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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
You've Never Had It So Good!!!
Comments
-
PasturesNew wrote: »Well that's highly unlikely. If I were to look for a job right now I'd see the same wages being advertised as I was earning in 1997.
Now Now PN, You could easily quadruple your income if you were willing to relocate to an area where there was more prospects.
It's your choice to stay where you are with the career that you had.
1997 was just coming out of a dip from the last economic recession, so it's a bit hard to believe your career salary would have been the same 17 years later.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Now Now PN, You could easily quadruple your income if you were willing to relocate to an area where there was more prospects.
It's your choice to stay where you are with the career that you had.
1997 was just coming out of a dip from the last economic recession, so it's a bit hard to believe your career salary would have been the same 17 years later.
Also Minmimun wage was not around, so PN should be earning vastly more than 1997.
She/he has never had it so good!0 -
It's been proved over and over again that buying a property is the best investment anyone can make.
Rent, if you wish, but bear in mind that you will have nothing to show for what it costs you.
Aside from certain stocks and shares, or speculative gambling on financial markets. Year on year, the figures I've seen show a 5% return on investment (taking into consideration the maintenance costs of a house). This is good, but unspectacular.
Investing in property is a good idea, but the idea that you're some sort of Warren Buffet sat their watching your property increase in value and that you will somehow realise this value is naive.
The reality is, in the next 25 years laws will be introduced that use the value in your house will pay your care home fees and subsidise your meagre pension.
If you don't think that the Government sees your housing asset as another 'savings account' they can raid then you're pretty stupid.0 -
lawriejones1 wrote: »
If you don't think that the Government sees your housing asset as another 'savings account' they can raid then you're pretty stupid.
I think that's a shrewd observation. The answer to the demographic time bomb will be found in policies like that, and in ever-accelerating naked ageism in the NHS in order to put an effective glass ceiling on how long most people live. It won't be found in inducing people to save more all their lives in order to fund their own old age -- too many votes to be lost that way, and it flies in the face of the UK's arch-ageist national culture.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: »I think that's a shrewd observation. The answer to the demographic time bomb will be found in policies like that, and in ever-accelerating naked ageism in the NHS in order to put an effective glass ceiling on how long most people live. It won't be found in inducing people to save more all their lives in order to fund their own old age -- too many votes to be lost that way, and it flies in the face of the UK's arch-ageist national culture.
The Government have already signalled this by ignoring the recommended cap on care costs of approximately £75,000, and introducing a much lower one.
I'm slowly watching my grandmother's entire savings and investments dwindle away on paying for her own care. It's not that I object to this - it makes sense for her to contribute to her care - but there's a long history of the financially prudent unfortunately made to suffer. When she has just £25,000 left, everything becomes free for her.
The increased fragmentation of care (i.e. the way that it's moving to organisations other than the NHS and local authorities) makes this process much easier for this to happen.0 -
It is true that those who save for old age are made to spend it in old age - those who spend it all when younger get free help in old age.
Some of us, however, see the holy grail as one where we can use our wealth to give us choices ...... if you are placed in a care home by the council, don't expect it to be the one you would have chosen.
I still think that to build an annex on your home to house a care worker/nurse is the best option of all ..... the free accommodation goes a long way to paying the wages!Bringing Happiness where there is Gloom!0 -
lawriejones1 wrote: »there's a long history of the financially prudent unfortunately made to suffer.
That's what we've seen in this country in recent years. It's the socialist redistribution ethos in action. They are in denial that anyone well off could be deserving of it because of endeavour, effort, and enterprise, and that anyone poor could be deserving of that because of laziness, f e c klessness, and self-indulgence.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 -
-
AHA angryarse is back - the sockpuppet king of the boards - how is your other self Linda_D?Bringing Happiness where there is Gloom!0
-
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards