Standard of Living – Risen?
Posted by: Adam Meredith on 06 July 2005
Back in my Dad’s day (1800) one working parent could possibly afford to pay the mortgage or rent on a family home.
Now – with both sexes liberated to work – it takes all a couple’s efforts to … pay the mortgage on a family home. Added to that the cost of having your estranged children looked after and you have – wealth and happiness?
Supermarkets have introduced us to the hell of cheap food. Like some communist state cheap basic food, (contents: water, air and cheap fats) Chinese made electronic goods allow the cost of production to be kept “competitive”.
Or is just that I have hit 95?
Now – with both sexes liberated to work – it takes all a couple’s efforts to … pay the mortgage on a family home. Added to that the cost of having your estranged children looked after and you have – wealth and happiness?
Supermarkets have introduced us to the hell of cheap food. Like some communist state cheap basic food, (contents: water, air and cheap fats) Chinese made electronic goods allow the cost of production to be kept “competitive”.
Or is just that I have hit 95?
Posted on: 12 July 2005 by Jonathan Gorse
Don,
I had no idea you trained at Hamble with BA. After that did you continue flying commercially but elsewhere? I'd be very interested to hear your story - email me offline if you like at the address earlier in this thread.
You're absolutely right though about airlines being a rollercoaster - I think it was Branson who astutely observed that the quickest way to become a millionaire was to start as a billionaire and go into the airline business! Trouble is that if you love aeroplanes and flying there's little else comes close. As a matter of fact I've just come back from an afternoon/evening on a Boeing 727 sim in Bournemouth - a beautifully stable aeroplane and a true classic.
Returning to the original thread I am relatively fortunate in that I have owned houses since 1992 and now do live in a decent family home. Despite this I am concerned at people being priced out of the market and I am also concerned at the fact that families would seem to need 2 incomes to provide a reasonable environment for children. Decent housing is a basic requirement for everyone and the primary purpose of it shouldn't be just as an investment vehicle - maybe we need a 'market correction' or at least taxation to dissuade people from looking on property in this way. I have no problem incidentally with people investing in share, gold or whatever because unlike housing they're not necessities.
Mick - on the subject of your sons with the 4 bed houses do they have partners who also work to provide this? That is certainly true in my case and does impact on childcare.
Jonathan
I had no idea you trained at Hamble with BA. After that did you continue flying commercially but elsewhere? I'd be very interested to hear your story - email me offline if you like at the address earlier in this thread.
You're absolutely right though about airlines being a rollercoaster - I think it was Branson who astutely observed that the quickest way to become a millionaire was to start as a billionaire and go into the airline business! Trouble is that if you love aeroplanes and flying there's little else comes close. As a matter of fact I've just come back from an afternoon/evening on a Boeing 727 sim in Bournemouth - a beautifully stable aeroplane and a true classic.
Returning to the original thread I am relatively fortunate in that I have owned houses since 1992 and now do live in a decent family home. Despite this I am concerned at people being priced out of the market and I am also concerned at the fact that families would seem to need 2 incomes to provide a reasonable environment for children. Decent housing is a basic requirement for everyone and the primary purpose of it shouldn't be just as an investment vehicle - maybe we need a 'market correction' or at least taxation to dissuade people from looking on property in this way. I have no problem incidentally with people investing in share, gold or whatever because unlike housing they're not necessities.
Mick - on the subject of your sons with the 4 bed houses do they have partners who also work to provide this? That is certainly true in my case and does impact on childcare.
Jonathan
Posted on: 12 July 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:Decent housing is a basic requirement for everyone and the primary purpose of it shouldn't be just as an investment vehicle - maybe we need a 'market correction' or at least taxation to dissuade people from looking on property in this way. I have no problem incidentally with people investing in share, gold or whatever because unlike housing they're not necessities.
I have this faint suspicion that our Gordon is deliberately trying to reverse the Thatcher notion that ordinary folks can on their own homes as well as their own means of transport. Within a generation houses will be like pubs, restaurants and shops in that they will be owned by chains and not those who merit their living by actually running them.
New Labour seems to be a collaboration between the few who have access to the means of production, and those who govern the whole process.
I just hope that any future Chancellor will see sense in imposing punitive taxes upon those who own more than, say, three domestic properties. This could come in the form of additional Capital Gains Tax + a say, 50% tax on rental income on their third or more domestic property that they own.
Labour has actively promoted the buy-to-let market where tenants pay rent on homes they'd otherwise be in a position to buy.
Indeed, raising the stamp duty from 60k to 125k was a cynical move that actually ensures that first-time buyers won't get a look-in as such properties are now snapped up tax-free by investement companies.
I've no issue with those who wish to own holiday homes in addition to their primary dwelling.
Posted on: 13 July 2005 by domfjbrown
quote:Originally posted by Steve Toy:
I just hope that any future Chancellor will see sense in imposing punitive taxes upon those who own more than, say, three domestic properties. This could come in the form of additional Capital Gains Tax + a say, 50% tax on rental income on their third or more domestic property that they own.
Labour has actively promoted the buy-to-let market where tenants pay rent on homes they'd otherwise be in a position to buy.
Why not make it happen on ANY house over the one you actually live in? Seems fair to me. (Sorry Mick!)
quote:Originally posted by Steve Toy:I've no issue with those who wish to own holiday homes in addition to their primary dwelling.
*I* do - half of Devon, Dorset and Cornwall has been decimated by Chelsea tractor-driving rich snobs who live in their retreat homes maybe a third of the year, thus killing communities, taking homes away from people who have a real right to live there, and limiting amenities such as shops, since there's less demand for them when people are only living in their houses maybe 2 days out of 7.
Thanks to them, people like my parents who've had to work their arses off all their life are living in shoeboxes which need £££££ to upgrade, on measly pensions.
Young couples and even SINGLE PEOPLE (yes, they do actually exist and DO want to stop paying SOMEONE ELSE'S mortgage) can't buy diddly.
Holiday home and buy-to-let owners suck. ALL IMHO of course.
Posted on: 13 July 2005 by Nime
What would turn the whole game of monopoly money upside down would be a serious rise in interest rates. The streets would be a bloodbath from all the slit wrists! Young people are betting their lives away by borrowing against their homes as soon as they get on the property ladder. I can hardly bear to watch. 
Posted on: 13 July 2005 by Don Atkinson
Jonathon,
It was Oxford, no airline job, a little bit of air-taxi work at the beginning but basically PPL/IMC instruction.
I am away for a short while but will drop you a line when I get back. Sons of a couple of friends have got pilot jobs with BA, and not always at the first attempt.
Cheers
Don
It was Oxford, no airline job, a little bit of air-taxi work at the beginning but basically PPL/IMC instruction.
I am away for a short while but will drop you a line when I get back. Sons of a couple of friends have got pilot jobs with BA, and not always at the first attempt.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by Grant Crowe
The standard of living may have risen but has the quality of life increased.
I returned from the bank last week cashless and frustrated having forgotten the pin number, which I got confused with the house alarm numbers, so that was screaming away, i keep them stored on my palm pilot but with all the noise couldnt rember which password id used to hide the pin. Oh for the simple life.
The cost of housing can have a large influence on quality of life. Renting is fine if the place is in good condition and you never hear from or see the owners. I rented a dump and the Real Estate agent would turn up every 3 months for a "white glove inspection" a very demeaning process, its a great feeling to get rid of the landlord and have your own place even if the bank own most of it.
Im not shure what the solution to the house affordability situation is but it could get worse,here the superanuation (pension funds)are awash with money which is looking for somewher to go and they already have too much in shares.
The government says it cant remove the tax insentives for property investors as they will stop building houses and then rents will go up,
however as the value of property rises and investors are seeking at least a 5% return on their investment, the rents are forced up anyway.
Well you could start a business make some money then buy a house but the banks usually only want to lend for business start up if you have a house as security.
The government can raise interest rates but its a very blunt instrument and putting them up just a little too often or by a bit too much sends the whole economy crashing into recession.
One thing with inflated house prices is that those fortunate enough to own property are wealthy (on paper)and will go spending on credit against the paper wealth which stimulates the economy, great if they are buying local and not imported consumer goods,
One of the downsides of inflated property prices is that people will dispair at being wage and rent slaves for the rest of their lives and will move countries just when they are at their most productive and have been fuly educated.
I see now why you have to pay for an education these days.
I returned from the bank last week cashless and frustrated having forgotten the pin number, which I got confused with the house alarm numbers, so that was screaming away, i keep them stored on my palm pilot but with all the noise couldnt rember which password id used to hide the pin. Oh for the simple life.
The cost of housing can have a large influence on quality of life. Renting is fine if the place is in good condition and you never hear from or see the owners. I rented a dump and the Real Estate agent would turn up every 3 months for a "white glove inspection" a very demeaning process, its a great feeling to get rid of the landlord and have your own place even if the bank own most of it.
Im not shure what the solution to the house affordability situation is but it could get worse,here the superanuation (pension funds)are awash with money which is looking for somewher to go and they already have too much in shares.
The government says it cant remove the tax insentives for property investors as they will stop building houses and then rents will go up,
however as the value of property rises and investors are seeking at least a 5% return on their investment, the rents are forced up anyway.
Well you could start a business make some money then buy a house but the banks usually only want to lend for business start up if you have a house as security.
The government can raise interest rates but its a very blunt instrument and putting them up just a little too often or by a bit too much sends the whole economy crashing into recession.
One thing with inflated house prices is that those fortunate enough to own property are wealthy (on paper)and will go spending on credit against the paper wealth which stimulates the economy, great if they are buying local and not imported consumer goods,
One of the downsides of inflated property prices is that people will dispair at being wage and rent slaves for the rest of their lives and will move countries just when they are at their most productive and have been fuly educated.
I see now why you have to pay for an education these days.
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by domfjbrown
quote:Originally posted by Nime:
What would turn the whole game of monopoly money upside down would be a serious rise in interest rates.
Thank god for fixed-rate loans - finally getting my debt sorted, but still can't afford to buy a house despite earning in the top ten % of Devon wage earners.
To get anything other than a complete dive off of Riff Raff Road or Beacon Heath (both scary places in Exeter) would take 6x+ my salary.
To save said deposit for that would not be even thinkable, let alone possible.
I went off on one a bit in my last post, but you can see why, since god knows how you pay rent when you're a pensioner...
As for quality of life - well, imho this went down the pan when the IBM PC came out. Stress at work is off the scale, everything is a "me now I want" culture, no-one gives a toss about their neighbours, no-one seems to have time for anyone or anything. It's all rush rush rush.
In the last 10 years the country's gone right down the pan
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by Mick P
Chaps
I thought Reductionist's posting ref Bob Geldolf really summed it up.
Mr Toy, you cannot afford a house because you are a taxi driver. That is a dead easy job, so do not expect the same renuneration as someone doing a managerial job. You have had the training, so either use your qualifications or rent for the rest of your life.....your choice.
Dom
You will save more money by working longer hours. If you want to stay as you are, then fine, but I dare say a few of your old school chums are doing well. It is all down to application and effort.
We are all the architechs of our own fortunes.
Regards
Mick
I thought Reductionist's posting ref Bob Geldolf really summed it up.
Mr Toy, you cannot afford a house because you are a taxi driver. That is a dead easy job, so do not expect the same renuneration as someone doing a managerial job. You have had the training, so either use your qualifications or rent for the rest of your life.....your choice.
Dom
You will save more money by working longer hours. If you want to stay as you are, then fine, but I dare say a few of your old school chums are doing well. It is all down to application and effort.
We are all the architechs of our own fortunes.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by HTK
I prefer to get max money for as little work as possible and draw my own line on when I've earned enough.
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by DIL
Mick,
With respect, it is easy to make such sweeping (I could add some adjectives here, but won't) statements whilst looking at the situation from the position you do. ie. the picture you choose to paint of yourself here on the forum.
I would suggest that any job one has an apptitude for is a 'dead easy job.' Even being a manager; and there are, in my experience, managers that do and those that don't. How well paid one is as a 'manager' has little to do with apptitude. There are many real w***kers holding positions of responsibility for which they are basically incompetent to carry; a point which you would no doubt agree on.
Just to keep things rolling on, perhaps you would care to state the yearly pre-tax income below which a job would be classed as 'dead easy'; which is the essence of your point. I'd be surprised if that didn't piss off quite a few people.
Once that is out of the way, we can move on in our discussions to your suggestion that we are all the 'architechts of our own fortunes' and piss off a few more hard working individuals.
Regards.
/david
With respect, it is easy to make such sweeping (I could add some adjectives here, but won't) statements whilst looking at the situation from the position you do. ie. the picture you choose to paint of yourself here on the forum.
I would suggest that any job one has an apptitude for is a 'dead easy job.' Even being a manager; and there are, in my experience, managers that do and those that don't. How well paid one is as a 'manager' has little to do with apptitude. There are many real w***kers holding positions of responsibility for which they are basically incompetent to carry; a point which you would no doubt agree on.
Just to keep things rolling on, perhaps you would care to state the yearly pre-tax income below which a job would be classed as 'dead easy'; which is the essence of your point. I'd be surprised if that didn't piss off quite a few people.
Once that is out of the way, we can move on in our discussions to your suggestion that we are all the 'architechts of our own fortunes' and piss off a few more hard working individuals.
Regards.
/david
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by Allan Probin
I've just been to http://www.streetmap.co.uk and surprisingly enough there is no such place as Riff Raff Road.
Allan
Allan
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by Mick P
David
What is difficult for one person is dead easy for someone else, so your question is sterile.
My point is simple........making money is dead easy if that is what you want.
I was making a pile as a self employed consultant earlier in the year but chose to give it up as I could see myself walking into a heart attack. I did 3 weeks of 70 stressful hours per week at the peak which is fine when you are younger but unwise when you are in your mid fifties. After that I tailed it off after a few weeks.
I still do a 50 hour week, I get paid well for it but it is my choice.
I will use the money to buy a house in Spain so my efforts do have a reward.
Like I said, we all live the standard we deserve.
Regards
Mick
PS I still get offers of consultancy but I have chosen to wind down. Therefore I will not live as well as I could have done had I chosen to carry on. That is ones fault but my own and I live with that.
What is difficult for one person is dead easy for someone else, so your question is sterile.
My point is simple........making money is dead easy if that is what you want.
I was making a pile as a self employed consultant earlier in the year but chose to give it up as I could see myself walking into a heart attack. I did 3 weeks of 70 stressful hours per week at the peak which is fine when you are younger but unwise when you are in your mid fifties. After that I tailed it off after a few weeks.
I still do a 50 hour week, I get paid well for it but it is my choice.
I will use the money to buy a house in Spain so my efforts do have a reward.
Like I said, we all live the standard we deserve.
Regards
Mick
PS I still get offers of consultancy but I have chosen to wind down. Therefore I will not live as well as I could have done had I chosen to carry on. That is ones fault but my own and I live with that.
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by DIL
Mick,
I agree with you that we all have different apptitudes. However, you clearly associate the difficulty of a job with renumeration. (At least that is what I think you are doing. Perish the thought that you regard some jobs - and perhaps even the individuals that hold them - as in some way inferior to those jobs done by 'managers.')
For some people, a managerial job is dead easy. I cannot see you arguing that these people be paid less than those for whome it is difficult and would suggest that it is your original point to Mr Toy is sterile.
What really makes me laugh is the 'simple' point that you follow with; that making money is dead easy. Yes its is, but, by your own argument, only for those that have an apptitude for it. Which has nothing to do with hard work, hours worked, stress incurred, or even the legality of ones activities.
Live and let live and all that, but I feel that it is wrong to suggest that those that are in a given profession or vocation, or not depending upon circumstances, owe their inability to offord to buy somewhere to live (NOT necessarily a four bedroom house, no doubt in a nicer part of town.) simply upon choice.
/david
I agree with you that we all have different apptitudes. However, you clearly associate the difficulty of a job with renumeration. (At least that is what I think you are doing. Perish the thought that you regard some jobs - and perhaps even the individuals that hold them - as in some way inferior to those jobs done by 'managers.')
quote:Mr Toy, you cannot afford a house because you are a taxi driver. That is a dead easy job, so do not expect the same renuneration as someone doing a managerial job.
For some people, a managerial job is dead easy. I cannot see you arguing that these people be paid less than those for whome it is difficult and would suggest that it is your original point to Mr Toy is sterile.
What really makes me laugh is the 'simple' point that you follow with; that making money is dead easy. Yes its is, but, by your own argument, only for those that have an apptitude for it. Which has nothing to do with hard work, hours worked, stress incurred, or even the legality of ones activities.
Live and let live and all that, but I feel that it is wrong to suggest that those that are in a given profession or vocation, or not depending upon circumstances, owe their inability to offord to buy somewhere to live (NOT necessarily a four bedroom house, no doubt in a nicer part of town.) simply upon choice.
/david
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by Mick P
David
The point I am making is that many people whinge about being hard up and not being able to afford a house.
These same people chose to do jobs with no career pattern or that require little training.
It is up to them to either improve their worth on the job market or accept that they will never have the house etc that they complain about not having.
It is down to them.
Regards
Mick
The point I am making is that many people whinge about being hard up and not being able to afford a house.
These same people chose to do jobs with no career pattern or that require little training.
It is up to them to either improve their worth on the job market or accept that they will never have the house etc that they complain about not having.
It is down to them.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by Nime
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Like I said, we all live the standard we deserve. QUOTE]
Taken literally that is a complete nonsense.
It is one of the most difficult problems for any society to apportion income fairly based on what "workers" actually do "for a living". It often has nothing to do with what one deserves over another. It may have nothing to do with the time expended building useful skills or knowledge at university or college. It does seem to have far more to do with rarity of skills and the capability to earn serious money for a company. Which is why the managing director usually earns rather more than the broom boy.
Does a plastic surgeon lightening and tightening overpaid slebs deserve more than a "Doctor without Frontiers" working in a dangerous tropical warzone? Apparently not!
The communists somehow managed to pay their bus drivers more than their doctors. But can a doctor working his/her balls off in an overstretched city-centre outpatients department, saving lives every hour, earn as much as you do Mick?
More importantly: Do you actually deserve to earn more than an outpatients doctor?
Answers on a stamped addressed postcard please to:
Nime
Like I said, we all live the standard we deserve. QUOTE]
Taken literally that is a complete nonsense.
It is one of the most difficult problems for any society to apportion income fairly based on what "workers" actually do "for a living". It often has nothing to do with what one deserves over another. It may have nothing to do with the time expended building useful skills or knowledge at university or college. It does seem to have far more to do with rarity of skills and the capability to earn serious money for a company. Which is why the managing director usually earns rather more than the broom boy.
Does a plastic surgeon lightening and tightening overpaid slebs deserve more than a "Doctor without Frontiers" working in a dangerous tropical warzone? Apparently not!
The communists somehow managed to pay their bus drivers more than their doctors. But can a doctor working his/her balls off in an overstretched city-centre outpatients department, saving lives every hour, earn as much as you do Mick?
More importantly: Do you actually deserve to earn more than an outpatients doctor?
Answers on a stamped addressed postcard please to:
Nime
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by DIL
Improving one's worth on the job market. Easy to say, not always 'dead easy' to do. (See earlier posts about individual abilities etc.)
BTW, I am not suggesting that owning where you live is a god given right, nor that it is a choice that all should / must make. However, I find that individuals with the attitude that, for example, people doing certain 'easy' jobs should not expect - as a point of princple, and irrespective of how hard / much they work - to be able to choose to buy where they live, leave a bad taste in the mouth.
/dl
BTW, I am not suggesting that owning where you live is a god given right, nor that it is a choice that all should / must make. However, I find that individuals with the attitude that, for example, people doing certain 'easy' jobs should not expect - as a point of princple, and irrespective of how hard / much they work - to be able to choose to buy where they live, leave a bad taste in the mouth.
/dl
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by Mick P
David
You may not like what i say but they are reality.
This is a very competitive world and you get paid according to the scarcity factor (eg plumbers) and how much you are worth to other people.
I get paid because I negotiate prices down. If I negotiate poorly, I get sacked and rightly so.
If you think I have a cushy number, then do my job.
Regards
Mick
You may not like what i say but they are reality.
This is a very competitive world and you get paid according to the scarcity factor (eg plumbers) and how much you are worth to other people.
I get paid because I negotiate prices down. If I negotiate poorly, I get sacked and rightly so.
If you think I have a cushy number, then do my job.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by Nime
Thankyou Mick.
That explains everything.
That explains everything.
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by Sir Cycle Sexy
quote:We are all the architechs of our own fortunes.
Regards
Mick
Mick's quite right, architects f'example have to study for seven years!
Not sure how long 'architechs' study for though...
C
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by HTK
quote:Originally posted by Mick Parry:
If you go for it, you will get it.
It is a question of attitude and effort.
And skill, self belief and ability, including the ability to make your luck. There's no substitute for graft - if graft is called for, but it's seldom that simple - otherwise we'd all be rolling in it.
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by Matthew T
It does seem that the reality that nearly every home owner in this country has at no point in their life been in a position to afford the home they currently live in (using salary on a real money basis) is being ignored by most of the 'life is good' protagonists. However, this situation has been seen before and the consequences of a house price correction (probably down 40-50% to return to reasonable level with chance of overshooting) has been a painful one. Alternative is 15-20 years of zero house price inflation with ever increasing level of debt, probably unviable.
I am 30 earning a pretty substantial salary and have no intention of buying a proporty as I see it a huge risk at present, though I could afford a small flat, I should be able to afford a reasonable size house. I have good reasons for staying in the UK but would definitely seriously consider quiting the UK for a place where I could afford to buy a nice house (like Geneva!!!!!!) given my current profession if I reached a point where I wanted to settle down. I have some friends who are have bought proporties at untenable ratios to salary for whom I very concerned. There are signs of hope, I have noticed that there are not very many DIY programs on anymore, maybe a lead indicator of a crash...
I do however, think the standard of living now is very high in comparison with any generation before with respect to owning and doing 'stuff', the current housing issue will hopefully resolve and correct itself without too much grief and without draging the UK into recession/depresion but maybe that is too much to hope for. May well be that an exodus of cash from housing into equity that will keep UK plc from going down the pan.
Us 'poor' 30 somethings can live in hope (or otherwise at our parents)...
Matthew
I am 30 earning a pretty substantial salary and have no intention of buying a proporty as I see it a huge risk at present, though I could afford a small flat, I should be able to afford a reasonable size house. I have good reasons for staying in the UK but would definitely seriously consider quiting the UK for a place where I could afford to buy a nice house (like Geneva!!!!!!) given my current profession if I reached a point where I wanted to settle down. I have some friends who are have bought proporties at untenable ratios to salary for whom I very concerned. There are signs of hope, I have noticed that there are not very many DIY programs on anymore, maybe a lead indicator of a crash...
I do however, think the standard of living now is very high in comparison with any generation before with respect to owning and doing 'stuff', the current housing issue will hopefully resolve and correct itself without too much grief and without draging the UK into recession/depresion but maybe that is too much to hope for. May well be that an exodus of cash from housing into equity that will keep UK plc from going down the pan.
Us 'poor' 30 somethings can live in hope (or otherwise at our parents)...
Matthew
Posted on: 14 July 2005 by Steve Toy
That's the point - it's where the big money goes, i.e: capital, not how hard we can work to compete with it.
I'd like the Chancellor to begin to tweak the economy to ensure the big money goes on equity and not on domestic dwellings.
My wish is seen only as a selfish desire by the likes of Mick.
Having access to equities is a risky privilege; having access to a place to live is a necessity.
I'd like the Chancellor to begin to tweak the economy to ensure the big money goes on equity and not on domestic dwellings.
My wish is seen only as a selfish desire by the likes of Mick.
Having access to equities is a risky privilege; having access to a place to live is a necessity.
Posted on: 15 July 2005 by Chumpy
'Standard of living' by conventional indices has obviously risen.
Psychological impications of this/expectancy from e.g. 'thriving capitalist economies' peoples does not necesarily correlate with REAL 'quality of life' issues.
Some people living in e.g. tent probably appreciate 'quality of life' issues more than people 'trapped' in property-wealth Thatcher 'freedom'.
Psychological impications of this/expectancy from e.g. 'thriving capitalist economies' peoples does not necesarily correlate with REAL 'quality of life' issues.
Some people living in e.g. tent probably appreciate 'quality of life' issues more than people 'trapped' in property-wealth Thatcher 'freedom'.
Posted on: 15 July 2005 by domfjbrown
quote:Originally posted by Mick Parry:
You will save more money by working longer hours. If you want to stay as you are, then fine, but I dare say a few of your old school chums are doing well.
Actually Mick, since all my old school chums are partially sighted/blind like I am, all of us have the same problem: we get physically knackered quicker than the average Joe because it takes us much more effort to keep pace in a sighted world. It's all I can do to do a full day's work as I work in IT and it's hell trying to keep your eyes on a screen when your nystagmus acts up.
Add that to the difficulties of even GETTING a living wage when you're disabled (forget private sector unless you're really brave) and you can see the situation I'm in. As it currently stands, I have done the best out of my year and the year above me wage wise, and still can't buy a house. (Edit: this includes a very good phsyiotherapist from my year, and someone who was in software programming (C++, £23k a year - a HUGE wage for Exmouth) until last year when they offed him as a scapegoat - in my opinion because they wanted a "normal" person in so they didn't have to keep up with H&S regulations - private sector of course).
Working longer hours isn't the catch all answer for everyone.
Added to which, I have a very rare condition (Nance-Horan syndrome), which has heart problems associated with it later in life. If you think I'm going to run myself into the ground doing more than a 37 hour week (which is nearer a 50 hour week in real terms when you factor in my physical/mental strain to keep up) just to buy a house and then snuff it a year later - you're mistaken. I expect to be dead before I retire anyway - and that's simple brass tacks.
BTW - don't think I was having a personal swipe at you re landlords - I just get really annoyed that I pay someone else's mortgage effectively, whilst being a very high earner (for the area) and still not being able to afford to buy even a grotty dive. Really pisses me off to be frank!
Posted on: 15 July 2005 by Steve Toy
I'm with you on the second home question after reading of what you wrote about locals' house buying plight in the South West. Houses should be owned by those who live in them - at least in the long term.
Encouraging the buy-to-let market to flourish was a singular act of malevolent New Socialism - as opposed to the Old variety.
Old Socialism was about transfering ownership of property and the means of production to the State. It didn't work and Socialist countries generally went to the dogs, including ours under the last Old Labour government.
New Socialism is a collaboration between the State and the Upper Classes who may create wealth and own property. Our economy is rather doing well under such a collaboration. What is to be avoided is a sufficiently large proportion of home owners from the middle and working classes who will keep electing Tory governments.
Who cares if eventually a tiny percentage of the population owns all the houses in which we live? In terms of voter numbers they will be insignificant.
The Socialist dream of the vast majority of the population living in rented homes, working as wage slaves, and being reliant on public transport will soon be complete.
Totalitarianist regimes have failed in the past due to a lack of wealth creation. Democracy won't so much as be abandoned in the Uk as it will simply become irrelevant when everyone is basically comfortable but powerless - until old age that is, when we will be penniless and powerless. Who will pay the rent on homes we've never owned when we start to draw our pensions?
Encouraging the buy-to-let market to flourish was a singular act of malevolent New Socialism - as opposed to the Old variety.
Old Socialism was about transfering ownership of property and the means of production to the State. It didn't work and Socialist countries generally went to the dogs, including ours under the last Old Labour government.
New Socialism is a collaboration between the State and the Upper Classes who may create wealth and own property. Our economy is rather doing well under such a collaboration. What is to be avoided is a sufficiently large proportion of home owners from the middle and working classes who will keep electing Tory governments.
Who cares if eventually a tiny percentage of the population owns all the houses in which we live? In terms of voter numbers they will be insignificant.
The Socialist dream of the vast majority of the population living in rented homes, working as wage slaves, and being reliant on public transport will soon be complete.
Totalitarianist regimes have failed in the past due to a lack of wealth creation. Democracy won't so much as be abandoned in the Uk as it will simply become irrelevant when everyone is basically comfortable but powerless - until old age that is, when we will be penniless and powerless. Who will pay the rent on homes we've never owned when we start to draw our pensions?