Nationwide aug: + 1.3%

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just putting some fresh evidence this morning in surrounding the point I'm making.

Scoff all you like.

And carper, try 1.6%.[/QUOTE

1.6% rise on £20k increase your take home pay from £15962 to £16349 an increase of £387 or 2.4%

So what figure shall we use for mortgage loans etc your 50% therefore spend on inflation effected items last year £7981 that increases 3.1% to £8228 an increase of £247 but you £387 to pay for it.

　

　

　

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just putting some fresh evidence this morning in surrounding the point I'm making.

Scoff all you like.

And carper, try 1.6%.

I'm struggling with the point your trying to make, mainly because its become bogged down with mathematical calculations. Often these discussions get swamped in obscure technicalities and the real-world point is lost.

You said that inflation isn't inflating away mortgage holder debt. As people have to live somewhere, are you saying that in an inflationary environment people are better off living in rented rather than mortgaged accomodation?

Graham_Devon

You couldn't cherrypick the data any more if you tried.

I realise I'm digging myself a hole now, as seemingly none of you wish to note that fact every statistic says were getting poorer, not richer as you would like to make out.

My point stands. You can work ouit whatever yo ulike on paper, but using a CPI rate WILL NOT provide real figures for the average working family with mouths to feed.

ukcarper

All I’m am trying to get across is that just because inflation is 3% and you before tax rise is 1.6% you are not 1.4% worse off.

This is for 2 reasons the first is that a 1.6% gross rise will give you a bigger net rise because of increasing personal allowances and secondly you only have to spend that rise on inflation effected items.

In the real world it will effect people in different ways depending on their personal spend and earnings.

By the way I used the data you provided.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You couldn't cherrypick the data any more if you tried.

I realise I'm digging myself a hole now, as seemingly none of you wish to note that fact every statistic says were getting poorer, not richer as you would like to make out.

My point stands. You can work ouit whatever yo ulike on paper, but using a CPI rate WILL NOT provide real figures for the average working family with mouths to feed.

Instead of using any figures, which are never going to work anyone because even real-world figures are always going to be subjective, so can we look at the bigger picture?

In the real-world, people have to live somewhere and the vast majority will either pay a mortgage or pay rent. In an inflationary environment, which do you thing will fare better, the mortgage payer or the rent payer?

And why? (which, depending on your reply, will hopefully explain what other people have been trying to point out to you but without descending into the madness of%ages and CPI/RPI calculations!)

Graham_Devon

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

You said that inflation isn't inflating away mortgage holder debt.

No I did not, and never have done.

I said yes, while inflation is making the mortgage payment smaller, this doesn't mean the family or homeowner is better off. And the argument has continued from there, with many calculations to prove the householder is better off, which is infact nonsense.

This is what I have said:

Yes, inflation based on the CPI or RPI index will make your mortgage amount look smaller. But you have to look at that in relation to your other expenses going up.

I'm being drowned out by the "you don't understand" brigade, when I;ve accepted the point people are trying to make. I just don't accept that just because your mortgage payment looks smaller thanks to inflation the household is therefore better off. I don't think this is a particulalry outlandish claim.

Now it's just ended up in the usual "ha ha ha, graham doesn't understand" nonsense while no one it seems is actually willing to discuss the actual point I made. It's a usual occurance...so as I said....scoff all you like and make stuff up all you like

I've already agreed with the thing everyone seems to be explaining to me, and I did that two pages ago.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

All I’m am trying to get across is that just because inflation is 3% and you before tax rise is 1.6% you are not 1.4% worse off.

Unfortunately this is an all too common way of comparing percentages. I've seen quite bright people do it too e.g. "our labour costs have increased by 2.5% therefore your invoice price needs to increase by 2.5%".

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No I did not, and never have done.

Sorry Graham I'm not going to let you wriggle out of this one.

wotsthat wrote: »

You'd have seen your mortgage and monthly payment eroded by inflation.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How would the mortgage payment have eroded due to inflation? Were currently in a period of miniscule wage inflation.

ukcarper has explained in minute detail.

You should be thanking him for his patience. It's rather rude to deliberately try and muddle things when someone makes such an effort to try and help your understanding.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

All I’m am trying to get across is that just because inflation is 3% and you before tax rise is 1.6% you are not 1.4% worse off.

I've never disagreed with that or even implied any different.

All I have said throughout is that the family spend on goods does not match the RPI or CPI in it's entirity, therefore those sorts of calculations to come to a conclusion over how much better or worse off the family is are pointless.

The things people generally spend each month on have a higher inflation rate in general than the RPI or CPI measure.

My point throughout has been that you have to look at the goods money is spent on, rather than using the CPI rate to create assumptions.

For example...last year...(figures as I recall them)

Food up 11%
Gas / Electricy up 18%
Petrol up 24%
Clothing down 1%

If we consider those to be the staple family outgoings, working out how much better off they are based on a rate of 3.6% is nonsense. Hence why so many articles working out true personal inflation of families is so much higher.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Sorry Graham I'm not going to let you wriggle out of this one.

Ahh right, it's forum politics you are playing, rather than the debate?

Let me get this right....because I made that statement, I will always be wrong, no matter what I have typed to ecxplain what I meant since, no matter if I agree with what you are all saying.

Not much I can say then really is there. it doesn't matter what I say, you are just going to keep highlighting one single sentence, regardless of context and claim I'm wrong regardless. Have a gold star.

I have respect for carper, at least he'll argue the facts, rather than relying on soundbites. You lot with your constant "must play the man rather than the ball" approach are actually ruining anything carper states.