Jump to content

Budget 2015...


Unbelievable Jeff
 Share

Recommended Posts

"Labour's claims that the government protects the interests of the rich are addressed by the chancellor highlighting that the top 1% of taxpayers will have to pay 27% of total income tax in 2015, up from 25% in 2010. "That is higher than in any one of the 13 years of the last government," the chancellor says.

 

Interesting. Probably still not enough mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Labour's claims that the government protects the interests of the rich are addressed by the chancellor highlighting that the top 1% of taxpayers will have to pay 27% of total income tax in 2015, up from 25% in 2010. "That is higher than in any one of the 13 years of the last government," the chancellor says.2

 

Interesting.

 

I thought that was common knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Labour's claims that the government protects the interests of the rich are addressed by the chancellor highlighting that the top 1% of taxpayers will have to pay 27% of total income tax in 2015, up from 25% in 2010. "That is higher than in any one of the 13 years of the last government," the chancellor says.

 

Interesting. Probably still not enough mind.

 

It's the super rich and corporations that avoid tax that needs to be addressed whoever is in power. It's alright saying what they should pay, it's how much they avoid that sticks in the throat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the super rich and corporations that avoid tax that needs to be addressed whoever is in power. It's alright saying what they should pay, it's how much they avoid that sticks in the throat.

 

The above is what they are paying currently.

 

I agree though, it needs to happen, reckon they'll bring in an extra £5b based on avoidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realise the fuel duty escalator was introduced in 1993 (by the Tories) and cancelled in 2000 (by Labour). I'm not sure why GO repeatedly says that, if Labour had been in power the duty would have risen, when it is patently obvious it wasn't there in the first place?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_Price_Escalator

 

Labour want to bring it back though don't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First time buyer bonus...

 

 

"There's also a help-to-buy ISA on the way, he says: "For every £200 you save for your deposit, the government will top it up with £50 more. It's as simple as this - we'll work hand in hand to help you buy your first home."

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First time buyer bonus...

 

 

"There's also a help-to-buy ISA on the way, he says: "For every £200 you save for your deposit, the government will top it up with £50 more. It's as simple as this - we'll work hand in hand to help you buy your first home."

 

Super. Because house prices were getting way too low.

 

At one point this year, the average house price was only 6 times the average salary. Let's spend taxpayer money keeping those properties out of reach of people by keeping prices high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super. Because house prices were getting way too low.

 

At one point this year, the average house price was only 6 times the average salary. Let's spend taxpayer money keeping those properties out of reach of people by keeping prices high.

 

Agree house prices are too high.

 

Quick question though, HOW would we bring the prices of houses down without bankrupting half the citizens in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super. Because house prices were getting way too low.

 

At one point this year, the average house price was only 6 times the average salary. Let's spend taxpayer money keeping those properties out of reach of people by keeping prices high.

 

Moronic isnt it. Just save the money for the inducements and spend it on building houses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would it bankrupt them?

 

Your wiping value off the worth of their houses. If I was to lose 30% of the value of my house, I'd end up with a mortgage for more than the house is worth. I'd never be able to move, and I'd lose £150k I have in equity in the house.

 

Plus, how would they actually do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far too many people have interest only mortgages and are finding out at the end of their fixed deals, that banks aren't prepared to re-offer them and are faced with £100s of extra per month on their repayments.

 

This country is crying out for plenty of affordable housing but we continue to price millions out of ever owning a home and then private landlords fleece them anyway.

 

I'm mortgage free in a few years time but fear that my kids will never afford to own their own home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your wiping value off the worth of their houses. If I was to lose 30% of the value of my house, I'd end up with a mortgage for more than the house is worth. I'd never be able to move, and I'd lose £150k I have in equity in the house.

 

Plus, how would they actually do it?

 

Big difference from being bankrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you'd still have the same income, the same debt and the house you want to move to would also be 30% cheaper. Anyway it wouldnt happen that way in practice as you wouldnt be dumping huge numbers of houses on the market overnight, it would be gradual. The Bank of England could easily engineer a stagnation in prices so real values fell by say 30% over 10 years but absolute values remained the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say 'bankrupt', I obviously didn't mean 'bankrupt', but I meant it'd **** over half the country.

 

We're ****ing over more than half the population now. People havent earned the increase on the value of houses - its just good fortune of being born earlier. No one loses by building more houses.

 

If I was PM I'd build loads of 4 and 5 bed 200sqm detached houses, pushing down prices at the top and creating not only a cascade reduction in price, but allowing everybody to move up the chain into something better. The quality of most British housing is **** poor despite being so expensive.

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you'd still have the same income, the same debt and the house you want to move to would also be 30% cheaper. Anyway it wouldnt happen that way in practice as you wouldnt be dumping huge numbers of houses on the market overnight, it would be gradual. The Bank of England could easily engineer a stagnation in prices so real values fell by say 30% over 10 years but absolute values remained the same.

 

Ok, let's put it this way. My mortgage is £450k. My house is worth £600k. If we lost 30% on houseprices then if I wanted to sell it need to find about £40k to just pay off the mortgage. It'd screw me for about £200k. Stagnation I could deal with, as I wouldn't lose anything but anyway increase in value in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're ****ing over more than half the population now. You and I havent earned the increase on the value of houses - its just good fortune of being born earlier. No one loses by building more houses.

 

If I was PM I'd build loads of 4 and 5 bed 200sqm detached houses, pushing down prices at the top and creating not only a cascade reduction in price, but allowing everybody to move up the chain into something better. The quality of most British housing is **** poor despite being so expensive.

 

I've invested nearly £90k on improving my house, so yes I have earnt the increase in value. I've only lived there 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm mortgage free in a few years time but fear that my kids will never afford to own their own home.

 

But in leaving them yours you'll surely put them somewhere near the base of the ladder at least. Plus a few years stowing away a bit after you've finished paying, isn't that how the world works now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've invested nearly £90k on improving my house, so yes I have earnt the increase in value. I've only lived there 2 years.

 

I changed the post. Maybe you have earned yours but most havent. I bought a flat in Brighton for £63,000 in 1997 and sold it for £180,000 in 2002. The next owner sold it for £320,000 in 2007. How does that make any sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I changed the post. Maybe you have earned yours but most havent. I bought a flat in Brighton for £63,000 in 1997 and sold it for £180,000 in 2002. The next owner sold it for £320,000 in 2007. How does that make any sense?

 

I agree it doesn't, and you have benefitted from it, but I am one of the generation that apparently can't afford to buy a house. I bought my first in 2010 at the age of 25, spent money doing that up (it was a shell), then bought the one I am in now.

 

People can afford to buy houses, but the issue is people don't tend to want to save the deposit. I don't know anyone who has saved the deposit for a house that can't afford one. I wanted a house in London, but couldn't afford it so I moved out into the home counties, and thats how you afford a house. You move to the areas you can afford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it doesn't, and you have benefitted from it, but I am one of the generation that apparently can't afford to buy a house. I bought my first in 2010 at the age of 25, spent money doing that up (it was a shell), then bought the one I am in now.

 

People can afford to buy houses, but the issue is people don't tend to want to save the deposit. I don't know anyone who has saved the deposit for a house that can't afford one. I wanted a house in London, but couldn't afford it so I moved out into the home counties, and thats how you afford a house. You move to the areas you can afford.

 

Not exactly fair though, is it?

 

I mean, those rules put rich-but-thíck c**ts ahead of poor-but-useful types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it doesn't, and you have benefitted from it, but I am one of the generation that apparently can't afford to buy a house. I bought my first in 2010 at the age of 25, spent money doing that up (it was a shell), then bought the one I am in now.

 

People can afford to buy houses, but the issue is people don't tend to want to save the deposit. I don't know anyone who has saved the deposit for a house that can't afford one. I wanted a house in London, but couldn't afford it so I moved out into the home counties, and thats how you afford a house. You move to the areas you can afford.

 

Pretty much it

 

I moved out when I was 21 after saving for a deposit, a two bed maisonette, I was on the bones of my ass, I worked hard to do the place up and get more money behind me, I then bought another place at 25, 3 bedrooms, same situation as before, moving up the career ladder and saving a deposit. I have now managed to buy my third house, one I am very happy with but it needs work and Ive obviously got a bigger mortgage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly fair though, is it?

 

I mean, those rules put rich-but-thíck c**ts ahead of poor-but-useful types.

 

Sorry, what rules? A lot of poor but thick ****s benefitted from being born earlier and buying houses. I'm not biiching and moaning about that, because it's life, and life isn't fair.

 

Apart from the privileged, which I don't think any of us fit into, you work as hard as you can to make your life better. I don't expect others to be disadvantaged so I can prosper, I'll just have to work harder to achieve those goals.

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly fair though, is it?

 

I mean, those rules put rich-but-thíck c**ts ahead of poor-but-useful types.

 

What are you saying ? That we should completely change the world we live in ? Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly these are capitalist times, you take both the positives and negatives of that in the same way as if it were socialist.

 

More houses just means more buy to let mortgagers anyway. More should be done to get first time buyers on the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it doesn't, and you have benefitted from it, but I am one of the generation that apparently can't afford to buy a house. I bought my first in 2010 at the age of 25, spent money doing that up (it was a shell), then bought the one I am in now.

 

People can afford to buy houses, but the issue is people don't tend to want to save the deposit. I don't know anyone who has saved the deposit for a house that can't afford one. I wanted a house in London, but couldn't afford it so I moved out into the home counties, and thats how you afford a house. You move to the areas you can afford.

 

It's not that I don't want to save, I just struggle to save any meaningful amount whilst also paying huge rent on a tiny flat! That seems to be the problem most people my age (I think I'm a few years younger than you, right?) have. The only people I know that have bought around my age are people that have had help from their folks.

 

Granted, I grew up on the edge of London. So prices are pretty darn expensive. But, I think it's a pretty similar story in a lot of places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that I don't want to save, I just struggle to save any meaningful amount whilst also paying huge rent on a tiny flat! That seems to be the problem most people my age (I think I'm a few years younger than you, right?) have. The only people I know that have bought around my age are people that have had help from their folks.

 

Granted, I grew up on the edge of London. So prices are pretty darn expensive. But, I think it's a pretty similar story in a lot of places.

 

100% agree, it is the deposits that are the issue, not the price of housing, which is why the above savings ISA'a will help people like yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that I don't want to save, I just struggle to save any meaningful amount whilst also paying huge rent on a tiny flat! That seems to be the problem most people my age (I think I'm a few years younger than you, right?) have. The only people I know that have bought around my age are people that have had help from their folks.

 

Granted, I grew up on the edge of London. So prices are pretty darn expensive. But, I think it's a pretty similar story in a lot of places.

 

I think that people should avoid to rent as long as they can, unfortunately its dead money. You are effectively purchasing somebody elses property for them.

 

I appreciate its hell out there but what can feasibly be done !? Perhaps the government could come up with some sort of rent suppression property, but I dont see it as a feasible option to be honest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...