A Question for Tory Supporters

lisyloo

Arklight wrote: »

You're talking about having enough assets to be financially self sufficient for the rest of your life shared with a partner you can trust 100% who won'e ever leave you in the lurch and will support you to the hilt if you need it (a lot of people who think that's the case are unpleasantly surprised, by the way).

We set up our personal finances and ltd company to protect the individuals.

I agree with you that some people haven’t but it is possible.
Just because insurance doesn’t pay out all the time doesn’t mean it’s not a sensible step. Would you not insure your house simply because a small minority of claims get turned down? Of course you wouldn’t. A proportion of those turned down have been incorrect set up e.g. non-disclosure and not just insurance companies tying to wiggle out of their obligations. This has increased with people doing DIY and not being willing to read terms and conditions (sometimes the main headlines - see the insurance forum for examples).

I often am in a minority on the pensions board as I pay an advisor and don’t self invest, but I continue to see benefits to good advice e.g. individual protection, fraud protection, hacker protection.

borntobefree

Arklight wrote: »

Actually, the policies were a winner on the doorstep. Not the Brexit one, obviously.

Ha ha - keep telling yourself that!

borntobefree

Arklight wrote: »

Actually, the policies were a winner on the doorstep. Not the Brexit one, obviously.

lisyloo wrote: »

Who cares? With a landslide majority Labour are just an annoyance for the next 5 years. I don’t know why this is even part of the conversation. I’m not a Tory voter BTW or a brexiteer but I accept reality and that is that the opposition is all but irrelevant for the next 5 years.

From Arklight’s post - make that 10 years...

Herzlos

Jonathan_Kelvin wrote: »

This idea that we’re all just a bit of bad luck from disaster just isn’t true in many cases.

For me I’d need to lose my job, have my wife lose hers, have both of our insurance companies fail to payout, the stock market drop by 90% and housing to drop by ninety percent too.

Oh, and we’d both have to be unable to work again.

It’s just not going to happen. Those for whom it does happen could generally have made provisions against it, but preferred instead to not only spend everything that cake in but to borrow money off others, and spend that too.

Hopefully it won't happen, but all it'd take is a messy divorce or a bad illness.

I'm just pointing out that people in general tend to vote for things that make the rich better because theres a possibility they'll be rich, when the reality is they'd be better off voting for things which were better for the poor.

There are some people who have too much money to fail - Donald Trump for instance has weathered numerous business failures that'd have ruined most people.

Takedap

lisyloo wrote: »

Who cares? With a landslide majority Labour are just an annoyance for the next 5 years. I don’t know why this is even part of the conversation. I’m not a Tory voter BTW or a brexiteer but I accept reality and that is that the opposition is all but irrelevant for the next 5 years.

The way thing stand at the moment, Labour cannot "win" another election. It would be up to the Tories to lose it.


If the Tories deliver on their promises, Labour is finished. Quite simply, it would not be needed any more.


If however, the new northern voters don't see a significant improvement in their areas......

Thrugelmir

Posted by Arklight View Post
Actually, the policies were a winner on the doorstep. Not the Brexit one, obviously.

With such views hardly surprising that the leadership election is turning into a non event. As an inability to be introspective. Is going to mean more of the same.

Malthusian

Arklight wrote: »

Edit: Btw you may want to check the small print on the unemployment insurance. I learnt from experience that there are a great many ways for it not to pay out.

Payout rates for income protection are over 90%. As insurance fraud is rife in this country, that means that if you have a claim the insurer will pay out.

Payout rates for ASU policies are lower but those are short term and not relevant to a discussion of the risks of long-term financial disaster. ASU policies are mostly unnecessary as an emergency cash fund does the same job and is better value. Losing your job is only a long-term financial disaster if you are physically incapable of getting another, which means that income protection is what we are talking about, not ASU.

Malthusian

lisyloo wrote: »

I don’t agree with their generally.
For example we have separate SIPPs which divorce would not affect.

Your SIPPs would be part of the marriage assets and the default position would be a 50/50 split.

Naturally there is nothing to stop you agreeing to keep your respective SIPPs and take their values into account when divvying up other assets.

If the Lifetime Allowance or income tax on withdrawals is a problem for either of you, it may be tax-efficient to redistribute the pensions in the event of divorce.

Our ltd company is set up 51/49 with divorce in mind.

Holding the shares 51/49 ensures the minority shareholder can't legally interfere with the day-to-day running if the relationship breaks down. Is there a contingency plan for the 51% shareholder to buy out the 49% shareholder in the event of a divorce?

oddjobbpb

'Actually, the policies were a winner on the doorstep. Not the Brexit one, obviously.'

Priceless.

Filo25

oddjobbpb wrote: »

'Actually, the policies were a winner on the doorstep. Not the Brexit one, obviously.'

Priceless.

I have seen polling indicating a lot of individual policies were reasonably popular (hardly surprising when many consisted of offering people additional "stuff" along with a promise that someone else would pay for it), but equally many voters looked at the massive list of policies in total and didn't trust that a government (particularly one led by Jeremy Corbyn) would be able to deliver them on time, on budget and wqould be able to actually raise the tax to pay for them.

Another tip for the Corbyn era Labour party in particular (not that it is just an issue with Labour!), stop talking as if anyone who doesn't agree with you on every single issue is somehow evil or morally deficient, we can all have legitimate disagreements on what we think is best for the country, nobody has a divine insight into the absolute truth of how the country should be governed.

I know that can be difficult for all of us especially on issues which rouse the strongest feelings, but it gets wearing for people to be endlessly preached at.