Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Unmoderated

Members
  • Posts

    1,269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Unmoderated

  1. Thanks for the responses. If I were to simplify it I'd simply say that education makes society better off so it seems fair that society foots the bill. People pay progressive tax rates according to their earnings so if they go to uni, become a doctor and earn £250K/year as a top surgeon then great, the country, the patient and the surgeon wins. It does seem rather unfair though to make that surgeon pay £10k a year for five years in order to train to save lives wouldn't you say? Sure, some degrees are beyond worthless but I would favour an apprenticeship scheme which I think may be gaining popularity - there is the apprentice levy added to ERS NI now at 0.5% which can be reclaimed for spending on trainees. Back to the then and now though - there has been little change in tertiary education as a % of people across the past several decades so it might well be the case that fewer went to uni but those that didn't seemed to have gained some other qualification. However, the value of a degree has been inflated away. But..... to become a chartered accountant (as I am) you must embark on a training scheme. You can take a none university route of course but overwhelmingly the prestigious courses with paid time for accounting college require minimum education of X numbers of UCAS points gained at A-Level and a 2:1 or higher at degree. While it does seem like a great big con how else would you get a career in todays market? Even if it's been devalued it just means more people have it so you need to work even harder to stand out. What stood out for me was that my professional qualifications were significantly more difficult than uni. Used to be a degree opened things up but a CA/ACA/ACCA/CIMA is gold plated.... it's just getting there. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2019/08/great-university-con-how-british-degree-lost-its-value
  2. She had an excellent job right out of uni with big 4 accounting firm and had done a placement year there too (well paid). She also worked through uni (as did I). I actually graduated with £10k in an ISA . As for bubbly market.... it doubled in price lol.
  3. Hi Count, I agree. I'm maxing out my mortgage (much against the ethos of us here - but if you can't beat em) just to extend the house and/or buy a classic car, or something that I think will appreciate in value. I even would consider putting the max into my pension and subsidising my living expenses with the borrowed money and take the PCLS to clear the mortgage in 20 years. I was spreading the good word back in 2007 and 2008 and thinking how lucky I was being a new graduate at that point in time. I even tried to talk my GF at the time out of buying a flat in London for £200K thinking she was onto a loser. Turns out I was the loser. The flat double in price in about 5 years and she ended up renting it out, plus her now husbands flat too while they bought a lovely new house together. Sold the flats to cover the renovation costs and sitting pretty. Been burned once, hard and long by this so as soon as I could buy something I was remotely happy with I jumped. The tax rises made me suddenly feel that anger and frustration I used to feel, the same feeling that led me to find this site all those years ago. The sheer unfairness, the way the game is tilted so unfairly against those without property and those born at the wrong time, or those simply unwilling to take on so much debt. Although building and materials costs are crazy right now I still intend to max out as much as I can borrow. If prices comes back down next year I'll look to make significant changes to the house. If not I might just tart it all up and sell it, downsize and do what I can to max out my pension and pay less tax and get more free time. If the system ever does collapse I'll not be a target with a modest little home somewhere and hopefully I'll be semi self sustainable.
  4. Ah good point well made. I concur. Provided there's appropriate safeguards there then people should have that right. I think Terry Pratchet ended up with a one way plane ticket to Switzerland in the end.
  5. Do people not already have this right? How can someone stop you doing the deed?
  6. I know a former CFO of a very large FTSE 100 company (a friend's father). When he took early retirement he offered his services free of charge to his local NHS Trust. They were not interested. NHS is actually a pretty efficient beast for its size and nature but there's always improvements to be made. I was in hospital a month or so ago (A&E with the GF) and honestly came away thinking they need more funding. The building was a state and fairly grim. I wouldn't think I'd recover well in such a depressing environment.
  7. Agree - though good article out stating 7K steps is the magic number this month . https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9956187/Walking-just-7-000-steps-day-middle-age-cut-risk-early-death-70-study-says.html
  8. Yeah, it's a cynical thought I've had too. Preserve employment numbers by soaking up people into universities. The point is more that this is competitive pressure in a global market. The perception is you need a degree or a professional (proper one) to compete in a global industry for a decent job. I agree you can overeducate a workforce for sure. But what's interesting is the shift in type of courses. The total number of people in tertiary education has not changed as much as I had thought. Certainly not from 10% to 50%. The other issue is where is the on the job training or apprenticeships that used to grace the young? https://ifs.org.uk/publications/14729 On average £130K more earnings over their lifetime. Even at a lower tax rate plus NI that's £39K, in other words it is the cost of a four year degree at £9k/year. Historically the relationship was always that education was free but because you tended to earn more it was fair that you paid more tax. The degree lead to a higher paid job then as it does now. However, now you're clobbered with paying for your own education and then paying into a system when you graduate that supports a cohort that had it all for free. Although you might be an outlier an anecdote is not the singular of fact and the facts are that tertiary education was either free, or paid (apprenticeships) compared to today where you pay (a fortune) and there are precious few apprenticeships available. Back then if you went on to earn more then fine, you paid more tax but that was most likely due to the effect of that education so the system was paying for itself. Now it doesn't - why not? where is all that money going? What you describe is a unique position where someone pays more for not going to university IF they end up earning as much as someone who did go. Question for you, how did they earn that much? Was it by working with technical people who started off on a graduate scheme after going to uni? Or building a business and employing university graduates? Even a humble builder requires civil engineers, building control and permission not to mention using materials that have been processed by companies employing people in R&D who... guess what... went to university. No man is an island and education has far wider reaching benefits than those individuals. Yet as a society we've chosen to socialise those benefits and privatise the costs.
  9. UK is aligned with other countries. What seems to be the case though is the costs for tertiary education have gone from being funded by the state to the individual so now they pay twice. Once to get their degree and again when they're earning more and paying higher rates of tax.
  10. I'll explain. The DD example is a strawman at it's finest. You've opened an analogy with a pre-known and almost universally agreed 'bad position'. The point with buying or not buying a house and whether that's good or bad is impossible to answer since it's an individual level decision. I think the issue is the perception that buying a house is some massive gamble when, put simply, it's a game of financial maths adn doing what's best for you. You want to rent because you've a neuroses about prices collapsing the second you buy something then that's ok. If, on the other hand, you accept that a paper gain or loss is just that and you can afford to make the repayments as stress tested (and if you've concerns about rate rises you can fix that rate) then also fine. Drink driving to save £20 it is not. That's always a dumb idea whether you get away with it or not. As for me, and as posted above, I got a stream of borderline abuse for being a mug and capitulating 4 years ago. Best thing I've done after quitting smoking and getting qualified I'd say. It's nice to be able to move forward from everything's so unfair and the world's against me to look forward to improving my home, quality of life and financial position. You couldn't rent a flat for what my mortgage costs on a three bed detached with lovely garden, log burner and nice walk into a decent market town with plenty of pubs and restaurants (no need to drink drive OR waste £20 on a taxi!). You might well be on here arguing until the day you buy or the day you die. I wish you luck.
  11. Great response. I announced on here that I'd bitten the bullet (about 4 years ago). A stream of vitriol ensued. I was a moron, credit was tightening etc etc. I bought a fixer upper in a good town but on a bit of a cut through road that I knew was being turned into a dead-end and a relief road built (doing it now!). The biggest issue I have with the place at the moment is that I want to extend it but because of the sheer demand for work and the shortage of some materials the quotes I'm getting are a little crazy. The upshot though is I remortgage for £350K and my repayments are £950/month for a five years 0.99% fixed! This is a nice problem to have and I'm glad I've moved on from the anger I used to feel when I was renting and everything felt so unfair and stacked up against me. I, like you, have much sympathy with many in a precarious housing position but as you've pointed out it is within your control to change that.
  12. Here's an interesting article on tertiary education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment
  13. It seems you're a geneticist now too? What's the DNA mutation that makes one blame Boomers? What have I blamed them for? When and where did I write it? I said they got lucky. To say otherwise is to say they're a superior generation (which we can all agree is nonsense).
  14. I did and I can't see where I've been constantly raising it? It was already raised wouldn't you agree? How am I raising it when I'm responding?
  15. What do you believe caused the fall in fertility in the UK?
  16. It seems like you feel I blame the Boomers but how have I done so? It seems like you're keen on raising an us and them? I'm simply pointing out that there are different times and that your arguments against millennials seem to be unfounded and maybe hypocritical (they consume more than Boomers so they can't afford a house - yet Boomers consumed more than their parents and still could afford a house). If you're familiar with Game Theory you'll understand that an effective higher education strike by any generation would back fire on them. Education requirements have changed. The world is more complex and people are increasingly specialised in industries their country specialises in. My friends father has one O-Level and is a property millionaire. I have an honours degree (big deal) and am a Chartered Accountant (I think a genuine big deal) and I am behind where he was at my age.... but am ahead of his son - my friend - in terms of wealth and earnings despite a big difference in financial support from our parents. I agree with the view of higher education but you're arguing that the tail wagged the dog here. If you're faced with the life choice of going or not going to uni and assuming you want any kind of modern apprenticeship (called a graduate scheme these days) you need to go to a decent uni. If we could shut down the half or two thirds of people going to uni for no real benefit. It seems like by trying to add emotive words to your response (e.g. 'nasty boomers' for instance) you're projecting an image onto my argument or me. I agree, Boomers simply made the best of what was in front of them just like every other generation. They were just luckier. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58430364#comp-comments-button
  17. Roll all earnings in a year together. Capital Gains, Earnings Income, Inheritance and then give a slightly higher tax free limit and a few more bandings, remove the BS 100K to 125K zone with the tax free allowance being abated such that your marginal tax rate is just off the charts and job done. Insane that someone can sit around doing sweet FA all their lives and inherit a million quid and pay virtually no tax on it versus someone getting up every day adn earning £50K for twenty years. As for CGT and risk taking - the risk determines the potential reward. People make a loss, it's on them. People working for a living can't offset their actually costs of earning that money while someone self employed or paying to buy and sell things is able to have these taken into account. The people making big gains from CG or Inheritance actually should pay more given it's the stable legal and economic system that enables all of this to work in the first place.
  18. They weren't choices then anymore than it's a choice now. Back then you had to be top 10% or less to get into uni (and it was free, and you claimed unemployment benefit in the summer hols). Now it's pretty much inceniveable (I didn't go straight to uni so I remember what was actually available to me) you'd get into a decent firm without either a degree or a serious professional qualification (most of which require a degree to get onto a training course for). Credit was simply not available in the way it is now either. Let's take a wild stab in the dark about which generation was overseeing banking and credit regulation while that exploded? If someone can afford a pair of £600 trainers but not a place to live that raises questions about the price of the home (and also his priorities of course). The land my house was built on sold for much less than those trainers in the 1950s. I think you're massively generalising. I'm an early millennial. My last car cost be £8K (cash btw not credit). I had 140K miles out of it over 9 years. I only bought another one (cash, not brand new) when it broke down and wasn't worth repairing. As for those other events travel has become far more affordable. In fact most things have become far more affordable, that's a consequence of economic growth and improvements in productivity. Boomers got to drive around in cars their parent's generation barely saw. They had jet travel for entertainment while their parents played in bombsites. It's inane really to try and make these comparisons. There's a vein of truth in weddings, christening etc becoming overblown events for sure but that's really on them. Their money, their choice. It seems like you believe the Boomers got fairly lucky (inflation killing mortgage and giving raises while enjoying the last of the DB pensions) and that is all. I would agree. They aren't really out there screwing over the young beyond simply being a large enough voting block to attract a little largesse at the expense of the generations before and after but let's not pretend the differences in financial outrun are down to Boomers making the right choices while 'kids these days' are hopeless debt junkies with warped priorities.
  19. How can you prevent someone returning to their home - even if it's a care home? How did you know those hospitals wouldn't have been used without the wonderful benefit of hindsight? It seems that wouldn't have been a viable solution. In any case they were set up as ICU wards not care homes, nor would they have had capacity to act as holding pens (and for how long exactly?) for care home residents.
  20. It seems now that my point is how to care for someone. It isn't. My question is how is the government supposed to stop these people from going back to their homes once discharged from hospital? Even if you stick them in a pop up hospital you'd be out of capacity in a week given the sheer volume of churn of oldies through hospitals. I'm merely asking that if the government murdered all these old people (nonsense anyway) by allowing them back to their homes (that happen to be a care home) when they were well what should they have done with them instead?
×
×
  • 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.