Why don't people cheer the brilliant elements of No-Deal crash- Such as making property affordable?

Herzlos

I'd read a claim once that you get more out of the pension if you pay in from 20-30 and stop, than if you only start paying in from 30, purely down to the compound interest. I've never bothered to try and figure out how accurate that is, but it's certainly well worth contributing as early as possible (something I wish 18 year old me would have understood).

David_Evans

Autumn86 wrote: »

We are a core function that without the NHS physically cannot operate.

RMNs/Drug n Alcohol support workers/outreach workers are all nonessential though, and so are slashed budget-wise,
Instead their responsibilities are given out to core staff.

Just because your job ROLE is essential, doesn't mean that YOU personally are not disposable.
Especially if you're staying long enough and building up an expensive pension liability on the employer. Many employers will sack longer term staff and bring in new cheaper staff. Or use outsourcing to agencies etc.

I don't know about the NHS, but it certainly happened in the armed forces.

Anyway, all a bit irrelevant as there's not going to be any ''widespread civil disorder'' due to Brexit.

I do believe in preparing for unexpected events (such as war etc). But the most valuable thing in such a situation is probably having a box of small gold coins and a passport that can get you out of the country.

David_Evans

Herzlos wrote: »

I'd read a claim once that you get more out of the pension if you pay in from 20-30 and stop, than if you only start paying in from 30, purely down to the compound interest. I've never bothered to try and figure out how accurate that is, but it's certainly well worth contributing as early as possible (something I wish 18 year old me would have understood).

Well it also depends how well the underlying investment performs.
And it could only be true for investment pensions, rather than public sector pensions.
It's a good reason NOT to enter public sector employment at a young age and instead go straight into private sector.

But then life is never that simple....!!

David_Evans

lisyloo wrote: »

I think I might have bought during one of those 5 or 6 years (1991) because prices went down until 1996/1997, but we just overpaid to reduce the risk and we probably wouldn't have been better off paying rent as that route wouldn't have bought us equity either and we had our own place that no one could kick us out of,.

I think that's the most significant thing, just having somewhere that is secure.

Herzlos

Good point; it'd only apply to investment pensions, it'd have no impact on any final salary based schemes where presumably you get 1/30th of the allowance for every year of contributions.
It all very much depends on how well the funds perform, but it's safe to assume that starting to pay earlier is best.

Zxcv_Bnm

David_Evans wrote: »

Just because your job ROLE is essential, doesn't mean that YOU personally are not disposable.
Especially if you're staying long enough and building up an expensive pension liability on the employer. Many employers will sack longer term staff and bring in new cheaper staff. Or use outsourcing to agencies etc.

I don't know about the NHS, but it certainly happened in the armed forces.

Anyway, all a bit irrelevant as there's not going to be any ''widespread civil disorder'' due to Brexit.

I do believe in preparing for unexpected events (such as war etc). But the most valuable thing in such a situation is probably having a box of small gold coins and a passport that can get you out of the country.

My dad met a bloke like that once at the gym

He was there on work time because unions

He used to sleep at work because unions

He got overtime even when he didn't work because unions

He thought it would last forever because unions

He was a print "worker" for Murdoch...

If something's too good to last it won't

AG47

It's only the rich property owners who don't want a no deal crash, the people will benefit from lower property prices and lower living costs

Zxcv_Bnm

AG47 wrote: »

It's only the rich property owners who don't want a no deal crash, the people will benefit from lower property prices and lower living costs

Lower property prices mean there's a recession, nobody's got any money, lots of people don't have a job and lenders get very picky about who's fit to have a mortgage

These are not good conditions to buy in

I admire your faith that only people who already have houses would lose

Usually it's people who've got them who gain

Herzlos

AG47 wrote: »

It's only the rich property owners who don't want a no deal crash, the people will benefit from lower property prices and lower living costs

Property prices are a direct function of affordability - if the prices drop enough to make a difference then affordability is at least as bad. It's just basic supply and demand - Say there's a house on the market at £100k that has to sell, and everyone can afford to bid £200k it'll sell for £200k but if noone can afford more than £75k it'll sell for £75k.


The only people who'll benefit from a no-deal crash are those that are already well off. It's going to be great for the cash buyers and asset strippers, it's going to suck for the normal folk.

andrewf75

AG47 wrote: »

It's only the rich property owners who don't want a no deal crash, the people will benefit from lower property prices and lower living costs

How could anyone possibly get anything so wrong...