monty1080
-
Posts
949 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by monty1080
-
-
The Australian guy on the BBC was almost creaming himself over this story this morning, it was ridiculous. The BBC propaganda is pretty transparent really.
They've gone to great lengths to mention how great it is to be made redundant on two seperate mornings this week that I've seen. One morning they read off several 'viewer emails' from people praising the day they lost their jobs and how it was the best thing that ever happened to them. Absolutely ****ing sickening.
To be fair he creams himself over everything. This combined with, the Nicholas Winterton interview makes a pretty bad day for the Tories.
-
Or is the lack of significant industry a result of crowding out by a bloated public sector combined with a heavy tax and regulatory burden?
Hammer, thumb, ouch!
Hmm dunno, it would be helpful to see some employment stats. The obvious answer is that.. in Wales anyway, all the pits closed and there was nothing to replace them. Government is lobbied heavily to 'do something', then moves large departments DVLA for example to Wales. Also the more long term unemployed you have, the more counsellors, back to work executives, regeneration consultants etc etc you need.
-
The public sector by its very nature isn't exposed to global competition (yet).
However many employers in the private sector embrace globalisation and lobby government for it.
In light of this do you not think higher public sector pay is a symptom, and not the root cause of the problem?
Would there be so much public workers and unemployment in Wales and the North etc if there was still significant industry, paying half decent wages as an alternative?
Many public services have already been privatised, and not for the better. We now have league tables for parent's to base their choice of educational facility for their children on, yet social mobility is all but dead. So much for that fantastic (illusional) concept called choice.
I think our swords are getting pointed at the wrong people.
Nail. Head. Did I hear that 1 in 3 are public sector employed in Wales ?
-
Hi all,
I am currently looking for flats in new developments and some of them are offered on a shared ownership basis. An older friend of mine has told me to stay away from properties where social housing tenants are mixed in with private buyers. I am not too sure what kind of people social housing tenants are and was wondering whether I can have everyone's opinion?
I have found a property which ticks all my boxes except that some flats are allocated to social housing tenants...shall I stay away from it just because of this?
Thank you very much.
Are you still looking in Bermondsey ?Is it a new development ? Shared ownership isn't a problem, they are very likely to be key workers..... nurses ,firemen etc. It's HA s that do social renting that you should be worried about. If it's an older development just look around it on a few different occasions, is it dirty ? Messy? Dodgy looking people hanging around, also what does your gut tell you. I have found this to be the most valuable thing when buying property.
-
Has mentalism in politics and economics peaked?
Don't be silly... mentalism can only ever go up.... quick jump on before you miss the boat.
-
Hi all,
I'm looking to enter the property market, as I am going to start my new job at London Bridge.
I have been looking at one bedroom flats near my workplace as well as close to the Nothern Line (my girlfriend lives in North London). My budget is around 200k and I have been looking at the Bermondsey area. I would have the advantage of being able to walk to work in 20 mins and it seems prices there are generally cheaper considering it's Zone 2.
I was wondering what your opinion on this area is? I heard it had a bad reputation in the past, is that still the case? Also, how difficult is it to get parking space in the area?
Many thanks for your help and insight!
I have lived in Bermondsey for the last 5 years, I love it (the bit I live in anyway). It's a 2 tier place really, I would say that it gets progressively more horrid the further east you get from Bermondsey Street/Square. The area around the Tube is truly scary. There is St.James Square if new build floats your boat. Also the Artesian building on Grange Rd by the Spa, although I doubt you would get anythng for £200k. I own a flat in Solarium Court on Alscot rd which I rent out. There may well be flats in that building in your price range. It's a good building, 15 mins walk from London Bridge, Borough Market and 10mins from Bermondsey Sq, with its new cinema and restaurants. (not an agent... honest
) Have a look on the SE1 forum
SE1 Forum to get a feel for the area. As I said I really love the area and have never felt unsafe there. There are signs of gentrification (new developments, restaurants) happening along Grange rd, due to the Spa Regeneration project. My wife calls it 'Bermondsey Street creep'.Agents will tell you the most desirable areas are west of Tower Bridge rd and north of Long Lane, I would be surprised if you could get anything in that area for £200k ,but if you look a little outside that you may find something. PM me if you need an opinion, I know the area pretty well, and I have no VI other than I like living there.Edit to Say. If you live west of the Tube you are actually in zone 1.
-
I have a really radical idea. Why not offer a decent interest rate to attract more savers and close the funding gap.
+1
-
I realise it's a bank now, but building societies always used to have rules like that. Back in the day C & G used to take 7 working days to clear a cheque even though banks would only take 4.
-
Heathrow is right by the M4 so they could live in Swindon and still have a manageable commute.
Indeed, correct me if I'm wrong but neither H'row or Gatwick are in London. My Uncle was cabin crew on BA for 30 years, it's a very cushy job, with all the Champagne you can nick and a nice line in hooky duty free fags. Plus they get free flight for themselves and family even after they retire. If it is indeed true that they are paid twice as much as Virgin, I hope BA sack the lot of them, it's pure greed. It is simply the market finding a true value for their services.
-
Do you mean an *Assured* Shorthold Tenancy contract, i.e. the ones you usually get now where you sign up for (usually) 6 or 12 months? Then basically no. After the initial period it rolls over onto a short-term contract where you have to give at least one months notice of leaving, the landlord has to give 2 months notice. Unless you create a new contract for another fixed period of 6 or 12 months - but then you might find an agency will charge you £70 just to print out a new copy of the old contract...
Although I am not a lawyer/solicitor so please look it up somewhere else as well - e.g. a government info source, your local CAB, Shelter etc.
This is correct AFAIK. The original contract will/ should have a section on what happens after the initial period. The only change for you is that you only have to give 1 month notice.
-
I thought it worked like this:
Let's say a banker has 'earned' £1.025m
HMG taxes 1m of his share of the bonus pool at 50%
He gets paid 525000 (1.025m - 1m)
He has to pay around 50% tax on that
So gets paid around 262500
Not as far as I understand it. To keep the maths simple. Banker is on a £150k salary so anything over this is taxed at 50%.
Bank pays him/her a £1m bonus
500k goes in income tax from the banker.
The bank has to pay another £500k for the privilege of paying the banker a £1m bonus.
So, the banker ends up with £500k of his bonus and the government get £1m half from the bankers income tax and half from the levy on the bank.... I think.
-
Woah - I'm so confused! Please explain in baby terms
Employer gives employee £1m bonus
Employee pays 50% (roughly) income tax on bonus (cos they earn over £150k wage)
Then the employer also has to pay an additional 50% tax for the privilege of paying their workers a bonus?
Hence £1m is paid in taxes and employee takes home £500k bonus?
WTF! Is this serious?
Got it in one, as I said before it is an attempt to de-incentivise the paying of big bonuses.
-
So the tax will be paid by the "employer". The UK taxpayer owns the banks (or some of em). Therefore the taxpayer pays the tax. Therefore zero sum game. Right or wrong?
I think the crux is that only some of the banks are partly owned by taxpayers. It seems to me that this is a deterrent tax, he is trying to stop them paying bonuses, which is why they will 'only' make £500 million in revenue on this tax.
-
It's not going to happen is it?
Bet it gains less than £100k for the Treasury.
Let's face it, all they have to do is delay it for say 12 months.
Won't someone please think of the Ferrari dealerships !
-
They won't look it up, most likely. I introduced my house buying boss to both property bee and nethouseprices.co.uk when he was buying a house after he had already made an offer. It was news to him and all my colleagues. Most people don't do much homework - I have had EAs tell me renters tend to inspect properties more and ask far more questions when viewing than prospective buyers.
+1Renters tend to be much more picky about location and fit and finish. I guess when you are buying you try and look beyond a naff kitchen or an olive bathroom suite because you have the option to potentially change it. I have a few properties and one was turned down by a prospective tenant because it didn't have a gas hob.
-
I STR'ed first time in 2007 and bought back in the summer - despite some predictable bile and ire from some here. The EA says I could sell for £65k more than I bought, which means even after all costs (including stamp duty) involved in the purchase and sale I could still clear £45k. Am single and could put up with moving as it's really just a day of shifting boxes and a week afterwards of sorting it all out. I'm a civil servant and am a bit concerned about my job prospects next year. Have c.85% equity at present.
Delighted to hear from serious contributions bull, bear and neither all welcome?... I
Do it. Why wouldn't you ? It's not your fault prices have gone up against all logical reasoning.
-
At least they put Madoff in prison.
Where's Goodwin?
Swanning around in his Merc S600 spending his £30,000 a month for life with total immunity.
+1 the man should be in jail. What staggers me is a significant proportion of this toxic debt was given out just weeks before they were part nationalised. £1.5 billion in bonuses? Over my dead body (is what Broon should be saying).
-
My commute is 20mins. I am lucky enough to live in zone 1 and I cycle. The same commute takes 40 mins on the bus. I used to cycle further but have recently changed jobs. I reckon if you have showers at work and live less than 10 miles from your work, cycling is a great way to get to work. The ride home is a real stress buster.Plus, work pays for my bike via a cycle to work scheme, which gets you a bike VAT and tax free.
-
am i the only person who is surprised that a highly skewed distribution [of about 20 million households] with a mean income of £35k per household throws up fully 2.5 million households [over 10%] with an income of at least three times the mean???
hmm, the number of top rate taxyapers [i.e. greater than £37k] in the UK is only 3 million [LINK] - it's almost entirely implausible that 2.5 million households have an income that's over triple this.
I think the average of the respondents was £93k household, not £100k..... not much difference I know.
-
Is that honestly your definition of 'middle class'? The term would seem to imply a significant proportion or even a majority of the working population. The last statistic I saw, something like 1.7% of the population are privately educated. I'd argue that of the current generation in their 30s and 40s at least, the lifestyle you describe is only achievable by a very small minority.
I agree, middle class was the definition on the thread. I think the term has applied to a larger and larger proportion of the populus as time has gone on, snobbery and social mobility leading to people stating that they are middle class.
The percentage of privately educated children is around 8%.
My point is that I believe that there are many things that were within the reach of relatively well paid people which aren't now. As evidence I site the number of private schools going bust.
-
There was a very interesting thread a while ago (can't be bothered to find it) about how much it would cost to fund a 'middle class' lifestyle, i.e private school, riding lessons, 2 foreign holidays, 4 bed detached etc etc. I mentioned this to my Dad at the weekend quoting that the outcome was that you would need a household income of around £250 - £300k. My upbringing was not too far away from this and he said that in the late 70s early 80s he was earning around £25k. As mentioned before the growth trajectory is unsustainable. My household income is in the £130k range and there is no way I could afford to give my children the same upbringing I did. This country really does need fixing.
-
Plus personal allowance £6,475 2009/10 = £43,875.
Blimey, I thought that included your personal allowance. Suddenly I feel very slightly richer. Thanks for correcting me.
-
Plus personal allowance £6,475 2009/10 = £43,875.
Blimey, I thought that included your personal allowance. Suddenly I feel very slightly richer. Thanks for correcting me.
-
Which of course is precisely what Labour intended.
I also suspect that the very significant difference in living costs in different parts of the country are an issue, too. In the summer before last I was offered a job down south that would have seen my salary jump from my current £43k to £64k. However, I worked out that after the extra tax (my current salary is £31 under the higher rate threshold, meaning that 40% of any pay rise from now on will disappear in tax), losing my final salary pension, the higher accommodation cost and the higher commuting costs, I'd actually be worse off (i.e. my discretionary spending power after having covered the essentials would decrease, and by a lot unless I gave up having a car) on £64k in London than on £43k in Yorkshire. So I politely explained this to the person who offered me the job, explaining that I'd need an offer of £85k to make it worth my while to go through the hassle of relocating (and especially swapping somewhere I like living for somewhere I don't) and take on a less secure, higher pressure job. She couldn't afford that, and that was the end of the conversation.
Hate to break it to you, but higher rate tax starts at £37,400.
The Bbc Heading "experts Back Spending Cuts Delay"....
in House prices and the economy
Posted · Edited by monty1080
Delaying cuts is Labour policy.... cutting now is Tory, the 'report' supported delaying cuts, so good for Labour when their policies are seemingly backed up by 'experts'. Nicholas Winterton (Tory MP) interviewed on 5 Live suggested that people who travel in 'economy' on trains have 'a totally different outlook on life to those who travel 1st class' came across as a proper snobbish twit.
The Aussie is neither here nor there really, I was just pointing out that whatever he is reporting on he seems to be on the verge of orgasm. I think another poster was implying that his excitement was related to the report supporting a Labour policy thus reinforcing the belief that the BBC is merely the mouthpiece of the Labour Government, something I don't happen to agree with. I just think that the Beeb is full of University educated middle class largely liberalish leftish people who are terrified of Dave getting into power because he will take the hedgetrimmers to the whole bloated self satisfied edifice.