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 MSE Debate House Prices Manifesto
Comments
-
The logical position of all political parties bar UKIP if carried through for term after term is that all of Government spending ends up being pensions, the NHS and aged care.
There was a carefully calculated piece about the expansion of the airline business, in the 1980s as I recall.
It showed that the logical position, given the then current trends, was that by the 2010s, the entire population of the world would all be air borne all at the same time.
Can't think why it didn't come to pass.0 -
There was a carefully calculated piece about the expansion of the airline business, in the 1980s as I recall.
It showed that the logical position, given the then current trends, was that by the 2010s, the entire population of the world would all be air borne all at the same time.
Can't think why it didn't come to pass.
Airlines are an interesting industry. Apparently since 1950 the industry as a whole has made 1% RoE. Investors would have been better off with a current account.0 -
The logical position of all political parties bar UKIP if carried through for term after term is that all of Government spending ends up being pensions, the NHS and aged care.
You forgot edookashun.
Oh and debt spending.
I'm sure all of this can be traced back to the Romans.
The Pythonistas were right!0 -
I would do away with taxes all together
And replace them with insurances
The new national insurance would be calculated based on what someone might have been paid to do your job, if it existed in 1991, to bring it in line with council insurance.0 -
The logical position of all political parties bar UKIP if carried through for term after term is that all of Government spending ends up being pensions, the NHS and aged care.
Most of it will be spent on interest payments.
Its amazing that no one has mentioned that government is spending £60 billion a year now just on interest on our debt - the equivalent of increasing NHS spending by 60%.
Just extraordinary that the main old parties debate small sums around the margins - but wont discuss the elephant in the room.
Presumably they are all going to cut tens of billions - but bar UKIP no one has announced specific cuts running into more than a billion.0 -
Real investment is about delaying consumption now to build mechanisms to allow greater consumption in the future.
We do that all the time and it is why we all are so rich.
However, real investment is not brought about by creating a pension.
It may be that pension money either directly or indirectly contributes to producing investment goods but that is not the primary purpose and probably is less effective than other procedures.
The point I wish to make is that the goods and services consumed in 40 years time will be those produced in contemporaneous time frame : using, of course, all the investment goods we have at that time.
The exist of a pension funds at that time don't contribute to the total volume of goods and services although an individual can get a greater share using their pension 'money'.
If savings ( of which a pension if one version ) are invested in innovation in the here and now, then they do contribute to the total volume of goods and services in an obvious and real way. They essentially make new goods and new services come to life, they have the potential to reinvent the whole game and reinvigorate society.Proudly voted remain. A global union of countries is the only way to commit global capital to the rule of law.0 -
The point I wish to make is that the goods and services consumed in 40 years time will be those produced in contemporaneous time frame : using, of course, all the investment goods we have at that time.
The exist of a pension funds at that time don't contribute to the total volume of goods and services although an individual can get a greater share using their pension 'money'.
While this may well be true (it's an interesting take that I hadn't previously thought about), the "population" would be the worldwide population- meaning you could still improve the lot of the "British" by implementing this policy.
For example (to take it to an extreme)- if there was a requirement to invest the children's pension entirely in countries where UK investors are currently underindexed (for example, US equity which is overindexed at present by US investors), then come 40 years time, the Brits would own a greater share of the US economy than they currently would be projected to.
Ending up with the Brits as a whole having a larger share of the World economy. So such a policy, even if what you say is true (which it probably is), would still end up with "us" being better off... so might be an interesting policy for "us" to bring in!0 -
For me what's interesting about most manifestos is the lack of long term vision.
Debates are centred around how many bed pans we can afford, and how much a carer will be paid to wipe our a£$e when we can't do it ourselves.
Meanwhile, in a place, far far away ...
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tokyo-lifelike-humanoid-robot-woman-chihiraaico-directs-customers-around-department-store-video-1497340
Japan and China have joint projects to build robots to deal with their demographic issue. Will it work? Who knows. Is it more likely to work if you throw billions of yen at it? Probably.
It doesn't look like they are going to turn to our army of human carers for help.
There have been strong arguments here that we need millions more people for our economy.
Millions more? Perhaps. Humans? Maybe not.0 -
There have been strong arguments here that we need millions more people for our economy.
Millions more? Perhaps. Humans? Maybe not.
Robots don't pay the taxes on income and consumption that are required for the NHS and Pensions of the rapidly increasing elderly population. Nor do they take a share of the national debt...
'Many hands make light work'.
When it comes to digging ditches if some of those hands are machines it doesn't matter.
When it comes to paying down the national debt or funding the pension and NHS systems, the machines just sit there looking at the far fewer humans who now have a much bigger share each to pay....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards