Stock Market crash-not if but when?

diamonds

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Is this why the UK market is underperforming the rest of the world?
Taxpayers are borrowing astronomical amounts of money to subsidise other people's housing costs because Government intervention in the housing market has made housing too expensive for those on the minimum wage. Rather than allow enough houses to be built to bring down house prices, for the first time in history a Tory Government now wants a higher minimum wage!!!! - is there anything they won't do to keep their house price bubble inflated? High housing costs is obviously a drag on the productive side of the economy. Why risk investing in a factory full of machinery and training engineers when taxpayer subsidy has made buy to let more profitable?

Due to ill health and not being able to work full time, well, full time (lol) I cant get a decent mortgage without 25% down, and any over time on minimum wage just gets eaten up by housing benefit reduction.


It's a horrendous poverty trap.


Higher minimum wage means prices rise, companies dont absorb it so obviously in the short term housing benefit is reduced and DWP save money, the flip side is more working poor & sick/disabled and jobseekers become poorer, not even inflation increases for years.


And what you stated^



Oh and a 40% tax break ontop.



I had to laugh at Scots Tory leader Ruth Davidson saying Scots will pay more tax - no we wont reward the best off - 40% tax - a raise! then Tory Ruth Scotland in her next line, NO JOKE...would remove free prescriptions and charge £6000 a year for uni :eek:
You couldnt make it up!!


The minority of scots that pay 40% tax know their bread is buttered with jam and appreciate it. Ruth might aswell have held up a sign saying vote SNP in May for the Scottish Parliament :rotfl:


Another tory tit.


3 parties wanting to raise tax or remove health and education ? Anyone want to take a educated guess what Scotland will vote ?

Glen_Clark

Every time they raise the tax thresholds by £1,000 they claim its to help the poor, but the greatest gainers are the higher rate tax payers because they get the extra £1,000 at their higher rate. And of course the poor gain nothing because they are already below the tax thresholds.
But of course the way to solve the housing crisis and boost the economy is to have a free market - sack the planning committies and let the builders build enough homes. Government interventuion in the housing market is the problem, not the solution. But that wouldn't be good for landlords. So the Government only allows a free market when it suits them. The fact this supposedly free market right wing Government will abandon their free market principles - have socialist style housing market interventions, cripple the productive side of the economy, and even a higher minimum wage, shows just how far they will go to keep their house price bubble inflated!!

TheTracker

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Every time they raise the tax thresholds by £1,000 they claim its to help the poor, but the greatest gainers are the higher rate tax payers because they get the extra £1,000 at their higher rate.

A 50k earner would have netted, compared with the previous year, -£201 in 2011/12, +170, +187, +178, +184, +141 through to 16/17.

A 20k earner would have netted, compared with the previous year, +£238 in 11/12, then 170, 287, 137, 132, 80 through 16/17.

A 12k earner would have netted, compared with the previous year, +£318 in 11/12, then 170, 287, 137, 132, and 80.

So it is not accurate to say that "every time" they raise the tax thresholds by £1,000 the greatest gainers are the higher rate tax payers because they get the extra £1,000 at their higher rate. It is true over the last 3 years by an average £50pa, but then you are ignoring the previous 3 years, where it was in favour of a £12k vs £50k earner by about £200pa.

In short, this is because the higher rate threshold moves by a smaller amount than the lower rate threshold does.

Glen_Clark

I should have said Personal Allowance. As I understand it, If they raise that from £10,000 to £11,000 basic rate taxpayers save £1,000 at the basic rate. Wheras higher rate taxpayers save £1,000 at the higher rate. But the poor below the tax thresold gain nothing at all. In fact they pay more because of the increases in stealth taxes to pay for the reduction in income tax for the better off.
But we are going off the Savings and Investment topic here. My point is the Government's housing market interventions and taxpayer funded subsidies have made property speculation a far better investment than productive industry (which they have taxed and regulated into bankruptcy.) A change of political policy, like a relaxation in planning constraints to increase supply, or removal of taxpayer funded fuel for the demand like the so called 'Help to Buy', could reverse that.
The Americans say 'you can't fight the Fed'.
In the same way the investor can't fight the UK Government when they are manipulating the markets with supply restrictions, taxes and subsidies as they do with housing.

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I should have said Personal Allowance. As I understand it, If they raise that from £10,000 to £11,000 basic rate taxpayers save £1,000 at the basic rate. Wheras higher rate taxpayers save £1,000 at the higher rate. But the poor below the tax thresold gain nothing at all. In fact they pay more because of the increases in stealth taxes to pay for the reduction in income tax for the better off.
But we are going off the Savings and Investment topic here.

Surely not. I find it hard to believe that you could post off topic.

Glen_Clark wrote: »

My point is the Government's housing market interventions and taxpayer funded subsidies have made property speculation a far better investment than productive industry (which they have taxed and regulated into bankruptcy.) A change of political policy, like a relaxation in planning constraints to increase supply, or removal of taxpayer funded fuel for the demand like the so called 'Help to Buy', could reverse that.
The Americans say 'you can't fight the Fed'.
In the same way the investor can't fight the UK Government when they are manipulating the markets with supply restrictions, taxes and subsidies as they do with housing.

More please. You so rarely mention the UK housing market and the midemeanours of those dastardly Tory monsters that it deserves more and longer posts from you. Thanks ever so much.

Mistermeaner

Just spoke to my mate who knows stuff the crash is going to be 15th June

diamonds

TheTracker wrote: »

A 50k earner would have netted, compared with the previous year, -£201 in 2011/12, +170, +187, +178, +184, +141 through to 16/17.

A 20k earner would have netted, compared with the previous year, +£238 in 11/12, then 170, 287, 137, 132, 80 through 16/17.

A 12k earner would have netted, compared with the previous year, +£318 in 11/12, then 170, 287, 137, 132, and 80.

So it is not accurate to say that "every time" they raise the tax thresholds by £1,000 the greatest gainers are the higher rate tax payers because they get the extra £1,000 at their higher rate. It is true over the last 3 years by an average £50pa, but then you are ignoring the previous 3 years, where it was in favour of a £12k vs £50k earner by about £200pa.

In short, this is because the higher rate threshold moves by a smaller amount than the lower rate threshold does.

Thanks Tracker,



But the outcome is £600 over three years probably saves the DWP money in CT and HB and it does nothing for those actually on the ground who gain but lose with the other hand and that does not even calculate in Tax Credits of any kind (excluding disability premiums).


Continuing the £200 per annum rise for under 12K with higher minimum wage ongoing saves the state money in DWP budgets and Tax Credits, keeping that momentum going reduces benefit budgets, its admin costs and eventually the end user does indeed feels a difference, in time with better structure people have more money at whatever tax rate they have.

But we just peddle along with national debts and the status quo because its what we know.

The whole system tweaking from DWP and NHS to date has been a joke by two major parties, neither actually think outside the box, HMRC & DWP are very very poor value for taxpayers money.



Tax breaks at 40% over removing bit by bit state dependency on CT/HB and tax credits is a benefit to the ruling party, not the nation or its debt as a whole (or should that be red HOLE).



At least the NHS actually gives something of gross benefit to some degree.


Tory smoke and mirrors - whilst you 40% tax raters believe you and we as a country are all better off to pay debts...freezing benefits and ensuring continued use of them is not value to any % tax rate payer short nor long term, state dependency of poverty.

diamonds

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Just spoke to my mate who knows stuff the crash is going to be 15th June

Well I'm ok, I dont have £75000 in one bank let alone two or more :rotfl:

Kendall80

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Just spoke to my mate who knows stuff the crash is going to be 15th June

Just updated my diary.

bigadaj

diamonds wrote: »

Well I'm ok, I dont have £75000 in one bank let alone two or more :rotfl:

Thread is about a stock market crash, not a bank failure.