RufflesTheGuineaPig

The problem with water privatisation explained in one poorly spelt sentence.

If I actually go to a supermarket (instead of getting it delivered... you have to sometimes because not everything is available for delivery) then I always use a bag from a different supermarket. This prevents they trying to charge you for the bag a second time. It's great having an argument with the lady on the checkout at Asda saying you've already paid for the bag, them asking for proof, calling their manager, and then me pointing out the huge f**k-off Tesco logo on the bag.

I'm single. Tesco delivery my groceries. I took their pay-half-yearly massively discounted delivery charge offer. There is a £40 minimum. I often struggle to hit £40, despite spending £10-15 a week on alcohol. WTF are they spending £85 on??????????????????

There is the possibility that they really are reinvesting all the profits - the infrastructure may have got so bad that they have to. I suppose the question would be if it paid a dividend or did share buy-backs. If it did either of these then it should be considered to have made a profit.

They aren't planning on withdrawing it... officially. It will be done quietly. If they lost money in it's collapse, after IceSave they would look ridiculous. At the same time if they are seen to rush their money out they will be blames for it's collapse.

Actually what you see is a decline post WW2 when people start owning cars, which stops when traffic and parking in London gets bad and people are forced back onto the trains.

The plan for privatisation was that it would lead to private investment in rail infrastructure, leading to new lines and rolling stock. The problem was, the people who bought the rail companies considered buying the companies/shares to be their investment... and they expected a return. Their is no incentive for the private companies to invest. They wont see any profits from the investments... profits/savings from those sort of investments take decades to repay their costs, and the licences to run the lines are for 5-10 years. This is why these was such a fuss when Virgin trains lost that mainline contract... they had invested billions in track improvement, and then lost the contract. If you have invest £10bn in infrastructure and need to recoup those costs, you are bound to be outbid at the next renewal by someone who doesn't have the investment costs to repay. Thus you will never get your investment back, so why bother. Besides... the passengers pay the same regardless of how new or reliable the trains are, so it makes better financial sense to just run it into the ground. The whole privatisation idea was stupid. I just can't tell if the Tories were dishonest or stupid.

By pension liabilities you are referring to the deferred pay workers agreed to take in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. You know... when workers agreed to work for less in exchange for a pension, instead of demanding 50% more and making their own pension provision. Thanks to the fiddling of inflation, even the money they were promised will mean a pretty meagre retirement in the long term. How do you expect these people to eat or heat their homes after 40 years service? Or should we euthanise these people? (I'm a famed boomer basher, but also a realist... somehow these people still need to be housed and fed... simply refusing to pay them the money doesn't solve this problem.)

Am I the only person who pays tax any more?

It was regulated?

Time to raise the rents.

Unless the lawyers have alternative work/jobs to do, they will simply have to reduce their rates.

Points to note: I assume your coal isn't free? Loft insulation is now advised to be over 9" thick. If you have floor boards down chances are it's only 4-6 inches, plus it's compressed making it less efficient. He wont know everything about every front door. If it's a new PVC door he should have assumed it was insulated. The boiler - just because it's been serviced it doesn't mean it's efficient. LEDs - they have to assume you will leave the LED bulbs in... it's not they are going to wear out.... in your lifetime. It's their job to advise of possible improvements, if they are honest they'll advise of ROI timescales, but remember energy prices can go up as well as up. EPC is largely about measuring the surface area of the walls, windows and loft and applying a weighting to each based on the type of windows and insulation fitted. A formula is then used to calculate the overall EPC rating, including adjustments for heating and lighting. It's very scientific, and follows strict rules. Usually the man will have to measure everything... doors, walls, windows etc. The have to draw out a plan of the house "folded out" showing all the walls. The exception will be if you are on an estate where all the houses are made from the same plans... then he may already have all the plans fro a previous job and just needs to apply the weightings. My brother-in-law does it.

It's not insurance. It's a government guarantee. If a bank goes pop the gov pays out then other banks have to cough up to cover it. If it was insurance then few banks could afford the premiums, and it would be impossible to find someone to cover the liability. Ironically if it was actual insurance, we wouldn't have had all this stupid risky lending.

It's vital that the government invest billion of borrowed pound in this so that the entire gas supply can be pumped out in the next 10 years to take advantage of high gas prices, and then use all the money from gas sales to double the state pension. It would of course also mean the boomers would effectively get all the money.

No it states clearly that deposit guarantees would still be in effect. Basically, THIS IS WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN ALL ALONG. The only reason it didn't was because of fear it would cause contagion in the bond markets or trigger a system default.

IIRC a lot of people (investment bankers) shorted the like of AIG at the start then reversed their position just after the government caved in and bailed them out.

* from india.

meh. In order for some to live and not contribute, some must contribute and not live. If you want fair wages for all, you'll have to accept your house becoming near-worthless.

The US hid a 30 year collapse in it's economy behind pension fund deficits. Businesses and Governments realised they could get people to work for far less if they offered them a comfy retirement, but no-one would force them to put money aside. Jam today, for 30 years, and by the time people find out what was done, someone else would be in charge and would take the blame. All looked great right up until 2007 which people realised that many companies had been getting workers to work for far less in exchange for generous pension deals, but hadn't been putting aside the money to cover the liabilities. Everyone noticed when GM went bust, but they weren't the only one, and now we are seeing entire cities and STATES going bust because of 30 years of unfunded pension promises. And the important point to note here is it isn't the employees fault for expecting the pensions they were promised. If they had known those pensions would be defaulted upon (or hadn't been promised them in the first place) they would have demanded higher wages so they could make their own pension provisions. The companies pretended they had cheap labour when in fact it was nothing more than the deferment of wages. The economic success in America in the 80s, 90s and 00s was a fraud. In reality America's economy went down-hill once the booms from post-WW2 recovery ended and the war reparations tailed off. After WW2 the US had a huge head-start over the rest of the world economy... the US had a full-on war-machine-pumped manufacturing sector, while most of the rest of the world had been devastated by war. Meanwhile most of the world was sending America a good portion of their money/wealth in the form of war debt and reparations.

She had a contact with the developer, the buyer has a contract with her. The buyer sued her because she didn't deliver what was promised, she can sue the developer now... if they still exist.

Minor point, but in many cases, teaching assistants have replaced proper teachers.

If the landlord owns multiple units they wont want to drop the rent as it would effect the rents of their other units.

If they are buying at current prices then £200-300 wont cover it. If they bought in 1984, then £200-300 is £200-300 profit.

Remember, the majority of landlord don't need silly money rents to cover their mortgages... most could rent for half current market rates and still be happy.