MSE News: Hung parliament - how will it affect your finances?

GDB2222

Kohoutek wrote: »

But the problem is that we're a net importer of energy (oil & gas) and food. Standards of living will be eroded very significantly if the pound depreciates a lot, because in the long run, fossil fuels and products based on fossil fuels like those made by industrial agriculture, will only go up in price.

So, keep Sterling high so that we continue to import a lot of these, whilst making our manufacturers uneconomic? How do you suggest that we pay for them?

Kohoutek

GDB2222 wrote: »

So, keep Sterling high so that we continue to import a lot of these, whilst making our manufacturers uneconomic? How do you suggest that we pay for them?

What? Do you realise we need oil and food to survive? Many people find petrol prices intolerable as they are now, let alone if they became much more expensive. The price of oil is only at 50% of its all time high. I can't imagine how expensive oil (and by extension food) would become for us if sterling devalued further against the dollar and oil prices began to rise again.

I think sterling is fine how it is, no need for more devaluation. It's devalued over 25% against the dollar and the euro, surely that's enough to make our exports 'competitive'. If we're still having problems, I guess it's because because people don't want to buy our exports.

GDB2222

Kohoutek wrote: »

What? Do you realise we need oil and food to survive? Many people find petrol prices intolerable as they are now, let alone if they became much more expensive.

Yes, we've been living in cloud-cuckoo land for far too long, and people will find it hard to adjust. We've been used to sterling far too high for decades now. First it was propped up by North sea oil, and then it was propped up by the capital inflows into property loans. It can't go on.

I think sterling is fine how it is, no need for more devaluation. It's devalued over 25% against the dollar and the euro, surely that's enough to make our exports 'competitive'. If we're still having problems, I guess it's because because people don't want to buy our exports.

As the present level of devaluation is clearly not working, I simply repeat the question. How do you propose we pay for the imports?

By the way, I agree with Alan M that the exporters need extra help.

Paulgonnabedebtfree

carolt wrote: »

Ermm..you need to read my back posts better, Hamish. Almost none of that is accurate, bar the having children bit. Which was clearly very remiss of me - obviously any sane person (like your good self) would put buying a house above having children... :eek:

No idea where you got the 'travelling round Europe' bit??? Or sitting around 'waiting for a crash' and deciding not to buy? Or failing to save?

Go reread my posts, then come back and talk sense...

By the way, WHICH of us is trolling? :rotfl:

Yes children can be a drain on resources. It's Ok though. Some single person who has no children and does have a cheap mortgage can bail you out and subsidise child tax credits and pay income tax to help fund their education.
For the record I am actually happy to do that too but when someone has the audacity to claim that they are subsidising me, that comes across as a major pi55take.
I'm not a troll either and I didn't start this.
Tell you what. You never mention the ways you "subsidise" my life and I won't mention the ways that I "subsidise" yours.
Deal?

carolt

silvercar wrote: »

I'd put buying a house before having children, rather than above having children. That way you don't get caught in the trap where you need a family home rather then a FTB home at the same time as you have the great expense of children / childcare and possibly reduced income if you decide to reduce hours.

Of course you can bring up children in rented accommodation, but if your desire is to buy, then its a difficult time to do so.

That was my plan too - I've mentioned on here before how I was working abroad with my OH - planned to buy at Easter, when it was easily affordable but as was going abroad for a few months, decided to leave it till I came home in the summer... came back in June pregnant, to find that houses had gone up 50% in 3 months :eek: ie from c 65K to 99K for the 2 bed flats I'd had my eye on. I hadn't allowed for that in my realistic budget - had prices stayed at the levels of 3 months earlier, I would have had no problems buying before the baby arrived.

Same flats now cost over 200K - obviously with the benefit of hindsight, I'd have begged and borrowed to buy anyway - and hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing.

I didn't predict 300% + price rises - who did, realistically? - it was madness.

carolt

Paulgonnabedebtfree wrote: »

Yes children can be a drain on resources. It's Ok though. Some single person who has no children and does have a cheap mortgage can bail you out and subsidise child tax credits and pay income tax to help fund their education.
For the record I am actually happy to do that too but when someone has the audacity to claim that they are subsidising me, that comes across as a major pi55take.
I'm not a troll either and I didn't start this.
Tell you what. You never mention the ways you "subsidise" my life and I won't mention the ways that I "subsidise" yours.
Deal?

You seem a little bit angry.

I don't get tax credits, so you don't subsidize me. I'll be paying for their university education - you seem to forget it doesn't come free any more these days. My kids' taxes will I'm sure more than cover the cost of their school education - and your pension, too, don't you forget. Without a future generation of workers, where do you think the money for that is going to come from?

Cross subsidy is a funny old thing, isn't it?

I had the manners to thank your earlier post. You've clearly been through some tough !!!!, and I wish you well.

But that doesn't mean that the current situation, where young families/individuals can not only not afford to buy a home, but are forced to pay to keep others in the homes they themselves cannot dream of buying, is justifiable. A home is not a luxury item, or a cheap one - it's the most expensive thing anyone will ever buy, and one of the most important. We're talking enormous sums of money - let us not forget that it was the housing market that caused the economic implosion we have seen. That was the point I was making - try not to take it so personally.

Paulgonnabedebtfree

carolt wrote: »

You seem a little bit angry.

I don't get tax credits, so you don't subsidize me. I'll be paying for their university education - you seem to forget it doesn't come free any more these days. My kids' taxes will I'm sure more than cover the cost of their school education - and your pension, too, don't you forget. Without a future generation of workers, where do you think the money for that is going to come from?

Cross subsidy is a funny old thing, isn't it?

I had the manners to thank your earlier post. You've clearly been through some tough !!!!, and I wish you well.

But that doesn't mean that the current situation, where young families/individuals can not only not afford to buy a home, but are forced to pay to keep others in the homes they themselves cannot dream of buying, is justifiable. A home is not a luxury item, or a cheap one - it's the most expensive thing anyone will ever buy, and one of the most important. We're talking enormous sums of money - let us not forget that it was the housing market that caused the economic implosion we have seen. That was the point I was making - try not to take it so personally.

Not angry. I'm a very mellow person really.
University education is indeed self funding these days and even the loans are supplied at a very low rate - a bit like current mortgages really. However, I had the education of younger students in mind really that is funded by taxes etc (yours as well as mine).
However, I'm not the one here who has a problem with such cross subsidising. It can't have escaped your attention that you were the one who initially complained about subsidising - not I.
Additionally, you chose to put your children through university and possibly in part due to that, couldn't afford a mortgage.
I chose not to have children and did get a mortgage.
I don't go around moaning about subsidising other people because of the life choices I have made. Maybe you would be happier if you didn't.

carolt

Well, if you wish to get into the basic issue, as I see it, is that everyone in this country benefits from education - it is offered universally. Same goes for healthcare, pensions etc - all equally available to everyone.

But subsidies to pay people's mortgages - NOT available to all.

So those unable to afford a house are hit twice - firstly because they are locked out of the housing market and secondly, because they are forced to pay for others who are fortunate enough to own a house - but borrowed beyond their means. This has the effect of artifically propping up house prices, thus ensuring that those same locked-out individuals remain locked out.

It seems wrong to me for subsidies to go to a specific sector of society only, and one that ought to need it least - given they already own a home. I don't mind paying social security, say, for the unemployed - assuming they have tried and failed to get a job, at any rate - I do mind paying for others not to have to - gasp! lose their home and rent - given that that is apparently perfectly good enough for me to do.

PS I find letting off steam on here very therapeutic, btw. So no, I find a good moan on here adds to my happiness actually.
PPS Not put my kids through college yet, not by a long chalk! - Youngest is only 3 - maybe my post was unclear?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

carolt wrote: »

I don't get tax credits, so you don't subsidize me.

Bullsh1t. We do subsidise you.

I'll be paying for their university education - you seem to forget it doesn't come free any more these days.

And the amount you pay comes nowhere near the full cost. Because we subsidise the rest.

For an idea of what the real costs would be without the subsidy from the rest of us, look at foreign student fees.

My kids' taxes will I'm sure more than cover the cost of their school education - and your pension, too, don't you forget. Without a future generation of workers, where do you think the money for that is going to come from?

Straw man.

Your kids taxes will not pay for the expenses incurred by society. Nor do yours, remember? Thats why we have a budget deficit.

Cross subsidy is a funny old thing, isn't it?

It certainly is. I pay for the health care of you and your kids. I have private cover, and don't use the NHS.

In fact, as a higher rate taxpayer that does not use the NHS, has no children, and has never claimed a day of benefits, I subsidise a lot of things.

But that doesn't mean that the current situation, where young families/individuals can not only not afford to buy a home, but are forced to pay to keep others in the homes they themselves cannot dream of buying, is justifiable.

The market sets house prices, due to supply and demand.

You don't subsidise a damn thing, and where homeowners have been helped when unemployed, they payed for the "national insurance" to begin with and it works out cheaper than the governments obligation to house them should they become homeless.

A home is not a luxury item, or a cheap one - it's the most expensive thing anyone will ever buy, and one of the most important.

Really? Then why have you made it such a low priority for so many years.

If you had a house, you'd be taking advantage of all those low rates you falsely call subsidies.....

Instead you're moaning about it online because you screwed up.

Sorry, not our fault you made such poor decisions in life.

We're talking enormous sums of money - let us not forget that it was the housing market that caused the economic implosion we have seen.

Not the UK housing market. That had nothing to do with it.

So unless he is American, you have no point.

As usual.

That was the point I was making - try not to take it so personally.

He pegged you as a troll straight away, but responded with politeness anyway.

I won't be so generous, because quite frankly you deserve the situation you're in that makes you so jealous and spitefull. The only person you can blame for not buying a cheaper house is yourself. You had plenty of opportunites.

Try not to take it so personally.;)

carolt

Gosh, Hamish - what a long post - can Paul not speak for himself?

Bet he'll be thrilled you rushed to his defence with one of your usual gentle posts.

Hamish dear, you seem very hard of understanding, tonight.

By the time my kids go to uni, I'd be v surprised if they were paying less than full fees ie the same as foreign students. The political wind is undoubtedly blowing that way. As we don't live IN SCOTLAND our children actually have to pay for their fees. :mad: Let us not forget that £1500 bonus per head per year that all English people pay towards subsidizing our Scottish cousins, as fellow posters have recently helpfully pointed out.

The 'market' does not set house prices - it is not a free unfettered unaided thing - that's what this whole debate was about, you nana. About specific subsidies that have artificially propped up prices in the run-up to the election. And that everyone - you included - know are both (a) unjustified and (b) about to run out as they are simply not affordable long-term.

Had you read any of my posts, you would realise the priority I have put on buying a home, and how important it is to me. It was a question whilst in the process of buying a house - that mercifully fell through - that first brought me to the housing board back in 2006. I got some great advice from fellow posters then. (You hadn't joined our number at that point, Hamish, having not yet been banned from the other site for trolling. )

Of course we all know that you too, for reasons best known to yourself, derive great satisfaction from laughing at those who don't yet own a house. So I hope you got a wry smile - (or is it a great big belly-laugh?) at your knockabout comments re my housing situation.

I'm glad it brings some joy to your drab, lonely existence.

Anything to oblige.