tired

Mexican standoff - it's a great metaphor for our whole global economy. On a personal level, I suspect a lot of individuals are feeling the effects of this right now. Everything seems on hold, don't know which way to move. But eventually something has to give. I know just about enough to know that I don't know sh1t. Wiley Coyote moment, not so much treading water, as treading air.

Then so is their landlord. So, commericial rents have to come down?

In my home city they turned our hospital into "luxury" flats and office space. Most of it is empty several years on. It's rumoured to be full of asbestos. The new hospital, including the A&E, is now some way out of the centre of town, there has been an ongoing problem for nurses, doctors and other staff getting parking space. Patients and ambulances have further to travel. There are fewer beds, but many of them come with pay TV. That's "progess" for ya.

well, yeah. At the same time as the govt were issuing promises to keep home "owners" in their homes, there was a whole lot of media about clamping down on housing benefit recipients. Whilst I'm not a recipient of housing benefit (or any other benefit), it Ps me off that if I lose my job, my rented home isn't considered mine to lose. Renters should have the same protections as mortgagees in "these difficult times", otherwise the system is just twice unfair, i rent becasue I'm priced out, but my taxes can be used to (attempt to) sustain the market that priced me out. That's just wrong. It doesn't mean I want to see "homeowners" lose their homes. It just means I would like a secure home too.

+1 What profit it a man if all the "workshy" are forced to work for free and he loses his job?

Exactly. Mortgagees 2 years, renters 2 weeks. I'd like to see our taxes reduced by the same proportion!

feckin feckin feckin feck

My rented flat is freezing in the winters and its not cheap. But having looked on the web, hoping rentals might be coming down in Edinburgh, I am dismayed at how stubbornly high they remain. I can see the breath in front of my face, and it's only November. How long is this crash going to take?

If they're bringing up kids too, or even if their kids are young adults, they probably have many similar concerns. There's plenty common ground you can find, shared hopes and fears for the future, etc. It should be possible to have a half decent conversation, even if it gets a bit heated at times. State your point of view with dignity, listen to theirs. Of course it'll be frustrating if others don't pay you back the same courtesy, but it's worth a try, and at least you'll have your self-respect. If that fails, drink the sherry, shout a bit and fall over. Unfortunately (I've tried both approaches), in these situations the choice seems to be to either act like a gentle(wo)man and a scholar, whilst feeling like a tw@t, or act like a tw@t whilst feeling like a gentle(wo)man and a scholar. edit: spell-checker changed my spelling.

what about applying a discount on corporation tax that is proportionate to some measure of the average wage which a company pays its employees? This measure would have to be calculated using several measures - range, standard deviation from the mean, median and so on - to get a figue that isn't distorted by a top-heavy salary structure for example, plus some additional clause might be necessary to prevent lower-paid jobs being shed or contracted out to massage the figures. Companies paying higher wages in general could benefit from tax deductions on their profits. It would incentivise re-circulating wealth from profits which would come back into the economy as workers would have more to spend and income tax receipts would also benefit from the increase in wages. it's a non-inflationary way of raising wages and general wealth, as it's based on increasing the circulation of existing wealth rather than increasing the supply of money or credit. If the figures were worked out well it could almost pay for itself. Tax revenue lost by discounting corporation tax is gained because employees have higher incomes and so pay more tax. Employees benefit from higher salaries; companies benefit directly from the tax discounts and indirectly as more people should have more money to spend on goods and services. I can see there might be problems for small and start-up businesses, so perhaps different rules or exemptions would have to be made.

The amount of interest on these loans, as well as the repayment rules, the owners of the debt, etc, can change. They've been changed in the past and will be again. In the boom years, student debt, like other debt was treated very casually. It didn't count against you if you were applying for a mortgage, for example. But considering that today's graduates have already taken out a loan of perhaps 1 - 2x starting salary before they have even secured a job, I just don't see how that can be considered not burdensome. Are banks in the future going to lend further multiples of salaries to student loan debtors now that lending has tightened? Plus new buyers will have to raise large deposits as FTBs, not easy if you're already indebted. It could be of course that the loans are written off eventually, if problems become systemic. But that looks less likely as the loans are effectively privatised. As a consequence I'd imagine the trend towards later parenthood will be exacerbated, as a generation has to put off having children for financial reasons; support ratios will go to f***k.

I see what you mean. For myself, I'm nowhere near close enough to retirement to rely on the loan expiring. I've chosen to overpay after having deferred for many years and seeing the debt double. I'm motivated to get it down as fast as possible to see the principle reduce. If I'm out of work, or in a lower paid job, at any point in the future, then the less debt left to fester and multiply at that point the better. If I was a graduate of the last few years, with a more substantial debt, I might feel differently. I agree with the poster who pointed out the negative psychology of these loans. It must be very disincentivising to be 22 years old with a 20 grand debt which appears to disappear provided you don't earn very much.

I could be wrong, but as I've understood it the 25 year rule only applies if you have not started to pay back the loan within that period. So in order to wipe their debts graduates have the following options Stay in a poorly paid job for 25 years Become permanently unfit to work Die Got to have a dragging effect on house prices - particularly option 3, really would bring down housing demand for a generation!

You can of course defer the loan while your earnings are low, but then the debt grows because of the interest (Interest was over 9% during some periods of the 90s). It can take a long time to work up to having a high enough salary to pay back at a significant rate, but by then the debt is also significant. I choose to pay my loan back at higher than the maximum voluntary rate, but that means I have nothing left over to save for a deposit on a home. My loan was much smaller than the loans more recent graduates have taken. These loans will be a major drag on house prices.

Just hark at Peston's language today! "Double phew". Double plus good - more chocko rations for everyone!!!