Quicken
-
Posts
2,270 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Quicken
-
-
I'm getting pretty tired of the ongoing rail strikes to be honest. We need driverless trains pronto (much simpler than driverless cars).
In other areas, I think a big problem is certain sectors of workers claiming they deserve a bigger pay rise than others when all are affected by price inflation. Another problem was giving out inflation-matched increases to both pensions and benefits. Government set a precedent there.
-
I though most of want a housepricecrash, no?
-
1 hour ago, Just_Do_It said:
If she's made the decision to keep a property and let it out then she is an accidental landlord. Nobody forced her to rent it out and use the rent to contribute to a more expensive property.
Nope. Neither acccidental nor forced. It is never an accident to rent out a property. Think about it. There are contracts involved (mortgage company, letting agent), advertising the place for rent. Handling deposits. Paying tax. It makes as much sense as saying someone accidentally started a business.
-
3 hours ago, regprentice said:
I've known a few BTLers with one "accidental" property tell me that their property just needs to break even. They dont want to make a profit (so as to not pay tax) and they dont want to make a loss.
I asked what the point was , and the answer was that one day that property will be mortgage free and theyll sell it, probably at a big "life event" like retirement, or maybe "sell" it to their kids to get them out from under their feet. They look at running the BTL like a hobby, they dont do it for the money on a month by month basis, but one day this burst of cash will be there.
TBH, prices have increased so much recently, and some of these people have had their BTLs so long, that we'd need to see a 70% + crash for any of them to actually lose money on the property itself.
Yes but the SAVVY BTLers are all on IO apparently. Houses of cards.
-
8 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:
As mentioned this proposal is a massive distraction from the huge elephant in the room which is property wealth. Remember cash is also subject to the hidden tax of inflation which is running at plus ten percent now. Secondly over the last 12 years interest rates have been near zero, savers have already been treated like dirt at the expense of debtors. Finally, I believe their is a limit on the amount put into a cash ISA every year ( sorry don't know what it currently is), so if somebody has over a hundred grand in a cash ISA they must have been saving for many years.
The limit is £20k/y, so that's just 5y, not many at all.
There's a £40k/y limit on pensions these days, so the equivalent would be a lifetime cap of £200k (currently over £1m).
These articles are just kite flying. Everyone knows the state finances are sh*t, so it's higher taxes or spending cuts, or both.
I'm with the classical economists in holding that unearned income has to do with monopolies (principally land), but certain branches of leftist econonomics (marxist etc) now like to suggest any income not obtained through labour (wages) is unearned. This leads to all the suggestions to tax the so-called unearned income more. Now I'd agree that capital gains should be taxed more in line with income (a flat 25% tax like Germany would seem fair), but the recent idea of taxing unrealised capital gains is crazy and unworkable. Just tax inheritances.
-
1 hour ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:
Interestingly enough, the new EU building regulation directive goes the same way and there’s a lot of noise in the Med countries. In Malaga temp will reach 19 degrees today, they don’t really need to make their houses more energy efficient.
Insulation is just as important for summer heat in hot countries (anywhere aircon is installed)
-
19 hours ago, msi said:
They said they had a solid business plan but it was just a house of cards
-
15 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:
Brexit forced Tesla to build their European plant, design centre and headquarters outside of the UK. The UK had been the preferred location but without guaranteed access to the single market there was no way it could have risked basing itself in the UK.
The impact on the UK's other manufacturers comes from the loss of the manufacturing scale needed to develop a UK based EV supply chain.
By 2025/26 Tesla's Berlin factory alone will be producing more cars than the entire UK industry and, if it had been based in the UK, would be supporting a wide range of locally based suppliers.
I'm afraid you haven't quite grasped the punning nature of the thread.
I must admit, I had missed DarkHorseWaits-NoMore making the same pun earlier.
-
Wishful thinking from a mortgage lender.
-
11 minutes ago, Quicken said:
It looked good on paper
But ultimately it's just been chasing its own tail for years.
-
39 minutes ago, msi said:
It looked good on paper
-
10 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:
It was always going to fail, simply because it had no large scale customers signed up or in prospect.
Outside of the single market and with our long term relationship with the EU not yet finalised no legacy manufacture was going to invest the billions required to mass produce EVs in the UK.
Without Brexit we would have had the Tesla plant in the UK and the scale required for other UK based manufacturers/auto suppliers to successfully transition to EV production.
Other knock on impacts caused by Brexit (and not helped by the Tories sabotage of our move to green energy) will be the UK losing out on the new wind, solar and energy storage industries.
Wait, are you saying Brexit made a potential difference?
-
On 16/01/2023 at 19:26, Goat said:
Presumably, the SC can only rule on the law, not whether something is a good idea or not, so unless this is outside the powers devolved to Scotland there probably isn't anything for the SC to consider.
The section 35 order has nothing to do with 'a good idea or not'. It's specifically only possible on the grounds below, and must identify the specific parts of the bill the UK Gov has problems with and why.
QuotePower to intervene in certain cases.
(1)If a Bill contains provisions—
(a)which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or
(b)which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters,
he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent.
(2)The order must identify the Bill and the provisions in question and state the reasons for making the order.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/contents
Also, the Scottish Gov is going to challenge this order by judicial review in the Court of Session, which can of course be appealed to the UK supreme court. Thus, the argument will most likely end up being decided by judges in the UKSC anyway. So triggering the section 35 option seems like political theatre by the UK Gov just as much as the Scottish Gov creating bills they know go beyond legislative competence. Theatre on both sides.
-
Saw this coming, but interesting that they went with a section 35 block rather than a supreme court referral.
I can't see the Scottish Gov winning this battle, but perhaps part of the reason for the bill/act was to demonstrate the faults of the devolution system. Power devolved is power retained as they say.
-
You can find the full report here:
https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/survival-richest
It's based on the Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse:
https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/global-wealth-report.html
From the Credit Suisse report:
QuoteOur calculations suggest, for example, that a person needed net assets of just USD 8,360 to be
among the wealthiest half of world citizens at end-2021. However, USD 138,346 was
required to be a member of the top 10% of global wealth holders, and USD 1,146,685 to
belong to the top 1%. All members of the global top 1% are therefore USD millionaires, as was
also the case in 2020. -
1 hour ago, Bear Goggles said:
You can do that though can't you. Unless you live in a "conservation area", in which case, you know what you're buying in to.
The problem is that listing and particularly conservation areas have grown out of control. Look how much of Edinburgh is conservation area. 50 of them!
https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/conservation-2/listed-buildings/1
Sash windows should be banned. If the Victorians could have made better windows, they would have. It's like fetishing horse and carriage transport.
-
10 hours ago, Will! said:
There’s a CGT bill and the LL needs to pay off the mortgage and take out a new one, but I know quite a few who’ve done it. It does shake out the complete jokers.
Companies also need to pay the additional dwelling stamp duty surcharge.
-
28 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:
Indeed. There is Madness. Both in the supply controls and in the pricing mechanisms. However, the basic concept of the grid (prioritising renewables, exporting when over-available, importing nuclear and renewables from elsewhere when not enough, and topping up with gas) is progressing well. We do need storage for oversupply more and more urgently however, and perhaps hydrogen generating capacity (I know a lot of environmentalists do not like this, but I think it really works!).
I don't mind hydrogen at all for storage and distribution so long as it's made using renewable electricity. The problem is the glacially slow progress. It would take a dedicated national strategy over a decade to get the infrastucture in place.
-
1 hour ago, Staffsknot said:
If you believe the oil companies over Climate Change campaigners then errr awkward
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research
Beat me to the punch on posting this article. All grist to the mill of climate lawsuits. 🙂
-
4 hours ago, SE10 said:
Bad luck ev-haters. Time to put the party poppers away.
-
4 hours ago, reddog said:
It is a shame we haven't got to the point where we have a smallish car with decent range for £10-15k. That would be the game changer.
Maybe when the start making cars like mobile phones in the foxcon factory, prices will come down.
This type of car is a bit of a holy grail in the industry. They might be coming around 2025, which is when the EV tipping point should arrive if the industry manages it. e.g. the VW id1 (or id2):
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/2025-volkswagen-id-1-spanish-built-£17000-entry-ev
Musk has been talking about a small cheap tesla hatchback for a few years.
-
3 hours ago, btd1981 said:
The dream isn't dead here in Shropshire. A colleague's dad just died and he's pocketed a few tens of thousands in death in service payments. The first thing he has done is arrange to use the money to buy a BTL.
There is always a greater fool, but it's the direction of travel that matters. BTL has been growing since 1996. Have we finally reached peak BTL before the decline? Quite possibly.
-
4 hours ago, Huggy said:
Why do you say that? Each coin is effectively identical to the others and when you buy some (or is that selling fiat, gold, a pizzas for some?), you get 'some' rather than specific ones.
https://cryptforensic.com/2019/07/16/why-bitcoin-is-neither-private-nor-fungible/
Have a read of this.
-
7 hours ago, scottbeard said:
My original point was that fiat currency isn’t money, that’s a fact.
Whats happened is one of those classic internet arguments where you’ve led us down a rabbit hole on the subject of “well what IS money then”
Lets wind it back
Fiat currency is not money
Thats my only substantial point for today
And Bitcoin isn't fungible.
banks 4% and BTL 4%
in House prices and the economy
Posted
My point is that it's an insidious lie.