Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
northwestsmith2

Is Working Worth It?

Recommended Posts

You were lucky.

You still are.

pro tip - more Taleb, less Tony Robbins.

not sure what pro tip means....your the pro give me a break.. ;)

But love extending my knowledge so will google and study, I am more a Steve Covey man myself :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure what pro tip means....your the pro give me a break.. ;)

But love extending my knowledge so will google and study, I am more a Steve Covey man myself :P

http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance-Markets/dp/1587990717

If the prescriptions for getting rich that are outlined in books such as The Millionaire Next Door and Rich Dad Poor Dad are successful enough to make the books bestsellers, then one must ask, Why aren't there more millionaires? In Fooled by Randomness, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a professional trader and mathematics professor, examines what randomness means in business and in life and why human beings are so prone to mistake dumb luck for consummate skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have empathy but not sympathy. The world changes you have to find a way to change with it adapt or die and all that. What we haven't done is considered the micro systems around say a factory or mine when it closed and how do we keep the fabric of those communities alive.

As for the 'elites' it was on the cards thirty years ago. The factory I did mt technical apprenticeship in is now houses. Easy to blame the mythical elites much easier than looking in the mirror for most people.

Ever since we automated the curve was set you could see that from years ago. Don't by the elite theory if you own a business you want to get the raw input as cheap as possible be that materials or skills. Goes back thousands of years not tens.

The golden bubble where average people could earn great money (factory workers eraning twice what a headmaster earnt) was a bubble from 45 -to emid 70's.

No we cannot all be at the top companies rely on the masses to buy their products . A man with Billions in the bank is not going to buy 1 million tv's as he has no need for them . The million people who would have bought them won't buy them as they have not got the means , so the 1 million tv's do not get sold and there is no need to make them , whether they can be made very cheaply abroad or not . Companies need customers and that is what is getting destroyed .

You almost mock the ex factory worker for not having the insite 30 + years ago to see what was going to happen. You talk about them living in a bubble well maybe the elit's are more blind than the average factory worker was 30 years ago and are having their glory days now what will you be telling them when they have no customers.

Yes the cheapest raw imput theory goes back thousands of years but companies needing customers goes back to the begging of time if they think they can carry on when the customer base has no earnings they will soon find out this about this . What peals of wisdom would you give them when this happens ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you confuse job security with an employment contract. Our top people 40+ in number have been with us 15 plus years and they are not earning pizza parlour money. True security comes from having a skill you can trade for good or better money. Our top people are requested for personally by our blue chip clients. That is ultimately far more secure than sitting waiting for the next round of cuts to collect your 12 weeks at whatever £160? 7 or 8 shifts to my guys.

We have two brothers who with the provision of some juniors as well as them (yes their family) grossed £270k + last year a tidy little business within a business, and they do other stuff.

Job security only comes from having skills in demand you just have to get the right skills - no amount of unionisation/law changes will make that much difference in a global economy.

Perhaps contracting isn't for everyone Debbie but others see employment as a prison, one mans meat and all that.

At the end of the day there's a lot more at stake being a contractor than just the lack of ability to borrow decent sums of money. There's also the question of status. Being a contractor in an office where most of the people are permanent employees is like being a foreigner in a strange land. Yes, you're relatively well paid, but most of the money you have to squirrel away. No matter what your employer thinks of you, the next downturn that comes along, if his/her workload dries up, then so does yours. BUT, and this is a big difference, by and large the contacts remain with whomever it is you are working for. So just because you are well paid as a contractor, it doesn't follow that your employer's contacts become yours.

Still, it's a two way street. If the contractor didn't think there would be continuity of employment, albeit without a golden parachute if the work dries up, they probably would look for permanent work instead. I'm not suggesting the employer is coercing the contractor to work for them ,suffering relatively unfavourable working conditions. More that the contractor, wanting to maximise their income today, rather than work in a secure job for a relative pittance, has no choice but to offer his labour to you. You, by virtue of your contacts, then get to (presumably) profit handsomely from the arrangement, without actually providing any of the labour yourself.

This thread started off with the question of whether working was worth it. Do you think that an employment model whereby true wealth rests in the hands of just a few - those who don't get paid just based on their labour/hours worked - while the workers toil away at fixed term contracts, with insufficient continuity of employment to enable them to borrow (i,.e. obtain capital) and build their own wealth, is sustainable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make some great comments Debbie but when was business about courtesy?

If you want to change it - start a business. Oh I forgot before everyone posts on I was lucky, I was in the right place right time and all that cods. If you want to make the change change it. If not well....

We still have a very benign business environment go for it.

I've had my own business for years. Britain is a great place to be self employed. Very few regulations. Hefty subsidies in the early years of self employment, particularly if you work in certain sectors, e.g. owning land and growing something.

But the question still remains. Do you think that an employment model whereby true wealth rests in the hands of just a few - those who don't get paid just based on their labour/hours worked - while the workers toil away at fixed term contracts (or insecure "permanent" jobs, come to that - look at what is happening in the public sector), with insufficient continuity of employment to enable them to borrow (i,.e. obtain capital) and build their own wealth, is sustainable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I said )or rather implied) that charging people simply for being somwhere was immoral.

You mean charging the customer, just because you are employing someone who has nothing to do but you have to recover the costs somehow? Perhaps. But paying someone to be available, even if you don't have something for them to do right now, which is really all that permanent (rather than contract) employment is - isn't that reasonable, given you are going to making mega profits out of them when you do use their labour?

People have had their ability to support themselves systematically stripped away. Then they are offered shit conditions, pay and so on once they are in that predicament.

Some people can wriggle through this mess, all power to them. Most people can't, and this inability to make a go of it is completely normal, the default.

This is Britain we're talking about, right? You've GOT to be kidding me! It's probably got the most generous support to businesses in the world. You can start a business in Britain with £1 in your pocket and receive generous subsidies from day one. Let's see, working tax credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, free dental, free prescriptions, child tax credit, child benefit, free school meals (in Scotland at least - bizarre!). Anyone who wants to work in Britain and make a living, can. Just because you can't get a job working for someone else doesn't mean squat. Even if all you make is £5,000 a year, so what? That level of income, if you had a couple of children and were both working in the business would mean a subsidy or around £20k or so a year, depending on where you live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean charging the customer, just because you are employing someone who has nothing to do but you have to recover the costs somehow? Perhaps. But paying someone to be available, even if you don't have something for them to do right now, which is really all that permanent (rather than contract) employment is - isn't that reasonable, given you are going to making mega profits out of them when you do use their labour?

No i was talking about taxes and rents. Both are immoral, as all attacks are.

This is Britain we're talking about, right? You've GOT to be kidding me! It's probably got the most generous support to businesses in the world. You can start a business in Britain with £1 in your pocket and receive generous subsidies from day one. Let's see, working tax credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, free dental, free prescriptions, child tax credit, child benefit, free school meals (in Scotland at least - bizarre!). Anyone who wants to work in Britain and make a living, can. Just because you can't get a job working for someone else doesn't mean squat. Even if all you make is £5,000 a year, so what? That level of income, if you had a couple of children and were both working in the business would mean a subsidy or around £20k or so a year, depending on where you live.

:lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Britain we're talking about, right? You've GOT to be kidding me! It's probably got the most generous support to businesses in the world. You can start a business in Britain with £1 in your pocket and receive generous subsidies from day one. Let's see, working tax credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, free dental, free prescriptions, child tax credit, child benefit, free school meals (in Scotland at least - bizarre!). Anyone who wants to work in Britain and make a living, can. Just because you can't get a job working for someone else doesn't mean squat. Even if all you make is £5,000 a year, so what? That level of income, if you had a couple of children and were both working in the business would mean a subsidy or around £20k or so a year, depending on where you live.

Except that most of those benefits are subject to means testing so if your business makes any money they'll be whipped away quicker than you can say "social mobility".

This has to be one of the most deluded paragraphs I've read on here for ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that most of those benefits are subject to means testing so if your business makes any money they'll be whipped away quicker than you can say "social mobility".

This has to be one of the most deluded paragraphs I've read on here for ages.

What does that matter? If you are wealthy enough, as in have sufficient liquid assets, to start a business and not need any help from the state, more power you.

Most business start ups in Britain are undercapitalised. My point was just because you can't get a job working for someone else isn't an excuse to just sit around on the dole doing nothing. For fit and able people, there's no excuse for unemployment in Britain, given the considerable amount of financial help given to the self employed. If you've got over £16k in the bank, fine. You can afford to support yourself while your business is getting up to speed. If not,t hen the state offers support.

And frankly, if your business makes sufficient profits so that you don't qualify for state help, then that's the best outcome, isn't it! The more income tax you pay, the more you earn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that matter? If you are wealthy enough, as in have sufficient liquid assets, to start a business and not need any help from the state, more power you.

Most business start ups in Britain are undercapitalised. My point was just because you can't get a job working for someone else isn't an excuse to just sit around on the dole doing nothing. For fit and able people, there's no excuse for unemployment in Britain, given the considerable amount of financial help given to the self employed. If you've got over £16k in the bank, fine. You can afford to support yourself while your business is getting up to speed. If not,t hen the state offers support.

And frankly, if your business makes sufficient profits so that you don't qualify for state help, then that's the best outcome, isn't it! The more income tax you pay, the more you earn.

:ph34r::ph34r::ph34r::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point was just because you can't get a job working for someone else isn't an excuse to just sit around on the dole doing nothing. For fit and able people, there's no excuse for unemployment in Britain,

Think of it this way- you are a one armed man hanging from a cliff edge and somebody lowers you a rope.

In order to grab the rope you must first let go of the cliff- but if you let go you will fall. Meanwhile the guy holding the rope is saying 'There's no excuse for him not grabbing the rope'. Easy to say if you are not a one armed man hanging from a cliff.

This is the central dilemma of a means tested benefits system- the cliff being the security of benefits, the rope being the opportunity of self employment.

We need a smarter system that allows the rope to be firmly grasped before the gravity of poverty pulls you down- but the system is so hysterical about being defrauded it cannot really help anybody- it's too busy running around to see if anyone has had the temerity to try and improve their lot and if they have, prosecuting them for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of it this way- you are a one armed man hanging from a cliff edge and somebody lowers you a rope.

In order to grab the rope you must first let go of the cliff- but if you let go you will fall. Meanwhile the guy holding the rope is saying 'There's no excuse for him not grabbing the rope'. Easy to say if you are not a one armed man hanging from a cliff.

This is the central dilemma of a means tested benefits system- the cliff being the security of benefits, the rope being the opportunity of self employment.

We need a smarter system that allows the rope to be firmly grasped before the gravity of poverty pulls you down- but the system is so hysterical about being defrauded it cannot really help anybody- it's too busy running around to see if anyone has had the temerity to try and improve their lot and if they have, prosecuting them for doing so.

What kind of "security of benefits" disappears once you become self employed? Say you start a business with very little capital. You may not make anything at all in the first year. So now, instead of job seekers allowance, you get working tax credits. What else changes? You still get child tax credit, child benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, - all the things you got when you were unemployed. But at least you now have the potential to earn a living. What would you rather do? Not work and sit at home going "woe is me! i can't find anyone to give me a job" or take the bull by the horns and have a go working for yourself? Sure, in ten years time you may still have a marginal business, but at least you tried.

As for the threat of being prosecuted if you become self employed but don't earn enough so still qualify for benefits, if you're honest and declare your earnings, how is that likely to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of "security of benefits" disappears once you become self employed? Say you start a business with very little capital. You may not make anything at all in the first year. So now, instead of job seekers allowance, you get working tax credits. What else changes? You still get child tax credit, child benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, - all the things you got when you were unemployed. But at least you now have the potential to earn a living. What would you rather do? Not work and sit at home going "woe is me! i can't find anyone to give me a job" or take the bull by the horns and have a go working for yourself? Sure, in ten years time you may still have a marginal business, but at least you tried.

As for the threat of being prosecuted if you become self employed but don't earn enough so still qualify for benefits, if you're honest and declare your earnings, how is that likely to happen?

Ok, so you don't seem to be seeing that in order to become "self employed" you are completely reliant on the state in this scenario, and you also seem to be missing that you have to find work that will pay for all the things state benefits pay for as well.

Has it not occured to you that maybe, just maybe, the things "benefits" pay for shouldn't be there in the first place?

Someone has tied your arms together behind your back and is now offering to scratch your nose for you for a fee, and you are thinking it's a good deal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What kind of "security of benefits" disappears once you become self employed? Say you start a business with very little capital. You may not make anything at all in the first year. So now, instead of job seekers allowance, you get working tax credits. What else changes? You still get child tax credit, child benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, - all the things you got when you were unemployed. But at least you now have the potential to earn a living. What would you rather do? Not work and sit at home going "woe is me! i can't find anyone to give me a job" or take the bull by the horns and have a go working for yourself? Sure, in ten years time you may still have a marginal business, but at least you tried.

As for the threat of being prosecuted if you become self employed but don't earn enough so still qualify for benefits, if you're honest and declare your earnings, how is that likely to happen?

The maximum tax credits for an over 25 single person is 1,550 a year, so if you make nothing in the first year this could be a problem.

But the real problem is that real life is not as neat and organized as the system assumes- so what happens is any attempt to move from dependency into work exposes people to the real threat that their income will become so erratic, their system 'status' so unclear and their entire life such a bureaucratic nightmare that the real incentive is to do nothing. You might deplore this but it's simply human nature- people are far more concerned about potential loss than potential gain.

A more intelligent system would be flexible enough to allow a transition period in which benefits could be kept on while building a self employed business- with the money eventually being recouped via taxation when profits hit a given threshold- a bit like the way university is funded now- deferred repayment of benefits rather than a freak show of means tests that scares people into passivity.

The truth is that the system does not encourage or facilitate people to take risks- it punishes them for doing so.

Edited by wonderpup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The maximum tax credits for an over 25 single person is 1,550 a year, so if you make nothing in the first year this could be a problem.

But the real problem is that real life is not as neat and organized as the system assumes- so what happens is any attempt to move from dependency into work exposes people to the real threat that their income will become so erratic, their system 'status' so unclear and their entire life such a bureaucratic nightmare that the real incentive is to do nothing. You might deplore this but it's simply human nature- people are far more concerned about potential loss than potential gain.

A more intelligent system would be flexible enough to allow a transition period in which benefits could be kept on while building a self employed business- with the money eventually being recouped via taxation when profits hit a given threshold- a bit like the way university is funded now- deferred repayment of benefits rather than a freak show of means tests that scares people into passivity.

The truth is that the system does not encourage or facilitate people to take risks- it punishes them for doing so.

Citizens income. Job done. And on todays figures every person of all ages in the UK could have £333 per month - at no extra cost. Add in the massive savings due to costs cut and red tape being slashed - everyone could have £400 per month easy - at no extra cost to the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it? I've been hearing this little chestnut for a while though.

It's not exactly more cost effective to lock them up if they start rioting again either. Then again if we can shell out c£30k to prosecute and lock up £3.50 bottle of water thieves, obviously there's still plenty of coin left in the pot.

Ah yes, the argument from extortion. Don't the banks try this one whenever it looks like their insolvency is about to be exposed?

Grow up. People can look after themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of "security of benefits" disappears once you become self employed?

You must have missed the hundreds of thousands of construction workers who got laid off in 2008.

Most were self employed and found no help when they turned to the benefits system. On top of that, many found themselves at the sharp end of divorce proceedings because of their loss of income and had to surrender whatever else they had left.

Alot of them are practical men, and I guess they've decided to avoid the state from now on - no taxes, no marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizens income. Job done. And on todays figures every person of all ages in the UK could have £333 per month - at no extra cost. Add in the massive savings due to costs cut and red tape being slashed - everyone could have £400 per month easy - at no extra cost to the country.

Only if you can close the border...

Just in case you missed this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8798443/Brussels-poses-serious-threat-to-our-welfare-reforms.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must have missed the hundreds of thousands of construction workers who got laid off in 2008.

Most were self employed and found no help when they turned to the benefits system. On top of that, many found themselves at the sharp end of divorce proceedings because of their loss of income and had to surrender whatever else they had left.

Alot of them are practical men, and I guess they've decided to avoid the state from now on - no taxes, no marriage.

Yes, construction workers were laid off, but they were no less "self employed" as a result of being laid off. If they had sufficient savings to tide them over then they had no need of the benefits system in any event. Most self employment would have times when income is lean. Maybe they had a spouse who earned enough to keep them out of needing to supplement their income via benefits. A lot of people own mortgage free houses. Clearly people in that situation would have no need of housing benefit.

If they had been renting, with no other income coming in, e.g. a non working spouse, had children and had less than £16k in liquid assets, then they would have received a lot of financial assistance from the current benefits system. Your savings aren't there for you to hold onto in lean times, whether you are self employed or were working for someone else, while you get other tax payers to pay for you.

I've worked with a few I.T. consultants over the years. It was interesting watching their reactions as their contracts neared completion. The best ones were onto their personal contacts, sniffing out other opportunities and going after them. They usually had something lined up as soon as the contract finished. Couldn't the laid off construction workers have got onto people at other sites, or put an ad in the paper and done some odd jobs for a while, just to keep the funds coming in? A guy along the road - he's a carpenter but not on a building site; I think he worked as a joiner, was laid off, and turned his van into "a man with a van" what seemed like overnight. He advertises for work in the local rag and occasionally gets some, but while he hasn't replaced his income, he's pretty close to it. He couldn't get any help from the benefits system because his wife is a teacher.

I suppose for people who can't get assistance, be it due to a working spouse or too much in the way of liquid assets, then working is definitely worth it, given their other choice is no income at all. But how does that excuse the non working people who rely on benefits income from taking the plunge and having a go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, construction workers were laid off, but they were no less "self employed" as a result of being laid off. If they had sufficient savings to tide them over then they had no need of the benefits system in any event. Most self employment would have times when income is lean. Maybe they had a spouse who earned enough to keep them out of needing to supplement their income via benefits. A lot of people own mortgage free houses. Clearly people in that situation would have no need of housing benefit.

Why should there be any such thing as housing benefit? Or mortgages?

If they had been renting, with no other income coming in, e.g. a non working spouse, had children and had less than £16k in liquid assets, then they would have received a lot of financial assistance from the current benefits system. Your savings aren't there for you to hold onto in lean times, whether you are self employed or were working for someone else, while you get other tax payers to pay for you.

Stealing isn't a solution that works long term.

I've worked with a few I.T. consultants over the years. It was interesting watching their reactions as their contracts neared completion. The best ones were onto their personal contacts, sniffing out other opportunities and going after them. They usually had something lined up as soon as the contract finished. Couldn't the laid off construction workers have got onto people at other sites, or put an ad in the paper and done some odd jobs for a while, just to keep the funds coming in? A guy along the road - he's a carpenter but not on a building site; I think he worked as a joiner, was laid off, and turned his van into "a man with a van" what seemed like overnight. He advertises for work in the local rag and occasionally gets some, but while he hasn't replaced his income, he's pretty close to it. He couldn't get any help from the benefits system because his wife is a teacher.

I suppose for people who can't get assistance, be it due to a working spouse or too much in the way of liquid assets, then working is definitely worth it, given their other choice is no income at all. But how does that excuse the non working people who rely on benefits income from taking the plunge and having a go?

Why on earth should anyone need to beg the state for cash to remove demands that the state put there in the first place?

Just remove the taxes and rents, regulations and market rigging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The maximum tax credits for an over 25 single person is 1,550 a year, so if you make nothing in the first year this could be a problem.

But the real problem is that real life is not as neat and organized as the system assumes- so what happens is any attempt to move from dependency into work exposes people to the real threat that their income will become so erratic, their system 'status' so unclear and their entire life such a bureaucratic nightmare that the real incentive is to do nothing. You might deplore this but it's simply human nature- people are far more concerned about potential loss than potential gain.

A more intelligent system would be flexible enough to allow a transition period in which benefits could be kept on while building a self employed business- with the money eventually being recouped via taxation when profits hit a given threshold- a bit like the way university is funded now- deferred repayment of benefits rather than a freak show of means tests that scares people into passivity.

The truth is that the system does not encourage or facilitate people to take risks- it punishes them for doing so.

Most people who work, even if they work for other people, can't depend on the continuity of their income. There's not a week goes by without some company announcing plans to lay people off. I don't mind people not wanting to work for other people. I wouldn't like a boss myself. There would be plenty of people in today's economy concerned about losing their jobs. But that's the nature of working. It's uncertain. Nothing is guaranteed.

I'm not sure though, that the benefits system is any more guaranteed. If anything, income over time is reducing rather than increasing or staying static. For example, housing benefit used to be paid at the LHA rate, regardless of what you actually paid in rent, then it reduced to your actual rent plus £15 a week, if your rent was lower than the LHA, then down to the actual rent only, then the LHA itself was reduced from the median 50% rent to the 30% level, i.e. the level at which 30% are below, and 70% of rents are above, the determined amount. Child benefit didn't used to be means tested. Now it is. Or at least, means testing is soon to come in. At the moment the value of your non liquid assets is not taken into consideration when determining the level of benefits, but I can foresee a day when it would be. You could get a situation where, for young people, if you are a NEET, you don't get a cent (the situation in Australia). And there's no potential, unlike with self employment, to improve your situation. Quite the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should there be any such thing as housing benefit? Or mortgages?

Stealing isn't a solution that works long term.

Why on earth should anyone need to beg the state for cash to remove demands that the state put there in the first place?

Just remove the taxes and rents, regulations and market rigging.

Our system is called capitalism, not communism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our system is called capitalism, not communism.

Maybe try again, but with answers to the questions instead of an irrelevent (and factually incorrect) statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people who work, even if they work for other people, can't depend on the continuity of their income. There's not a week goes by without some company announcing plans to lay people off. I don't mind people not wanting to work for other people. I wouldn't like a boss myself. There would be plenty of people in today's economy concerned about losing their jobs. But that's the nature of working. It's uncertain. Nothing is guaranteed.

I'm not sure though, that the benefits system is any more guaranteed. If anything, income over time is reducing rather than increasing or staying static. For example, housing benefit used to be paid at the LHA rate, regardless of what you actually paid in rent, then it reduced to your actual rent plus £15 a week, if your rent was lower than the LHA, then down to the actual rent only, then the LHA itself was reduced from the median 50% rent to the 30% level, i.e. the level at which 30% are below, and 70% of rents are above, the determined amount. Child benefit didn't used to be means tested. Now it is. Or at least, means testing is soon to come in. At the moment the value of your non liquid assets is not taken into consideration when determining the level of benefits, but I can foresee a day when it would be. You could get a situation where, for young people, if you are a NEET, you don't get a cent (the situation in Australia). And there's no potential, unlike with self employment, to improve your situation. Quite the opposite.

The state will fail and the bulk of benefits will cease, or be paid nominally but worthlessly.

This is mathematically certain and known, not uncertain and unknown.

There is also no way to improve your situation by working to pay into the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 294 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.