- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 3697 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
1083 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 80531
I think it's time for a new Corbyn thread.
The previous thread (>>73072) is reaching critical mass. In combination with the original thread (>>64990) we've had over 4,700 posts on Dear Leader since August last year. That's a lot of shitposting. Keep up the good work, lads.
|>>|| No. 83505
Manufacturing is still a Greater proportion of the economy than fi financial services.
|>>|| No. 83506
I agree with arseholelad. Why should I be branded an arse for wanting cheaper housing? The government's had a good couple of decades to fix it, but they didn't, so I hope it crashes. Maybe I can buy a 2 bedroom with a year's worth of salary.
|>>|| No. 83507
>Maybe it's the whole lack of future prospects thing.
That's not an excuse. Just because your own life is a bitter shell doesn't give you a pass to be a dick to everyone else or laugh at the idea of other people losing their job and life savings because they have it better.
>Nobody said this. It's about the competitiveness of imports versus exports, not about refusing imports altogether.
I'm telling you that this country needs imports and the rapid devaluation of the pound would be bad for that. Your excuse that people can just 'buy domestic' doesn't make sense in a modern society and is frankly a childish argument.
|>>|| No. 83508
Careful now, lad. Otherwise someone will probably say something stupid about those homeowners like "they deserved it" or "they worked hard for it" or some other bollocks.
|>>|| No. 83509
>NIMBY future housebuilding because you don't want your view spoiled/your investment devalued
>Call others arseholes for laughing when your property value is cut in half and the bank offers them negative real terms interest payments on mortgaging a similar property
>[Implicit] Demand that the government prop up the value of housing "so that people don't lose their life's savings", regardless of the impact on the numbers of people who won't have any life savings because it's all gone on rent.
I can laugh at whoever I want to, it just so happens the people I'm laughing at now either (a) deserve it, or (b) are well off enough to weather it.
What's the harm in your house devaluing 99% if you've paid off the mortgage and you're using it properly? (i.e as a place to live)
|>>|| No. 83510
I struggle to see the point of having an expensive house in retirement. You can't take it with you and passing it on to the kids only makes the whole situation worse.
|>>|| No. 83511
You get to sell it for 20 times what you bought it for. Then you can buy a cheaper place somewhere nice in the country AND buy a shithole shoebox so that you can rent it out to poor bastards who spend 50% of their salaries on rent. They you create a chain and buy more and more houses and rent them all out and live off the rent. By the end of it, you will be a multimillionaire. We must protect these kinds of people.
|>>|| No. 83512
We're fucked either way. If house prices remain high, we'll pay through the nose for rent. If house prices crash, an entire generation will lose their pensions and we'll have to cover the shortfall through taxes. We can't just tell the old to go fuck themselves, because the retired and soon-to-be retired substantially outnumber and outvote the young.
Realistically, we're left with two options - either we figure out a careful compromise to increase the amount of affordable housing without crashing the market, or the country will suffer demographic collapse after a wave of youth emigration. Brexit was a very canny move by the old, because it cuts off a lot of opportunities for emigration.
|>>|| No. 83513
You're all fucking idiots. If property prices crash then the people with all the disposable capital will buy them up, like when people complain about "da rich" doing well out of the crash because they were in a position to hold and invest in the stock markets when it was at a low and benefit when it shot up again.
The high rental yields would make it look a very attractive asset class to invest in. It wouldn't be some drippy cunt working in a call centre who'd be able to afford them, they'd all get hoovered up first by speculators.
A crash wouldn't see rents fall significantly as buy-to-let landlords don't actually make much more off the rent than the mortgage, tax and maintenance costs are. The rent is primarily used as a tool to service the mortgage so they're left with the capital sum at the end, so there's little scope for it to go down if they're to meet the repayments.
If you want to stop people investing in property then make pensions and the like a more attractive alternative.
|>>|| No. 83515
If there's cheap capital available, then ordinary proles could buy up a lot of those cheap houses; of course, odds are that it's just inflate another bubble. The only way to permanently break that boom-and-bust cycle is to glut the housing market beyond the point of scarcity, by building vast quantities of mid- and high-rise flats in the southeast.
>If you want to stop people investing in property then make pensions and the like a more attractive alternative.
That probably won't help. Housing is such an attractive "investment" because it's effectively an intergenerational wealth transfer. Renters need somewhere to live, so their landlords have them over a barrel. Landlords can effectively impose a tax on the productive economy, simply by holding an asset that is essential but arbitrarily scarce. There's no other class of investment where the only limit on yield is "people would actively prefer to live in a cardboard box than pay the market price".
|>>|| No. 83516
>If house prices crash, an entire generation will lose their pensions
How so? If your pension fund isn't being invested in diverse assets they're doing it wrong.
|>>|| No. 83518
A large proportion of institutional investors are heavily involved in property, either through direct investment or indirect vehicles like OEICs. There has been a broad increase in property investment, because of the poor yields on offer elsewhere. Many individual investors are depending on liquidating the value of their own home by downsizing or have a small buy-to-let investment.
Most corporate pension funds are running severe deficits and are extremely fragile. BT, Lloyds, BAE and many other FTSE 100 companies have pension liabilities that exceed their market cap. If these funds need to be bailed out by their corporate owners, then profits will have to be poured into pension payments rather than dividends. Reduced blue-chip dividends will worsen the deficits of other pension funds, creating a vicious cycle. If these companies renege on their pension obligations, then the burden will fall on the exchequer.
The whole thing is a house of cards. It wouldn't take much to bring the whole thing crashing down.
|>>|| No. 83519
>A large proportion of institutional investors are heavily involved in property, either through direct investment or indirect vehicles like OEICs.
This is mainly commercial property, which doesn't have the same necessity attached to it. It's not a disaster if John Lewis can't come to town and have to wait a few years for the next development to arrive, whereas most people do actually need a home to live in on most days.
>Many individual investors are depending on liquidating the value of their own home by downsizing or have a small buy-to-let investment.
If you want a pension, pay into a pension. If you want a home, buy a house.
>If these companies renege on their pension obligations, then the burden will fall on the exchequer.
Alternatively, let them fail and the ladder-pulling cunts can live with the consequences of their choices for a change.
|>>|| No. 83520
>Alternatively, let them fail and the ladder-pulling cunts can live with the consequences of their choices for a change.
>We can't just tell the old to go fuck themselves, because the retired and soon-to-be retired substantially outnumber and outvote the young.
|>>|| No. 83521
>If these funds need to be bailed out by their corporate owners, then profits will have to be poured into pension payments rather than dividends.
That's what happens when your chickens cone home to roost. The deficits only really exist in the first place because those companies were paying out more dividends instead of paying more into the pension schemes.
|>>|| No. 83522
Maybe if someone actually offered the young a reason to vote they would do so.
|>>|| No. 83524
Doesn't really matter anyway. With all the democratic backsliding going on, ARE TREEZA will have made herself empress before the next election is due.
|>>|| No. 83525
What's with all the greentexting, have I gotten lost and ended up in the otherplace?
Keep in mind that this 'expensive house' is just a place large enough to raise a family if we're looking at the average homeowner. The fashion on retirement appears to be either selling it off and moving to sunnier climates (if you can afford it), selling it cheap to one of the kids to have their own family while you downsize or, selling it and downsizing to one of the many small unaffordable properties the government has been building.
None of these things are particularly sinister.
>The only way to permanently break that boom-and-bust cycle is to glut the housing market beyond the point of scarcity, by building vast quantities of mid- and high-rise flats in the southeast.
How about we start building housing (and jobs) across the country instead of feeding the London megalopolis.
|>>|| No. 83526
>Maybe if someone actually offered the young a reason to vote they would do so.
Well silly internet memes and messiah-like figures emerging every 10 years seems to be working. Maybe if we started making general elections and referendums a bi-monthly thing with celebrity candidates.
Is this that how drafting post-EU law thing or do we have something else labour is being completely spineless about?
|>>|| No. 83527
>The deficits only really exist in the first place because those companies were paying out more dividends instead of paying more into the pension schemes.
That's a very simplistic way of looking at things. The rules of the scheme and of agreeing a deficit recovery plan with the Regulator wouldn't allow it because they're not permitted to make an excessive contribution that could harm the growth prospects of the sponsoring employer, which is exactly what would happen if they scrapped their dividends; the shares in Provident Financial fell by 60% in part because they withdrew dividends recently.
If you want to know why pension schemes are in deficit look to quantitative easing sending gilt yields plummeting, as these form part of the actuarial calculation. Look to increased longevity. Look to Lamont and his contribution holidays. Look to Brown and his pension tax raid. Look to the introduction of pensions freedoms and transfer values from defined benefit schemes reaching record highs, meaning a record number of people are transferring out of the scheme and the underlying assets may have to be sold to fund this at a poor point in the market. Look to the fact that schemes are increasingly choosing low growth investment strategies after getting burnt after the crash. Look to the fact that if the scheme is in deficit then it gives the sponsoring employer to say the scheme is too costly and burdensome which they can use as an excuse to close the scheme or reduce the benefits on offer.
Don't go HERPY DERPY PAY DA DIVIDENDS because of an overly simplistic article you read in this vein on the Guardian, which was little more than their standard dog whistling to the financially and economically illiterate.
|>>|| No. 83528
>Is this that how drafting post-EU law thing or do we have something else labour is being completely spineless about?
A combination of the changes to electoral boundaries, the Henry VIII rules of the Great Repeal, the new committee rules which no longer tie representation to caucus size and allow the government to ensure favourable membership, the restrictions on union activity, the curtailment of information rights (and exemption of the government therefrom), the unchecked expansion of the surveillance state (and exemption of the government therefrom), restricting enforcement of human rights (and, again, exemption of the government therefrom), etc.
|>>|| No. 83529
>A combination of the changes to electoral boundaries
Ugh, and all your complaints go on like this. There was me expecting some drastic and as of yet unheard of political reform but it's either strengthening the executive (i.e. cabinet) on a temporary basis, crying about a minor loss of labour electoral advantage or talking about civil/economic liberties.
Save it for the British Bill of Rights debate in 2022.
And unless you are expecting some drastic changes on the national and international scene over the next few years she would be a Queen. If you want a spooky title then call her Lord Protector.
|>>|| No. 83530
>it's either strengthening the executive (i.e. cabinet) on a temporary basis,
Yep, a "temporary basis". They'll definitely weaken the executive again afterwards, because governments always tend to weaken their own power. While we're at it, I've got a cracking bridge to show you.
>crying about a minor loss of labour electoral advantage
Well, if the Tories say there's an electoral advantage then there must be one.
>or talking about civil/economic liberties.
Yeah, what silliness. Small erosions in these never caused any harm. It's not like there's an established pattern of behaviour when that happens or anything.
|>>|| No. 83531
Pensions as a whole seem a bit dodgy. I can't quite put my finger on why, but whether public or private they seem a bit house-of-cards ish.
Wonder if there's any research on scrapping state pensions and paying the elderly some kind of generalized benefit funded from general taxation, for example broadening ESA so that the criteria are "or over X age and under X income" and then paying that out instead. Politically impossible, obviously, but tempting.
|>>|| No. 83532
Where do you think money comes from? Pensions can't be funded that way.
A smart thing to do would have been to create the oil fund of the Norwegians. But we hate "big governments."
|>>|| No. 83534
>Pensions as a whole seem a bit dodgy. I can't quite put my finger on why, but whether public or private they seem a bit house-of-cards ish.
A [money purchase] pension is literally an investment wrapper. An ISA is an investment wrapper. An investment bond is an investment wrapper.
You can invest in funds via a pension. You can invest in funds via a stocks and shares ISA. You can invest in funds via an investment bond.
They differ in the way they are treated for tax on the way in, whilst invested and on the way out. Pensions benefit from tax relief on the way in, tax efficient growth whilst held and you can take 25% out tax free at the end once you reach the minimum pension age. The main advantage is your employer can contribute on your behalf.
That's really all there is to it. People like to spread a myth that they're complex because they haven't even remotely bothered trying to understand them.
|>>|| No. 83535
>Where do you think money comes from?
Within the context of this line of thinking, taxes. (Distinct from the actual process of creating new money. I mean, this should be revenue neutral or save money on admin.)
In the state context it might just involve a language switch (from "NI contributions" to "Taxes") since as I gather in practice it basically works like that anyway.
Thinking is slightly muddled by trying to understand how private pensions are supposed to work. If NI contributions actually went into a specific fund and state pensions were exclusively funded by that (and if it was empty, treasury didn't step in), then it would probably make more sense, since even if the fund was running fine right now it would be tempting to say "No, merge this with general taxation/expenditure" to simplify things. (i.e. your pension contributions - random figure say 10% - end, but you pay - say - 10% extra tax. end result is you're paying the same, but rather than going into "your fund" it just goes to the treasury, and then 50 years from now the treasury just supports you rather than going "Okay, let's take a look in your fund...")
|>>|| No. 83536
I mean, if your investment loses money for one reason or another and that is a bit dodgy.
The complexity illusion really arises from the impression of security and long-termism combined with the reality of being a financial investment where actually there's a possibility you put money in and it disappears. (versus holding money yourself and merely having it devalue.)
|>>|| No. 83537
>Wonder if there's any research on scrapping state pensions and paying the elderly some kind of generalized benefit funded from general taxation, for example broadening ESA so that the criteria are "or over X age and under X income" and then paying that out instead. Politically impossible, obviously, but tempting.
We pretty much already have that. The basic state pension is a maximum of £122.30, but Guarantee Pension Credit tops up your income to a minimum of £159.35 regardless of your national insurance contributions history. You can also claim Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction on top, plus a few extra bits like a bus pass and the Winter Fuel Payment.
This creates a slightly odd situation - an unemployed 64 year old gets £73.10 a week in JSA, so their cash income more than doubles the day they turn 65. Given the troublingly short life expectancy of the long-term unemployed, it seems a bit cruel to me.
|>>|| No. 83538
NI contributions are basically a tick-box exercise. The only think that's really distinct about them is benefit eligibility. Technically there's a separate fund, and this pays mainly for pensions unless it's loaned to the government, but in reality that's a paper exercise and NICs might as well just be regarded as a tax by any other name.
|>>|| No. 83542
Apparently she coughed a lot and some of the letters fell down.
|>>|| No. 83543
She said some quite interesting things in that speech, which of course nobody will remember.
Don't you think she looks tired?
|>>|| No. 83544
Fair play though.png
Lads, what if you had to give one of the most important speeches of your career with the nations cameras watching but on the day you wake up with a cold?
I mean surely politicians have advanced beyond the point of strepsils and covonia by now. I'd at least reach for some lemon and ginger tea despite hardly ever thinking about such nightmare scenarios.
The extra two billion for new social housing doesn't deserve comment if you ask me. We've had governments talk about this before while doing nothing in reality to sort it and translated into 25k more social housing by 2021 it seems like a drop in the bucket to the growth in demand.
|>>|| No. 83545
Making Organ Donation an Opt-Out rather than an Opt-In is causing uproar.
|>>|| No. 83547
Sorry to double post, but you inspired me to go over to the Mail Online and have a gander at the comments; perhaps the most mental I've ever seen on there. It's like they're from the fourteenth century. I just have to remember they aren't representative.
|>>|| No. 83548
Last time someone said "don't worry about the Daily Mail comments, they're not representative" we ended up with Brexit.
|>>|| No. 83762
I'd like to see a debate in the Oxford Union with Owen Jones and Douglas Murray.
I'm sure Douglas would turn up.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]