So, who votes for a government that improves the lives of Bankers, and ensures the excessive profits of energy companies, but needs all the "levelling up" money to pay for the holes in Brexit?

Not just for the sake of it, but to contribute in their own right, yes. All adults who benefit from living in a First World society should, IMO contribute to that, unless there is good reason not to - as, I believe, Norah has said herself on this or the other similar thread (I am getting them confused).

My post was not an attack, but a response to posts giving an equally strong opinion that someone is content with having saved, paid taxes and having the capacity to give to charity being based on choices rather than good fortune, and that all people need to do is defer gratification to be able to do likewise. I am simply pointing out that there is often more to the story, whether people identify with Richard or Paula in the linked cartoon.

It was a very personal post Doodledog. An attack. Your follow on comment about a kept man feeling smug is just as bad, if not worse. If one half of a couple is paying £1m in taxes do you not think that is more than enough to cover both? Or must the other partner undertake work which produces a taxable income just for the sake of it?

No, I have no idea, which is why I asked, and pointed out that if it didn't apply to Norah in particular it does to others in the situation I describe.

How is my post unpleasant? I don't see it as any more or less pleasant than the comments about personal choices or how Norah's family have saved and paid taxes are to those who have not been able to do likewise. Norah's post only mentioned her husband, which is the information on which I was basing my comments.

The amounts of tax paid are not relevant, IMO. Everyone is taxed on the basis of their individual earnings. If I earn enough to pay £1m a year in taxes should that mean that my husband should live free (or, more accurately, at the expense of the rest of society)? And if he does, should be be able to feel smug about his position as a 'kept man'?

That was a rather unpleasant post to Norah, Doodledog. You have no idea how much tax has been paid. Possibly more than two working parents who don’t pay enough tax to cover themselves and their children. Maybe even receiving URC.

Thank you very much Prentice.

Norah

DaisyAnne

JaneJudge

Quite a few of the threads on here the last few days remind me of this
9gag.com/gag/aPD9x7K

That is excellent Jane but sadly, very true.

Nothing there pertains to me. My husband worked very very hard, sometimes two jobs. We save. Neither of us have any education or special connection. We pay our taxes. I'm content with our life, our family, our savings, our giving.

Not all advantages are immediately obvious. Benefits are portrayed as handouts, yet there are other forms of subsidy that are not portrayed as such, and people sometimes even feel smug about receiving them. You mention that your husband worked very hard. What about you? If you didn't work you were subsidised by the taxpayer, which is something that only those who can afford it can do - most lower paid families have two people contributing to the public purse. I'm not for a moment suggesting that your husband didn't pay tax, but they will have been his financial contribution to society, and (if it is the case that you didn't work) it will not have covered yours, or paid for your education, healthcare, pension etc, or your use of any of the public services available to all but paid for out of common funds.

Having one stay at home partner is a massive 'leg up' for a couple, as it means no childcare fees, no need for a cleaner, one lot of commuting etc, and it is subsidised by dual income couples. There are even tax breaks available for people to do this, but couples who claim other benefits (eg UC) are denied those breaks and one person's income is offset against the other's.

If you did work and the above doesn't apply to you, it does apply to a lot of couples, many of whom would be appalled to be considered the recipients of state benefits, when that is exactly what they are, even though they don't have to go through the humiliation of justifying their claims. I'm not saying that it is wrong that this option is available, but I am saying that those who choose it are in no position to make comments about others who don't work but rely on the safety net provided by the NHS, subsidised pension contributions etc.

Germanssheperdsmum you should be proud of yourself for achieving so much and working so hard, no wonder of course that your parents are too.
I do wish that people posting will stop personal remarks aimed at others, when they know nothing at all about that person or their life.
Also the remarks about evil or greedy landlords.There are some bad landlords of course but the majority are not so at all.
We have rented from some really good ones in the past.
It is true that more social housing is needed, but this would not be for all renters, as some would not want to live on a council estate.

I do count my blessings Daisy but only one person actually helped me along that very long road to qualification - the solicitor for whom I worked as a secretary who agreed to give me articles of clerkship provided I continued to work as a secretary while learning on the job. Same duties. I received no formal tuition. I had no time for even a correspondence course. I literally read the books, many on subjects completely irrelevant to my then work in local government, read old exam papers I bought and sat the exams. In fact one man in my department who had failed his law exams always found extra work which needed to be done when an exam was imminent. Clearly you disbelieve what I say. I’m not in the habit of lying.
I had no contacts in private practice either when I moved on. Getting jobs and promotions was entirely on merit.
My parents were very proud of my achievements but were certainly in no position to give me financial support.
Not the picture painted in the cartoon is it?

Norah

DaisyAnne

JaneJudge

Quite a few of the threads on here the last few days remind me of this
9gag.com/gag/aPD9x7K

That is excellent Jane but sadly, very true.

Nothing there pertains to me. My husband worked very very hard, sometimes two jobs. We save. Neither of us have any education or special connection. We pay our taxes. I'm content with our life, our family, our savings, our giving.

That's nice Norah. I hope nothing ever happens to shake those beliefs.

Germanshepherdsmum

Not true of me. Working class family (father blind). State education. Didn’t go to university. Didn’t go to law school. Worked full time solidly since leaving school until I retired. What I achieved (which I won’t ram down your throats yet again) I achieved entirely by myself and on merit. I studied by myself. I sat exams (for each of which I was graciously given two days’ paid leave) in which I obtained distinctions alongside Hooray Henrys doing resits. Care to reconsider?

No one can stop you from feeling that GSM. What a shame though, that you cannot count the blessings in your life; that you cannot even see those who have helped you along the way, because they will have been there.

I find that very sad. I feel very sorry for you that you see it that way.

There will still be private landlords even if the provision of social housing is dramatically increased. Many tenants do not wish to live in social housing. Professional people for example, renting short term, of which there are many.

JaneJudge

volver

Just wondering what kind of person would vote for a government that has ruined the country. But then I read this thread, and all is revealed.

I know it's awful but if I don't turn off the computer my husband may divorce me and things might be even worse

I don't remember anyone saying their vote.

DaisyAnne

JaneJudge

Quite a few of the threads on here the last few days remind me of this
9gag.com/gag/aPD9x7K

That is excellent Jane but sadly, very true.

Nothing there pertains to me. My husband worked very very hard, sometimes two jobs. We save. Neither of us have any education or special connection. We pay our taxes. I'm content with our life, our family, our savings, our giving.

The point is that homes should not be financial investments and the only reason they have become such things is because of the lack of provision of council housing or social housing. Should council housing ever be built again on the scale it was in the early 20th century the bottom would fall out of the property market. The resulting fall in house prices would cause private landlords to drop out. There would also be a substantial increase in the incomes of local councils which would mean they could provide better local services. Of course it would also mean they were more independent and free from reliance on government funding, which might not suit Westminster.

Not true of me. Working class family (father blind). State education. Didn’t go to university. Didn’t go to law school. Worked full time solidly since leaving school until I retired. What I achieved (which I won’t ram down your throats yet again) I achieved entirely by myself and on merit. I studied by myself. I sat exams (for each of which I was graciously given two days’ paid leave) in which I obtained distinctions alongside Hooray Henrys doing resits. Care to reconsider?

JaneJudge

Quite a few of the threads on here the last few days remind me of this
9gag.com/gag/aPD9x7K

That is excellent Jane but sadly, very true.

Everything I have has been worked for DaisyAnne. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth, neither was my husband. And I have never owned more than one property at a time. I have no intention of owning more than one property. I have owned four properties over the course of my life, the current one a downsize which a competing purchaser wanted as a second home. Not exactly driving up prices I think.

I may be comfortably off, but not privileged. Working very long hours, often seven days a week, for nigh on five decades for what you have, only to be told you know the cost of everything but the value of nothing (thanks Jane, it was obviously aimed at me) isn’t privilege.

Incidentally, of the 234,000 buy to let mortgages granted in the last year, only 65,000 were for the purchase of property. The remainder were remortgages. That puts a slightly different slant on the numbers of BTL mortgages I think.

DaisyAnne

I agree that capital growth is the main aim, but no one sets out to make a loss over the years of renting.

I think the issue is that you and I disagree Norah, not a lack of clarity. I believe this is a basically fraudulent market, whereas you believe it is a place to make money whatever it does to housing. Or at least that is how it reads to me.

Correct, I don't believe rental homes to be a fraudulent market. I believe rental homes are a very long term investment. Inflation, not under my control, has raised rental rates and the costs of purchase of rental homes.

Doodledog

Are you serious, Norah?

What is stopping someone paying rent from saving a deposit is that they are paying rent! This is so glaringly obvious that I have checked and double checked that I am not missing the point, but it doesn't seem that I am (apologies if so).

It's not about deferred gratification if you spend so much on the rent that pays someone else's mortgage that you have nothing left to save towards a deposit - it's about gratifying someone else's desire to make money out of the fact that the UK has sold off its social housing and has not got enough housing to go round. It's supply and demand, which always works in the favour of the better off. As often as not their labour or brainpower doesn't contribute to the supply - they simply buy it up and sell it to those who are providing that labour in the first place.

Yes, I'm serious.

If you spend so much on rent (that partially pays the owners mortgage and expenses) that you have nothing left to save to a deposit - you get a side job, spend less on unnecessary things, or move to cheaper accommodations.

And I believe the minimum wage is too low.

Are you serious, Norah?

What is stopping someone paying rent from saving a deposit is that they are paying rent! This is so glaringly obvious that I have checked and double checked that I am not missing the point, but it doesn't seem that I am (apologies if so).

It's not about deferred gratification if you spend so much on the rent that pays someone else's mortgage that you have nothing left to save towards a deposit - it's about gratifying someone else's desire to make money out of the fact that the UK has sold off its social housing and has not got enough housing to go round. It's supply and demand, which always works in the favour of the better off. As often as not their labour or brainpower doesn't contribute to the supply - they simply buy it up and sell it to those who are providing that labour in the first place.

I agree that capital growth is the main aim, but no one sets out to make a loss over the years of renting.

I think the issue is that you and I disagree Norah, not a lack of clarity. I believe this is a basically fraudulent market, whereas you believe it is a place to make money whatever it does to housing. Or at least that is how it reads to me.

DaisyAnne, "But "Landlords" generally only purchase if the rent will pay their mortgage. How can that be described as being able to afford the property? The person renting, without wealth in another house, in shares or left to them by mum and dad, could afford to pay the mortgage; they are paying it for the landlord.

Please explain your thought more precisely to me.

If ownership is an end goal and the person can afford the mortgage, what is saving them from saving the deposit? People do save, it may take a while, delayed gratification.

Yes, renters pay part of the landlords expenses. Generally not all the expenses are covered by the rental amount (or not that I am aware), the deductions from income by expenses makes for a negative balance, part of which is a tax deduction. Overall, I think landlords hold property for appreciation over years held, wealth building. What is wrong with that?

Obviously enough DaisyAnn!

Quite a few of the threads on here the last few days remind me of this
9gag.com/gag/aPD9x7K

Germanshepherdsmum

They can’t buy because they don’t meet lenders’ criteria growstuff and Daisy. Next, we’ll hear how unfair the criteria are, designed to ensure people can afford to pay their mortgages even with rate rises.
If you were suggesting I could only afford to buy if I took out a mortgage Daisy, you are incorrect. Many rental properties are purchased with cash, not mortgages.

You are privileged GSM; that privilege has pushed prices higher. If they were not so high, the people renting would be able to save what would be a lower deposit. The "criteria" are not conscious; how can they be unfair? The people "playing" the property market have done that.

You may be able to buy outright, but those buying on buy-to-let mortgages have influenced the market and pushed up house rents which those buying outright will usually charge, or very close to that figure.