Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kzb

  1. But I am saying that's an academic distinction. It makes no financial difference to the taxpayer. There is a future budget for teachers' pensions and there is a future budget for teachers' salaries. BOTH of these are only estimates and subject to change. For all we know the endemic Covid infection will cut life expectancy back to 68 and the pension estimate will turn out far too high.
  2. That's a different argument. You are saying the figure was wrongly estimated, well so are lots of costs. That does not affect my point. 50% of infinity is still infinity.
  3. All bank accounts up to £85k are guaranteed by the state. What is the "liability" total there? Workplace pensions in the private sector (annuities) also have state guarantees. What's the total liability there? Actually, the total "liability" when you include everything is infinity. Or at least integrated until the Earth becomes uninhabitable in about a billion years.
  4. District heating is hardly a new concept, but we've never really embraced it in this country. There is a fantastic opportunity to build this into the SMR nuclear stations, each SMR will generate about 1GW of waste heat. It won't be done though. The environmentalists will be complaining about thermal pollution next thing you know.
  5. Anyhow, it is only 90,000 grants that are being given out, over three years. It's a drop in the ocean considering how many households there are in Britain. The number of households is likely growing at a rate faster than 30,000 a year, given the rate of net immigration.
  6. The level of insulation needed is very high, and involves cladding. You are looking at practically rebuilding the thing. Then you need bigger radiators/underfloor heating and re-install the hot water cylinder that you got rid of when you installed the combi boiler. BBC Panorama told us the average cost of conversion is £63k. £5k does not make much of a dent in that.
  7. No you are nitpicking, because you work in pensions and this is how you are used to seeing things. The calculation of the £2.4 trillion is factually correct, no argument, but I still say there is no real difference to the taxpayer whether that money is called "pension" or "salary". So then I wonder about the motivations of those who calculate it and publicise it. It's perfectly valid, for comparison purposes, to calculate the future cost of NHS nurses to be almost infinite, because we are going to have NHS nurses for the foreseeable future.
  8. You are paying for a much more sophisticated waste disposal service, because that is what everyone wants. Back then it got carted off to landfill. Now it is sorted into waste streams for recycling.
  9. Yes but we assume there will always be teachers. Anyway I think you are nit picking.
  10. Many of them yes. The next stage is to start on the boomers.
  11. The sure fire way to end up with a means tested state pension is to carry on like this lot on here.
  12. People on this forum think the unfunded pensions are to be paid by future taxpayers. In a way they are, but only in the sense that all public sector salaries are also to be paid by taxpayers.
  13. No 55% is not all paid by taxpayers. Most of it is paid by the employer contributions. In the teachers' pension this is 23% of salary. As I've said many times before, it depends how you look at it. Taxpayers pay the teachers' salaries and their pensions. No difference. You might as well lump all future teachers' salaries as well as their pensions onto your liability side of the account.
  14. I think we are both right. At least with the funded pensions you are right, but I think with the unfunded ones it is just a promise to pay part of the employees' salary, post retirement age.
  15. Oh God here we go again with the public sector pensions bitching. The number of times this has come up on here over the years must be astronomical. I actually agree with Confusion of VIs on this question and he has given a good answer already. To add to that, there is no other area of expenditure where we add up all the years into a total. It's an unusual way of looking at it, and it is only done that way to paint a misleading picture. Which you lot on here fall for every time. You may as well calculate how much total state expenditure will be over the next 100 years or whatever. That would be about £100 trillion pounds or roughly 50 times GDP. Does that make any sense? No ? Well why do it with the pensions then?
  16. It's that number again! These are the climate prizewinners: https://www.enapter.com/ Our electrolysers are used in33countries.
  17. Someone in Wetherspoons told me properties with solar panels are basically unsaleable, because no-one can get a mortgage on them. I was very sceptical about this claim, so have looked into it a bit. It seems there is some truth to this allegation: Recent news has shown that some properties were solar panels have been installed are proving to be unmortgageable and unsaleable. Therefore fears that “free solar panels” looked too good to be true has now been fuelled by claims that lenders are refusing mortgage applications. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has advised its surveyors to warn all house hunters to take special legal advice on properties fitted with free solar panels before committing to buy. David Dalby, director of residential at RICS, said “we fully support the use and production of sustainable energy, however, at a time when prospective buyers are finding it tough to secure mortgages ‘free’ solar panels can cause further barriers to home ownership”. https://news.mortgagerates.org.uk/mortgage-problems-for-home-owners-with-solar-panels/ The lesson seems to be, you need to pay for your solar power installation with cash, not loans or leases.
  18. I am just saying it seems to be very convenient. Like a credit pipeline that operates automatically. No-one has mentioned fractional reserve banking yet. Nor building societies. Back in the day, banks didn't provide mortgages for home sales. It was the building societies that provided that function. Because they were not banks they could only lend what they had in assets. Banks then got into the game, and also the fractional reserve was reduced. Originally it was 10:1 I think, now it could be non-existent for all I know. Anyhow perhaps this is the only explanation needed for our insane HPI since the banks got involved with mortgage lending.
  19. I have not noticed any difference in mpg. The variables involved in fuel economy, in real-world driving, make it difficult to detect what might be a 1.5% difference from E5 fuel. For one thing, the weather is getting cooler, and that increases air resistance, rolling resistance, oil viscosity and the the engine warm-up time. So if you do find worse mpg, it might be the cooler weather not the fuel.
  20. You've not included your carbon zero budget. According to BBC Panorama, £63k. That will take care of your jolly fun money for a few years.
  21. I've not chosen any team, I just want the facts. It doesn't matter who funds those facts. Your mindset on this is dangerous. Darwin was a eugenicist. Do you then reject the theory of evolution? Space travel is based on Nazi technology (ever realised the similarity NAZI and NASA). Do you then reject the idea of space travel?
  22. I got an explanation from an Oxfordshire immigrant to the North West. It never rains in Oxfordshire (unlike the NW) and that is why it floods so frequently. The ground is so dry that water just runs off it. BTW, there has been much the same amount of water on Earth for billions of years. I recall that the planet loses a few kg per year of hydrogen from the top of the atmosphere. Water molecules up there can be split by high energy radiation, the Earth's gravity is not quite strong enough to hold onto all the hydrogen, and it gets blown away by the solar wind. On the other hand comet impacts give us top-ups every now and then.
  23. Hang on, when you get to specific items like this reservoir I don't know if that is the explanation or not. I've not watched the video but I suspect it's very one sided. Before I passed judgement I'd have to know all the facts, i.e how much has consumption increased, what has happened to the average rainfall in its catchment area, and change of land use in that area. It's quite possible that area has become drier for all I know. As I say, everyone knows that climates change, but the issue is how much we panic over it.
  24. I've been wondering for a long time about the large corporations. They seem to have an on-demand pipeline to bank "finance". I suspect the banks are creating money for them without any real oversight. Very unfair on SMEs who presumably have to apply for bank loans.
  25. The current satellite data sea level number has an isostasy "correction" added on. The argument is, the sea basins sink further the more weight they bear, so they add 0.33mm per year to the measured sea level figure, and announce that as the sea level increase. The logic of this is a bit thin IMHO. They don't do this with the sea level as determined by historical measurements at ports, which is one of the reasons why the satellite figures are discrepant. Here is the seal level record from New York, can we really say there is an acceleration in recent decades? Looks like thin evidence to me.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.