be a point at which they'd outstrip people's ability to own them. But ultimately it turns out there's a lot more money sloshing around in the country than I'd expected.
I think it comes down to:
A majority of the UK population (especially those who can afford to buy) believe house prices are a one way bet guaranteed by the government. Examples such as Tokyo house prices dropping 90% are completely ignored in favour of a small UK sample.
They will borrow whatever the banks will lend them and then find ways to cheat the rules to borrow even a bit more to buy a house.
Eventually there will be a deep and painful crash but it could be many years away.
The current situation is also pretty painful for those hoping to own a house and for those mortgaged to the hilt. Is there any way of getting to a non-painful level of house prices that is not in itself painful? I'd have thought the least worst situation was several years of moderate inflation while house prices remain roughly static.
But that screws people with cash savings and/or fixed-ish incomes (and are old enough not to risk having too much in shares).
Interesting line in here: Taliban not bothered by the loss of Western aid because “They assume that any money that the west doesn’t give them will be replaced by China, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.” Will be interesting to see if that's true. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430848001036197892
Do the middle two have any to spare ? And if they think China gives money out without rather more strings than we do, they are more delusional than I thought.
China's only strings will be that the Taliban does not mess with the new Chinese mines that will be dug. Easy for the Taliban and in return they will get squillions from dig and sell.
That sounds pretty delusional to me, too.
Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the world. But in 2010, US military officials and geologists revealed that the country, which lies at the crossroads of Central and South Asia, was sitting on mineral deposits worth nearly $1 trillion.
Supplies of minerals such as iron, copper and gold are scattered across provinces. There are also rare earth minerals and, perhaps most importantly, what could be one of the world's biggest deposits of lithium — an essential but scarce component in rechargeable batteries and other technologies vital to tackling the climate crisis. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/18/business/afghanistan-lithium-rare-earths-mining/index.html
Don’t bother going down that route here. I dared to mention it the other day and got roundly shouted at for daring to mention it.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Property down here has been a magic money tree for ages. Once on the ladder all a person had to do was, each time they move, don't sell, keep the old one and rent out, do this a few times over say 30 years, and barring accidents they're rich. Periodically remortgage the older items in the portfolio to generate cash (if required) for deposits on later purchases. I know a bloke (used to work with him) who did this, starting at age 25 or so. No big tycoon type activity, just this slow, no drama, largely administrative plod as described. He had a good City career but he made more from this. No real added value, of course, (and same goes for the City career) but much personal wealth garnered. This, I think, tells us something about how our economy works.
Yes, I wish I'd done that. But in retrospect, at no stage did I think house prices were going to go on rising, and - though I was wrong - even in retrospect I don't think my conclusion was obviously misplaced.
I still don't understand how even with ultra-low interest rates, even with the demand of 20 years population growth, houses are as expensive as they are. I'd have thought there's be a point at which they'd outstrip people's ability to own them. But ultimately it turns out there's a lot more money sloshing around in the country than I'd expected.
I think it comes down to:
A majority of the UK population (especially those who can afford to buy) believe house prices are a one way bet guaranteed by the government. Examples such as Tokyo house prices dropping 90% are completely ignored in favour of a small UK sample.
They will borrow whatever the banks will lend them and then find ways to cheat the rules to borrow even a bit more to buy a house.
Eventually there will be a deep and painful crash but it could be many years away.
The current situation is also pretty painful for those hoping to own a house and for those mortgaged to the hilt. Is there any way of getting to a non-painful level of house prices that is not in itself painful? I'd have thought the least worst situation was several years of moderate inflation while house prices remain roughly static.
I doubt there is a non painful way out of this mess. In theory your suggested approach would work and it is roughly in line with govt policy. However whenever govt popularity dips or is threatened they will throw in a bone like htb or stamp duty holiday to boost perceived wealth and therefore electoral popularity.
Looking through the Tory Party annual accounts, nothing mentioned about the loan to Boris Johnson mentioned as far as I can see.
Interesting to note the Tory Party ran a deficit of nearly £5.5 million (although that's expected in a 12 month period that featured a GE.) Surely they shouldn't be giving out loans to officers of the party.
Could it be in the current FY accounts? The brown stuff didn't publicly hit the fan till late April, ddid it?
I misread it.
It is mentioned in the report.
Anyhoo, it is classed as a bridging loan that straddles 2020 and 2021 so Boris Johnson needs to make sure his P11D was accurate for last year/this year.
It is something HMRC usually jumps on for much smaller amounts for employees/company directors/officers of companies/organisations if it isn't declared properly.
Here is Britain's top news broadcaster's take:- A Tory donor provided more than £52,000 to cover some of the costs of Boris Johnson’s renovations to his Downing Street residence, according to party accounts.
The refurbishments to the flat in No 11 sparked sustained scrutiny of Mr Johnson’s finances, with the works vastly exceeding the £30,000 annual limit afforded to the Prime Minister.
Conservative Party accounts published on Thursday said its central office provided a “bridging loan” of £52,802 to cover the works after being invoiced by the Cabinet Office in June last year.
And later on:- A Cabinet Office report in July said more than £28,000 was spent on painting and sanding floorboards, coming close to the limit of public funding.
But additional invoices came in and in March the supplier – reportedly interior designer Lulu Lytle – refunded the Government, which then refunded the Tories, before Mr Johnson met “all final costs”, the annual report detailed.
Interesting line in here: Taliban not bothered by the loss of Western aid because “They assume that any money that the west doesn’t give them will be replaced by China, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.” Will be interesting to see if that's true. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430848001036197892
Do the middle two have any to spare ? And if they think China gives money out without rather more strings than we do, they are more delusional than I thought.
Is that true? There may be other strings, but there certainly won't be publicly expressed ones about mistreating people or corruption etc.
Interesting line in here: Taliban not bothered by the loss of Western aid because “They assume that any money that the west doesn’t give them will be replaced by China, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.” Will be interesting to see if that's true. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430848001036197892
Do the middle two have any to spare ? And if they think China gives money out without rather more strings than we do, they are more delusional than I thought.
China's only strings will be that the Taliban does not mess with the new Chinese mines that will be dug. Easy for the Taliban and in return they will get squillions from dig and sell.
That sounds pretty delusional to me, too.
Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the world. But in 2010, US military officials and geologists revealed that the country, which lies at the crossroads of Central and South Asia, was sitting on mineral deposits worth nearly $1 trillion.
Supplies of minerals such as iron, copper and gold are scattered across provinces. There are also rare earth minerals and, perhaps most importantly, what could be one of the world's biggest deposits of lithium — an essential but scarce component in rechargeable batteries and other technologies vital to tackling the climate crisis. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/18/business/afghanistan-lithium-rare-earths-mining/index.html
Don’t bother going down that route here. I dared to mention it the other day and got roundly shouted at for daring to mention it.
Well whether it deserves being shouted at or not, even with China's pockets as a layman it does seem like it cannot be easy to access and unlock much of Afghanistan's resources when compared to other places?
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Property down here has been a magic money tree for ages. Once on the ladder all a person had to do was, each time they move, don't sell, keep the old one and rent out, do this a few times over say 30 years, and barring accidents they're rich. Periodically remortgage the older items in the portfolio to generate cash (if required) for deposits on later purchases. I know a bloke (used to work with him) who did this, starting at age 25 or so. No big tycoon type activity, just this slow, no drama, largely administrative plod as described. He had a good City career but he made more from this. No real added value, of course, (and same goes for the City career) but much personal wealth garnered. This, I think, tells us something about how our economy works.
Yes, I wish I'd done that. But in retrospect, at no stage did I think house prices were going to go on rising, and - though I was wrong - even in retrospect I don't think my conclusion was obviously misplaced.
I still don't understand how even with ultra-low interest rates, even with the demand of 20 years population growth, houses are as expensive as they are. I'd have thought there's be a point at which they'd outstrip people's ability to own them. But ultimately it turns out there's a lot more money sloshing around in the country than I'd expected.
Yes, this chap saw the structural big picture, which is no mean feat at 25. And he only had a deposit for one modest purchase to start with. So from this viewpoint, he's deserving of the wealth accrual, but intuitively there's something wrong. It's a case of 'to he who hath, much shall be given, and he who hath not can go whistle'.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Property down here has been a magic money tree for ages. Once on the ladder all a person had to do was, each time they move, don't sell, keep the old one and rent out, do this a few times over say 30 years, and barring accidents they're rich. Periodically remortgage the older items in the portfolio to generate cash (if required) for deposits on later purchases. I know a bloke (used to work with him) who did this, starting at age 25 or so. No big tycoon type activity, just this slow, no drama, largely administrative plod as described. He had a good City career but he made more from this. No real added value, of course, (and same goes for the City career) but much personal wealth garnered. This, I think, tells us something about how our economy works.
Yes, I wish I'd done that. But in retrospect, at no stage did I think house prices were going to go on rising, and - though I was wrong - even in retrospect I don't think my conclusion was obviously misplaced.
I still don't understand how even with ultra-low interest rates, even with the demand of 20 years population growth, houses are as expensive as they are. I'd have thought there's be a point at which they'd outstrip people's ability to own them. But ultimately it turns out there's a lot more money sloshing around in the country than I'd expected.
Yes, this chap saw the structural big picture, which is no mean feat at 25. And he only had a deposit for one modest purchase to start with. So from this viewpoint, he's deserving of the wealth accrual, but intuitively there's something wrong. It's a case of 'to he who hath, much shall be given, and he who hath not can go whistle'.
and yet in parts of the UK (North East pockets, Liverpool, parts of Midlands/rural Scotland- prices have not moved much at all)
Interesting line in here: Taliban not bothered by the loss of Western aid because “They assume that any money that the west doesn’t give them will be replaced by China, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.” Will be interesting to see if that's true. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430848001036197892
Do the middle two have any to spare ? And if they think China gives money out without rather more strings than we do, they are more delusional than I thought.
China's only strings will be that the Taliban does not mess with the new Chinese mines that will be dug. Easy for the Taliban and in return they will get squillions from dig and sell.
That sounds pretty delusional to me, too.
Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the world. But in 2010, US military officials and geologists revealed that the country, which lies at the crossroads of Central and South Asia, was sitting on mineral deposits worth nearly $1 trillion.
Supplies of minerals such as iron, copper and gold are scattered across provinces. There are also rare earth minerals and, perhaps most importantly, what could be one of the world's biggest deposits of lithium — an essential but scarce component in rechargeable batteries and other technologies vital to tackling the climate crisis. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/18/business/afghanistan-lithium-rare-earths-mining/index.html
Don’t bother going down that route here. I dared to mention it the other day and got roundly shouted at for daring to mention it.
Farage mentioned it, so it can’t be seen to be true, even if it is
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
Pretty low. There are more colds than covid, not sure by what multiple. LFT accuracy seems to be above 80% for symptomatic cases, some reports say higher still.
Somewhere in the 1-5% range seems plausible, probably lower end.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Property down here has been a magic money tree for ages. Once on the ladder all a person had to do was, each time they move, don't sell, keep the old one and rent out, do this a few times over say 30 years, and barring accidents they're rich. Periodically remortgage the older items in the portfolio to generate cash (if required) for deposits on later purchases. I know a bloke (used to work with him) who did this, starting at age 25 or so. No big tycoon type activity, just this slow, no drama, largely administrative plod as described. He had a good City career but he made more from this. No real added value, of course, (and same goes for the City career) but much personal wealth garnered. This, I think, tells us something about how our economy works.
Yes, I wish I'd done that. But in retrospect, at no stage did I think house prices were going to go on rising, and - though I was wrong - even in retrospect I don't think my conclusion was obviously misplaced.
I still don't understand how even with ultra-low interest rates, even with the demand of 20 years population growth, houses are as expensive as they are. I'd have thought there's be a point at which they'd outstrip people's ability to own them. But ultimately it turns out there's a lot more money sloshing around in the country than I'd expected.
Yes, this chap saw the structural big picture, which is no mean feat at 25. And he only had a deposit for one modest purchase to start with. So from this viewpoint, he's deserving of the wealth accrual, but intuitively there's something wrong. It's a case of 'to he who hath, much shall be given, and he who hath not can go whistle'.
And rising house prices have been such a blatant "something for nothing" that there's clearly someone else who is getting nothing for something.
Just imagine if all that capital and thinking had gone into something actually productive.
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
when i got symptoms I took a LFT that showed negative, but I only did one. My wife's showed positive so we both took proper tests and we were both positive.
could just be some other virus but if it's easy to book/get a proper test I would. (if you're feeling reckless/selfish do your shopping first).
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Property down here has been a magic money tree for ages. Once on the ladder all a person had to do was, each time they move, don't sell, keep the old one and rent out, do this a few times over say 30 years, and barring accidents they're rich. Periodically remortgage the older items in the portfolio to generate cash (if required) for deposits on later purchases. I know a bloke (used to work with him) who did this, starting at age 25 or so. No big tycoon type activity, just this slow, no drama, largely administrative plod as described. He had a good City career but he made more from this. No real added value, of course, (and same goes for the City career) but much personal wealth garnered. This, I think, tells us something about how our economy works.
But this is not normal or sustainable. It is a quirk of various policies, immigration, living longer, green belt, QE, BTL, preference for urban over rural all coming together over the last couple of decades.
It tells us how the London & SE economy has worked, not how it works.
I see it as a more general point than just London and SE property. The more general point being the disconnect between a person's economic contribution and the money they receive for it. It's become the norm and I'd guess it's sustainable for as long as the losers in the deal are neither willing nor able to change it.
Interesting line in here: Taliban not bothered by the loss of Western aid because “They assume that any money that the west doesn’t give them will be replaced by China, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia.” Will be interesting to see if that's true. https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430848001036197892
Do the middle two have any to spare ? And if they think China gives money out without rather more strings than we do, they are more delusional than I thought.
China's only strings will be that the Taliban does not mess with the new Chinese mines that will be dug. Easy for the Taliban and in return they will get squillions from dig and sell.
That sounds pretty delusional to me, too.
Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the world. But in 2010, US military officials and geologists revealed that the country, which lies at the crossroads of Central and South Asia, was sitting on mineral deposits worth nearly $1 trillion.
Supplies of minerals such as iron, copper and gold are scattered across provinces. There are also rare earth minerals and, perhaps most importantly, what could be one of the world's biggest deposits of lithium — an essential but scarce component in rechargeable batteries and other technologies vital to tackling the climate crisis. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/18/business/afghanistan-lithium-rare-earths-mining/index.html
Don’t bother going down that route here. I dared to mention it the other day and got roundly shouted at for daring to mention it.
I've no interesting in shouting at you, but I do think there's a great deal of handwaving in assigning values to Afghanistan's mineral wealth.
In any event, even if China decided it was more attractive to them than the more easily accessed Mongolian assets (which, FWIW, seems a bit unlikely to me), it would still take many years before there was a return, let alone a net return, on any investment. If you look at the history of China's 'belt & road' partners, you'll see they don't give away money - they lend it as interest bearing debt. That hasn't worked out very well for quite a few of those partners.
I'm not saying that none of this will happen - even given the massive ideological differences between a communist dictatorship and a religious state whose faith isn't exactly popular in China - but if it does, it's likely to be at least as thorny a process as any deal the Taliban regime might make with the departing westerners.
The focus seems to be on the Triple Lock, why not a refund or a rebate for students who have been taught from home for the last year+? Why are they ignored?
One reason is they do not vote.
Old people do.
They do vote, just not in large enough quantities - but I very much agree with the basis of your point.
And I agree with the basis of yours. Young people have been treated very badly in this pandemic and it is time it stopped. High time.
Young people have been treated badly for the last twenty+ years, it did not start with COVID.
I am fortunate enough to be in the position to be buying a house due to inherited money, if I didn't have that I would be utterly screwed and I am a higher earner for my age. A Government needs to do something about that.
I had this conversation with a 29 year old at work a few months back. You could afford property, we can't.
Its true of course, but there is further point to make. When I bought all those years ago, it was a joint effort with my missus and that was generally the way it was done.
Property is still accessible if two of you pitch in right? trouble is, many young people don't seem to want the lifetime commitments of previous generations.
Their lifestyle is their right and I support their right to choose it, but there are always going to be trade-offs.
I am buying with somebody else, if I was alone despite the money I had inherited, I would still be screwed.
I have to ask. What property are you trying to buy that two high earners would be screwed if it weren’t for inherited money?
Welcome to London
Is it all so prohibitively expensive that it wouldn’t be possible just with normal savings, without relying on inheritance?
Yes.
The 2 bed terrace in wandsworth i bought for 140k in 1992 and sold for 145 in 1994 now wants 1.1m.
Property down here has been a magic money tree for ages. Once on the ladder all a person had to do was, each time they move, don't sell, keep the old one and rent out, do this a few times over say 30 years, and barring accidents they're rich. Periodically remortgage the older items in the portfolio to generate cash (if required) for deposits on later purchases. I know a bloke (used to work with him) who did this, starting at age 25 or so. No big tycoon type activity, just this slow, no drama, largely administrative plod as described. He had a good City career but he made more from this. No real added value, of course, (and same goes for the City career) but much personal wealth garnered. This, I think, tells us something about how our economy works.
But this is not normal or sustainable. It is a quirk of various policies, immigration, living longer, green belt, QE, BTL, preference for urban over rural all coming together over the last couple of decades.
It tells us how the London & SE economy has worked, not how it works.
I see it as a more general point than just London and SE property. The more general point being the disconnect between a person's economic contribution and the money they receive for it. It's become the norm and I'd guess it's sustainable for as long as the losers in the deal are neither willing nor able to change it.
External events come into play as well, it is not just winners vs losers. Property buyers in the Med were wiped out in the GFC, not because of the actions of the losers in the deal, but just circumstances beyond either groups control.
It's not quite as simple as property prices being a sure winner. Property is certainly not a one-way bet, as many people found out in the 1990s. Nor are the returns necessarily particularly good; over the last thirty years, UK shares have generally beaten UK property, although a lot depends on your assumptions: property in which area, how much leverage, cost of borrowing etc. There's a reasonable summary here, albeit slightly out of date:
It makes no logical sense to apply the triple lock this year – that’s obvious and so we must scrabble around for a fresh angle on the subject. I think I have one.
In almost every conceivable way it’s better to be young than old. I won’t list all the ways – not in the mood – and I don’t need to. Not expecting an argument on the point.
Why is this relevant to the thread topic of pensions? It’s relevant because the core issue is equity between the generations. What we usually hear is that the young are subsidizing the old. Which is true. They do. But think of it a different way. The young have copious amounts of something very precious – time. Time is the most precious commodity on the planet since it’s needed for literally everything and is strictly limited in supply, extra amounts cannot under any circumstances be manufactured.
This isn't an airy fairy intangible asset it has hard monetary value. Eg, the average 61 year old would be willing to pay approx 50% (maybe more) of their net worth in order to become an average 21 year old. That’s just by way of illustration, some would pay less, some more, and in general the older you are the more you’d be willing to cough up. Let’s not quibble on the detail. The point I’m making is that when you bring in this metric – which is both genuine and material - young people start to look much £££ wealthier and old people much £££ poorer. Once in this frame of mind the objection to one year’s triple lock anomaly seems petty.
Although I might negotiate hard I suspect I would give 100% of my wealth to be 21 again.
Gosh, ok. I think you're an outlier there. But maybe not. Once the market is developed - with sufficient liquidity - we'll find out.
Technical note: You'll need to find a willing counterparty. Either a single one, a 21 year old who will sell you the 44 years, you becoming 21, them 65, or multiples, eg you buy 10 years off a 25 year old, 20 off an 18 year old, and 14 off a 30 year old, you emerging as 21, them becoming 35, 38, 44 respectively.
One can see it working well as an exchange rather like Betfair. One thing's for sure, it will change the calculus of the 'intergenerational unfairness' debate quite markedly.
Would I get to be 21 again, but know all the stuff I know now? In which case 'all my wealth' seems like an amazing deal. I'd be able to do the job I do now, and get paid what I get paid now, but have many years doing it. I'd be pretty well paid for a 21 year old. But if I just get to be 21 again, only today, rather than in 1996 - I don't think I'd pay for that. And I'd do rather better at being in my 20s second time around. I think the 40 years or so I've got left will be better, if rather shorter, than the 65 years or so that the average 21 year old today will have.
EDIT - changed my mind almost immediately. No deal. I'm staying at 46. What I'd like to do is have the opportunity to go back to 1996 and do my 20s again, only better. But I don't think that's what you're offering me.
No, that's not on offer. In fact, as we explore further, we hit intractable problems - both practical and philosophical - with any such market. Eg, you buy 27 years, become 19, what happens with your wife? Does she want a toyboy? Fine if she does - it can be you, you're right there in situ - but she might not. And she's had no say in the transaction. It's a can of worms.
Back to the drawing board.
But, still, I find myself unvexed by the thought of this illogical hike to the state pension due to the artificial volatility in average earnings, and this here - the value of time - is why.
Yes, there are avenues here it might be best not to explore in too much detail on a public forum. At the risk of tearing open the can of worms with a chainsaw, we really need @Leon 's perspective on this.
Your basic premise seems sound though - there is an intrinsic value in being young - in simply having more life left, and also being fit, agile and having good hair - which those who are not young may be theoretically willing to pay money for.
My best years were actually the last 12 or so (until Covid); my 20s and very early 30s were wildly entertaining, but a fucking scary ride
Ideally I'd go back to about 30, if I can also have the wisdom I have now, and keep just some of my money
My 30s were the decade I really screwed up and I'd like a second go at getting them right
Most older people were quite lively in their youth.
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
Pretty low. There are more colds than covid, not sure by what multiple. LFT accuracy seems to be above 80% for symptomatic cases, some reports say higher still.
Somewhere in the 1-5% range seems plausible, probably lower end.
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
when i got symptoms I took a LFT that showed negative, but I only did one. My wife's showed positive so we both took proper tests and we were both positive.
could just be some other virus but if it's easy to book/get a proper test I would. (if you're feeling reckless/selfish do your shopping first).
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
If you have, just go and get a PCR done. Just tell porkies on the booking form about your symptoms.
Thanks. It’s not me but my girlfriend … my 32 weeks pregnant, unvaccinated girlfriend who went to a family (outdoor) get together Saturday... one of the guests has tested positive, and now she feels rough. Could just be run down/pregnancy cold though, hopefully
We have a PCR test here, so she is going to do that later
It's not quite as simple as property prices being a sure winner. Property is certainly not a one-way bet, as many people found out in the 1990s. Nor are the returns necessarily particularly good; over the last thirty years, UK shares have generally beaten UK property, although a lot depends on your assumptions: property in which area, how much leverage, cost of borrowing etc. There's a reasonable summary here, albeit slightly out of date:
Sadly so, it seems ISIS are the likely culprits and will fill the gap left by the Biden led withdrawal, even the Taliban cannot fully control them
Biden led the withdrawal?
Yes it was Biden and his administration who decided to withdraw in this manner and none of the G7 allies of the US could persuade them to change their mind.
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
Pretty low. There are more colds than covid, not sure by what multiple. LFT accuracy seems to be above 80% for symptomatic cases, some reports say higher still.
Somewhere in the 1-5% range seems plausible, probably lower end.
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
when i got symptoms I took a LFT that showed negative, but I only did one. My wife's showed positive so we both took proper tests and we were both positive.
could just be some other virus but if it's easy to book/get a proper test I would. (if you're feeling reckless/selfish do your shopping first).
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
If you have, just go and get a PCR done. Just tell porkies on the booking form about your symptoms.
Thanks. It’s not me but my girlfriend … my 32 weeks pregnant, unvaccinated girlfriend who went to a family (outdoor) get together Saturday... one of the guests has tested positive, and now she feels rough. Could just be run down/pregnancy cold though, hopefully
We have a PCR test here, so she is going to do that later
No idea how reliable the LFT tests are when pregnant, it might be very different. Good luck.
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
Pretty low. There are more colds than covid, not sure by what multiple. LFT accuracy seems to be above 80% for symptomatic cases, some reports say higher still.
Somewhere in the 1-5% range seems plausible, probably lower end.
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
when i got symptoms I took a LFT that showed negative, but I only did one. My wife's showed positive so we both took proper tests and we were both positive.
could just be some other virus but if it's easy to book/get a proper test I would. (if you're feeling reckless/selfish do your shopping first).
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
If you have, just go and get a PCR done. Just tell porkies on the booking form about your symptoms.
Thanks. It’s not me but my girlfriend … my 32 weeks pregnant, unvaccinated girlfriend who went to a family (outdoor) get together Saturday... one of the guests has tested positive, and now she feels rough. Could just be run down/pregnancy cold though, hopefully
We have a PCR test here, so she is going to do that later
It's not quite as simple as property prices being a sure winner. Property is certainly not a one-way bet, as many people found out in the 1990s. Nor are the returns necessarily particularly good; over the last thirty years, UK shares have generally beaten UK property, although a lot depends on your assumptions: property in which area, how much leverage, cost of borrowing etc. There's a reasonable summary here, albeit slightly out of date:
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
Pretty low. There are more colds than covid, not sure by what multiple. LFT accuracy seems to be above 80% for symptomatic cases, some reports say higher still.
Somewhere in the 1-5% range seems plausible, probably lower end.
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
when i got symptoms I took a LFT that showed negative, but I only did one. My wife's showed positive so we both took proper tests and we were both positive.
could just be some other virus but if it's easy to book/get a proper test I would. (if you're feeling reckless/selfish do your shopping first).
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
If you have, just go and get a PCR done. Just tell porkies on the booking form about your symptoms.
Thanks. It’s not me but my girlfriend … my 32 weeks pregnant, unvaccinated girlfriend who went to a family (outdoor) get together Saturday... one of the guests has tested positive, and now she feels rough. Could just be run down/pregnancy cold though, hopefully
We have a PCR test here, so she is going to do that later
I'd make sure she gets on with it PDQ if I were you. 32 weeks isn't a good stage for the baby, either.
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
Pretty low. There are more colds than covid, not sure by what multiple. LFT accuracy seems to be above 80% for symptomatic cases, some reports say higher still.
Somewhere in the 1-5% range seems plausible, probably lower end.
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
when i got symptoms I took a LFT that showed negative, but I only did one. My wife's showed positive so we both took proper tests and we were both positive.
could just be some other virus but if it's easy to book/get a proper test I would. (if you're feeling reckless/selfish do your shopping first).
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
If you have, just go and get a PCR done. Just tell porkies on the booking form about your symptoms.
Thanks. It’s not me but my girlfriend … my 32 weeks pregnant, unvaccinated girlfriend who went to a family (outdoor) get together Saturday... one of the guests has tested positive, and now she feels rough. Could just be run down/pregnancy cold though, hopefully
We have a PCR test here, so she is going to do that later
No idea how reliable the LFT tests are when pregnant, it might be very different. Good luck.
She has to take one before scans and seeing the midwife, so the NHS must think they are ok
It's not quite as simple as property prices being a sure winner. Property is certainly not a one-way bet, as many people found out in the 1990s. Nor are the returns necessarily particularly good; over the last thirty years, UK shares have generally beaten UK property, although a lot depends on your assumptions: property in which area, how much leverage, cost of borrowing etc. There's a reasonable summary here, albeit slightly out of date:
One of my worst ever predictions was that buy-to-let would be a flash in the pan. so wrong but just embarassing rather than personally costly.
During the GFC, I dimly recall Canary Wharf bankers visibly panicking in dread of personal bankruptcy when (not if) their BTL portfolios were wiped out.
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
Pretty low. There are more colds than covid, not sure by what multiple. LFT accuracy seems to be above 80% for symptomatic cases, some reports say higher still.
Somewhere in the 1-5% range seems plausible, probably lower end.
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
when i got symptoms I took a LFT that showed negative, but I only did one. My wife's showed positive so we both took proper tests and we were both positive.
could just be some other virus but if it's easy to book/get a proper test I would. (if you're feeling reckless/selfish do your shopping first).
If you have a sore throat, headache, runny nose and fever but have tested negative twice in two days on LFT, what are the chances you’ve got Covid?
If you have, just go and get a PCR done. Just tell porkies on the booking form about your symptoms.
Thanks. It’s not me but my girlfriend … my 32 weeks pregnant, unvaccinated girlfriend who went to a family (outdoor) get together Saturday... one of the guests has tested positive, and now she feels rough. Could just be run down/pregnancy cold though, hopefully
We have a PCR test here, so she is going to do that later
I'd make sure she gets on with it PDQ if I were you. 32 weeks isn't a good stage for the baby, either.
If she has got it, what do we do? Why do you say that re 32 weeks?
Animal rights activists have credited Carrie Johnson after a former marine was given permission to fly hundreds of dogs and cats out of Kabul.
Campaigners claimed that Boris Johnson had ordered Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, to rescue the stranded animals after coming under pressure from his wife.
Many of ISIS-K are ex Taliban who don't think the Taliban are extreme enough says Frank Gardner. Jeez.
Peter Bergen on Sam Harris, said a lot of the ISIS were AQ, who decided they fancied a harder looking badge, and they have in the recent past got into fights with other AQ and Taliban....
It's not quite as simple as property prices being a sure winner. Property is certainly not a one-way bet, as many people found out in the 1990s. Nor are the returns necessarily particularly good; over the last thirty years, UK shares have generally beaten UK property, although a lot depends on your assumptions: property in which area, how much leverage, cost of borrowing etc. There's a reasonable summary here, albeit slightly out of date:
That appears on first sight to be comparing purchasing shares and receiving dividends with purchasing property and not receiving rent?
It's not a simple comparison at all. Obviously if you live in the house, there's no rental income and no CGT. If you rent out then you've got rental income but you also end up with a potentially whopping CGT liability, which you can't shelter in an ISA as you can with shares. Then for buy-to-let there are the complications of void periods, legal fees, unpaid rent, unexpected repair costs, not to mention the sheer hassle. Property is of course much less liquid (sometimes VERY much less liquid), but the returns are generally smoother. Property lets you gear up, which is great when things are going well, but absolutely disastrous when things go badly.
There has never been a weaker and more uncaring administration in terms of foreign policy in the White House than this one in my lifetime.
Trump may have been an idiot at times but he was not weak like Biden-Harris are.
You have to go back to Carter to find a President as weak as this one but at least Carter had a heart and some compassion
Actually we have no idea what the Trump withdrawal would have been like as he was thankfully ejected from office before this took place. He "negotiated" the exit though. But based on the endless stories of chaos, confusion, sackings and crap thinking in WH that emerged during his four year stint I reckon this would have been a far bigger clusterfuck under Trump.
There has never been a weaker and more uncaring administration in terms of foreign policy in the White House than this one in my lifetime.
Trump may have been an idiot at times but he was not weak like Biden-Harris are.
You have to go back to Carter to find a President as weak as this one but at least Carter had a heart and some compassion
This operation has been so unutterably bad, its almost as if there were some design to it. Can't be true, of course, but if you wanted to make it the biggest disaster for America possible, you could hardly have done it better.
There has never been a weaker and more uncaring administration in terms of foreign policy in the White House than this one in my lifetime.
Trump may have been an idiot at times but he was not weak like Biden-Harris are.
You have to go back to Carter to find a President as weak as this one but at least Carter had a heart and some compassion
Actually we have no idea what the Trump withdrawal would have been like as he was thankfully ejected from office before this took place. He "negotiated" the exit though. But based on the endless stories of chaos, confusion, sackings and crap thinking in WH that emerged during his four year stint I reckon this would have been a far bigger clusterfuck under Trump.
Biden assured us a month ago that what is happening now was well nigh impossible.
It's not quite as simple as property prices being a sure winner. Property is certainly not a one-way bet, as many people found out in the 1990s. Nor are the returns necessarily particularly good; over the last thirty years, UK shares have generally beaten UK property, although a lot depends on your assumptions: property in which area, how much leverage, cost of borrowing etc. There's a reasonable summary here, albeit slightly out of date:
That appears on first sight to be comparing purchasing shares and receiving dividends with purchasing property and not receiving rent?
It's not a simple comparison at all. Obviously if you live in the house, there's no rental income and no CGT. If you rent out then you've got rental income but you also end up with a potentially whopping CGT liability, which you can't shelter in an ISA as you can with shares. Then for buy-to-let there are the complications of void periods, legal fees, unpaid rent, unexpected repair costs, not to mention the sheer hassle. Property is of course much less liquid (sometimes VERY much less liquid), but the returns are generally smoother. Property lets you gear up, which is great when things are going well, but absolutely disastrous when things go badly.
Sorry, the investment comparison doesnt work unless you include rents, or exclude dividends (even then rental yields have generally been much higher than dividend yields).
If its where you live, then you are saving paying rent, so benefit by the same rental yield.
England lead up to 200 with 8 wickets still in hand. Seriously impressive scoring rate now too. Maybe looking for a 350 run lead by the end of the day?
England lead up to 200 with 8 wickets still in hand. Seriously impressive scoring rate now too. Maybe looking for a 350 run lead by the end of the day?
Comments
Back in 2000 when I moved to London I was going to rent, buying in London wasn't going to be an option until my mother intervened.
Those are brave Allied soldiers, out there
Your basic premise seems sound though - there is an intrinsic value in being young - in simply having more life left, and also being fit, agile and having good hair - which those who are not young may be theoretically willing to pay money for.
It tells us how the London & SE economy has worked, not how it works.
Ideally I'd go back to about 30, if I can also have the wisdom I have now, and keep just some of my money
My 30s were the decade I really screwed up and I'd like a second go at getting them right
But I will definitely let you know if this changes. You're top of the list.
I still don't understand how even with ultra-low interest rates, even with the demand of 20 years population growth, houses are as expensive as they are. I'd have thought there's be a point at which they'd outstrip people's ability to own them. But ultimately it turns out there's a lot more money sloshing around in the country than I'd expected.
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1430848001036197892
Do the middle two have any to spare ?
And if they think China gives money out without rather more strings than we do, they are more delusional than I thought.
It is mentioned in the report.
Anyhoo, it is classed as a bridging loan that straddles 2020 and 2021 so Boris Johnson needs to make sure his P11D was accurate for last year/this year.
It is something HMRC usually jumps on for much smaller amounts for employees/company directors/officers of companies/organisations if it isn't declared properly.
A majority of the UK population (especially those who can afford to buy) believe house prices are a one way bet guaranteed by the government. Examples such as Tokyo house prices dropping 90% are completely ignored in favour of a small UK sample.
They will borrow whatever the banks will lend them and then find ways to cheat the rules to borrow even a bit more to buy a house.
Eventually there will be a deep and painful crash but it could be many years away.
All of England's top four have passed 30 in the same innings for only the second time since March 2013.
They have played 108 Tests in that time. Before that they had done so five times in 18 Tests between August 2011 and March 2013.
The last time they did it in the first innings of a Test was in Kolkata in December 2012.
and
Joe Root has only come in with 150 on the board once since 2016. That was against Ireland in the second innings at Lord's in 2019.
The last time it happened in the first innings was in Abu Dhabi in October 2015.
The last time he came in with more than 100 on the board was the third Test against West Indies last summer. England have played 13 Tests since then.
The Chinese might be making emollient noises now, but they will also be wary about going into Afghanistan, and of course they share a short border. I imagine that border is being reinforced as we chat
Supplies of minerals such as iron, copper and gold are scattered across provinces. There are also rare earth minerals and, perhaps most importantly, what could be one of the world's biggest deposits of lithium — an essential but scarce component in rechargeable batteries and other technologies vital to tackling the climate crisis.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/18/business/afghanistan-lithium-rare-earths-mining/index.html
Not easy.
A Tory donor provided more than £52,000 to cover some of the costs of Boris Johnson’s renovations to his Downing Street residence, according to party accounts.
The refurbishments to the flat in No 11 sparked sustained scrutiny of Mr Johnson’s finances, with the works vastly exceeding the £30,000 annual limit afforded to the Prime Minister.
Conservative Party accounts published on Thursday said its central office provided a “bridging loan” of £52,802 to cover the works after being invoiced by the Cabinet Office in June last year.
The party was “reimbursed in full” by Lord Brownlow in October, before Mr Johnson “settled the costs” incurred by the Conservative peer in March.
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/tory-donor-provided-52000-to-cover-pms-flat-refurbishments-according-to-party-accounts/120821
And later on:-
A Cabinet Office report in July said more than £28,000 was spent on painting and sanding floorboards, coming close to the limit of public funding.
But additional invoices came in and in March the supplier – reportedly interior designer Lulu Lytle – refunded the Government, which then refunded the Tories, before Mr Johnson met “all final costs”, the annual report detailed.
Somewhere in the 1-5% range seems plausible, probably lower end.
Just imagine if all that capital and thinking had gone into something actually productive.
could just be some other virus but if it's easy to book/get a proper test I would. (if you're feeling reckless/selfish do your shopping first).
Explosion has been Confirmed by the Pentagon Press Secretary
https://twitter.com/air_intel/status/1430889348833050626?s=20
Confirmed by Pentagon
In any event, even if China decided it was more attractive to them than the more easily accessed Mongolian assets (which, FWIW, seems a bit unlikely to me), it would still take many years before there was a return, let alone a net return, on any investment.
If you look at the history of China's 'belt & road' partners, you'll see they don't give away money - they lend it as interest bearing debt. That hasn't worked out very well for quite a few of those partners.
I'm not saying that none of this will happen - even given the massive ideological differences between a communist dictatorship and a religious state whose faith isn't exactly popular in China - but if it does, it's likely to be at least as thorny a process as any deal the Taliban regime might make with the departing westerners.
https://www.woodruff-fp.co.uk/property-vs-investment-portfolios/
Really do fear the worse.
We have a PCR test here, so she is going to do that later
Fuck...
Been a while since that happened I'd suggest.....
https://twitter.com/BarzanSadiq/status/1430892251496861708
And dare I say it - totally on Biden
Trump may have been an idiot at times but he was not weak like Biden-Harris are.
You have to go back to Carter to find a President as weak as this one but at least Carter had a heart and some compassion
Biden just made it so much worse
Animal rights activists have credited Carrie Johnson after a former marine was given permission to fly hundreds of dogs and cats out of Kabul.
Campaigners claimed that Boris Johnson had ordered Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, to rescue the stranded animals after coming under pressure from his wife.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/carrie-johnson-was-key-to-rescue-of-200-cats-and-dogs-from-kabul-6lgqn3gzz
Sounds like one big happy family.
https://twitter.com/johnrobertsfox/status/1430895887614496769
If its where you live, then you are saving paying rent, so benefit by the same rental yield.
https://twitter.com/KarlTurnerMP/status/1430444845206749184?s=20
https://twitter.com/joerichlaw/status/1430563251029483523?s=20
What happens if we stop airlifting? Just leave potential British citizens over there?
Poor show
On another tweet he got a different angle of the empty water shelf photo at the Sainsburys everyone uses