jevans

Issue are conflated between the useless tory problem of the country has invested in itself and the obvious aging population that can't be fixed by up retirement age for 2 major reasons 1) 50% of 71 yo are unfit to work, many of the remained will have a job they can't cope with working to 71 so that percentage would likely increase especial given the state of the NHS which means people wait longer for treatment and are less likely to fully recover 2) people with enough resources will retire when they want to not matter what the state pension age. Due to demographics we need more people working in care of the elderly which would have to be taken out of other areas of the economy either people giving up work to be become carers for family or taking jobs in care at the expense of other sectors, the number of people in work vs the number of retired aka the dependency rate is going to be a growing issue without additional people of working age.

Food is highly expensive, you either pay in money or health.

But I don't think anyone who votes for the deserves representation

Reform could be very important in the election, they may well end up being the large ratio of votes to seats every and make the case for PR, imagine 12-15% of votes cast being totally unrepresented in MPs. Also they can cost the tory many seats

I think it's more likely either Hunt is casting the die with the oly hope the tories have to win the election is a give away and get back into power before the effect hits the economy and if they don't the hand grenade goes off in the start of labour turn and the tories blame same old labour.

yes higher prices will mean lower demand and fewer staff

just go straight to 20%

There's some economic consensus but the 2 parties are night and day on social policy

I was envisioning zero benefit until receipt date. IE you receive it after 15 years but have no access prior

What HPI? If in 2008 you were offered a 200k house or a 200k index link bond but either way you could have it until 2023 to cash them in then the house was the wrong pick for which would be worth more. Also I think accusing our government of having a plan is a stretch

BoE decision will be announced on wednesday by the FED

It's all ******ed from here, either interest rate keep going up which breaks the housing market due to affordability and mortgage lender continue to say here mate that ain't worth what you offered or rate drop because we're in recession and job loss and salary falls cause affordability to drop the housing market goes with it and mortgage lenders continue to say here mate that ain't worth what you offered.

Also I moved house before covid but the kids were in nursery across the road ftom the office, now they are at school I don't think I could manage to switch to being in the office everyday. School breakfast club isn't early enough to get to work in time to be able to leave in time to get back to pick them up by the end of after school club. Looking back getting the kids up, dressed and in the car and then working a full day to drive them home and have an hour with them before bed was a far worse experience than WFH where I have a broken day due to pick them up from school at 3. I then need to do an hour and a half work after dinner before putting the kids to bed.

I think my company is doing hybrid with option of fully remote for the foreseeable due to industry pressure if we tried to rollback to fully in the office we'd lose a ton of staff that are expensive to replace

Be better to make planning permission predictable ie you should be able to read the regulations and design the plan to meet them knowing that they will be approved.

Since the potential EPC rating is E is it a dead duck?

If they halved the price they'd find out what it's worth pretty quickly

Exactly EPC C will be become the minimum sellable/lettable level at some point so it's going to need a ton of cash invested

EPC D, it'll be unletable and unsellable within 10 years without a ton of investment.

I like the idea of RTB shift aging housing stock off the council. give'em a discount based how long they've been paying rent fine, I think the discount might be a bit high. CGT if sold within x years to stop flipping with white knight financing. But replace the bloody houses with new builds based on councils requirements with central topup if needed. Means also that council stocks evolve with changing demographics rather than we needed a lot of these kinda of houses 30 years ago and that's what we stuck with. As to the OP i would have thought they should buy 20K each as a %age of the current valuation using credit and hold it as tenants in common.

My approach is that my pension is my pension each to there own

Remember these are political choices. Government doesn't process claims for asylum at any useful rate therefore they have a growing backlog of people they have to house. They have a shortage of social housing because they don't build enough of them (because it "makes more labour voters") and they don't have a duty of care for our own people that they do for refugees under international treaty however not housing the homeless in hotels etc is again a choice they've made.

From the people who ******ed the health service, why are all these people now says their sick, lazy bastards.

As a long term view stock index fund over 15 year would likely average 8-9% a year. And you could sell a slither in a few days if you need. Houses are a terribly illiquid asset.

I would have thought that BTL would be a pretty crap return if you own the property outright. Based on my last rental the flat was worth about 280-300k in 2019 prices with a 800 pcm rent, assuming 100% of rent is profit which it isn't then it's a pretax return of 3.2 - 3.4%. You are basically holding out in the hope of more capital appreciation. I understand they may have spent much less historically and don't want to take the CGT hit. The spiv would tell you that you refinance for 75% and buy 3 more at 25% a piece and have triple the income.