We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Retired people could work for pensions..
Comments
-
This is one way they could fund it - or reduce wages, reduce profit margins (*gasp*) etc. That's part of why I said you were oversimplifying my point.mandatory work place pension are simply a tax on the business.
they increase the price of the goods and services produced by those companies
I didn't say "raising the prices of goods ... is better than increasing tax". I said that taking an option that may increase the cost of good is preferable in this instance to increasing tax. this (imo) is because of the end result, not the medium of obtaining the money. In many cases, I think increasing taxes to provide better services is a Good Thing (TM).
No there isn't, and I'm not really sure of the point you're making - care to elaborate?*there is no necessary law that says all state pensions should be the same regardless of total tax/NI paid by your employer.
ETA: I just read this back and it sounds kind of aggressive, it's not meant to ... honest
Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?
― Sir Terry Pratchett, 1948-20150 -
I cannot see any point in trading insults on this, neither can I see this obsession with attacking other generations. Its easy to be dragged into doing this with generalisations about the attitudes of different generations. There may be some truth in such generalisations but what I cannot accept is that any generation has some kind of a grand plan that seeks to advantage itself at the expense of another which is the premise that pervades many of these arguments. In fact I cannot recall any decision I have ever made that was motivated by a wish to disadvantage anyone, of my own or another generation.
It's all about the ruthless pursuit of the haves by the have nots. The left is winning the battle for hearts and minds and this is a manifestation of it.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »It's a good thing that the younger generations do not indulge in over-frequent holidays and consumerist junk ......
The most ruthless exploitation I have heard of is my friend's "Nana".
Nana was left a widow with a house, well she MEWed and MEWed and MEWed. She MEWed television sets, she MEWed holidays for herself, she MEWed fine foods and wines and cheeses.
She MEWed to pay the gas. She MEWed to play the Bingo, and she MEWed to visit the sunny shores of the Mediterranean.
Down to her last £5000 of equity, she MEWed the lot and went on a cruise, she took Babs (her daughter) with her for free. Then she stuck two fingers up at the bank and moved in with Babs, planning to spend the rest of her days there.
Now Babs looks after Nana, who has her State pension thankyou, the bank has a house in negative equity, and my poor friend is trapped in rental with no deposit.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »... and my poor friend is trapped in rental with no deposit.
Maybe your poor friend should have just saved for a deposit, regardless what Nana does.
Again...it's all someone else's fault.0 -
Erm, I don't understand the MEW acronym, but why wasn't your "poor friend" saving her own deposit rather than waiting for her Nana to die to snatch her money.ruggedtoast wrote: »Now Babs looks after Nana, who has her State pension thankyou, the bank has a house in negative equity, and my poor friend is trapped in rental with no deposit.
ETA: Too slow!Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?
― Sir Terry Pratchett, 1948-20150 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »The most ruthless exploitation I have heard of is my friend's "Nana".
Nana was left a widow with a house, well she MEWed and MEWed and MEWed. She MEWed television sets, she MEWed holidays for herself, she MEWed fine foods and wines and cheeses.
She MEWed to pay the gas. She MEWed to play the Bingo, and she MEWed to visit the sunny shores of the Mediterranean.
Down to her last £5000 of equity, she MEWed the lot and went on a cruise, she took Babs (her daughter) with her for free. Then she stuck two fingers up at the bank and moved in with Babs, planning to spend the rest of her days there.
Now Babs looks after Nana, who has her State pension thankyou, the bank has a house in negative equity, and my poor friend is trapped in rental with no deposit.
What is MEW? I know it is something to do with taking equity out of the house. What does it stand for?(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
seven-day-weekend wrote: »What is MEW? I know it is something to do with taking equity out of the house. What does it stand for?
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal0 -
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal
Ah right...re-mortgaging her house to free up cash?
We did this to give our son the deposit for a flat. We personally would not do it for frivolous things.
However, if you can pay the mortgage, why not?
(We have since repaid the loan we took out and are now mortgage-free again).
However, I have heard it said on these forums that we boomers should not fund deposits as it just keeps house prices high. So if we can't fund deposits by 'MEW'ing and helping someone onto the housing market, but on the other hand are sitting on all this (alleged) wealth, what would you like us to do? Just give away our houses to the younger generation?(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »The most ruthless exploitation I have heard of is my friend's "Nana".
Nana was left a widow with a house, well she MEWed and MEWed and MEWed. She MEWed television sets, she MEWed holidays for herself, she MEWed fine foods and wines and cheeses.
She MEWed to pay the gas. She MEWed to play the Bingo, and she MEWed to visit the sunny shores of the Mediterranean.
Down to her last £5000 of equity, she MEWed the lot and went on a cruise, she took Babs (her daughter) with her for free. Then she stuck two fingers up at the bank and moved in with Babs, planning to spend the rest of her days there.
Now Babs looks after Nana, who has her State pension thankyou, the bank has a house in negative equity, and my poor friend is trapped in rental with no deposit.
But Nana can't be a boomer, can she ....if she has a grand-daughter old enough to rent a house ????????0 -
seven-day-weekend wrote: »Ah right...re-mortgaging her house to free up cash?
We did this to give our son the deposit for a flat. We personally would not do it for frivolous things.
However, if you can pay the mortgage, why not?
(We have since repaid the loan we took out and are now mortgage-free again).
However, I have heard it said on these forums that we boomers should not fund deposits as it just keeps house prices high. So if we can't fund deposits by 'MEW'ing and helping someone onto the housing market, but on the other hand are sitting on all this (alleged) wealth, what would you like us to do? Just give away our houses to the younger generation?
According to PaulF81 and his friend Toasty, we should all be giving our homes to our children/g/children who are paying 40% tax on their incomes and just buy a 1-way ticket to Switzerland!! I for one, do not intend to do this!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards