|
Post by Bentley on Oct 13, 2022 10:14:38 GMT
My view is that the people who might have lost with housing in the 2010 crash were 'let off' at the expense of the future viability of rest of the economy - interest rates at near zero for decades. In a sense, we never paid that debt. Our starting point now is consequently far worse than it was then Indeed but I think the situation now echoes the situation back the the late 20th century ( ie inflation ) than it does to the 2010 crash ..but I could be wrong . Your point that we were let off in 2010 at the expense of the future viability is true and was pointed at the time .
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Oct 13, 2022 15:36:23 GMT
Fuel prices rose rapidly months before the Putin war started. in a matter of about three weeks, fuel oil prices rose by three times its earlier price and even now it's more than twice the price it was little over a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Oct 14, 2022 20:02:51 GMT
The 'ideal' interest rate for the economy is 4% Why?
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 14, 2022 20:07:04 GMT
Fuel prices rose rapidly months before the Putin war started. in a matter of about three weeks, fuel oil prices rose by three times its earlier price and even now it's more than twice the price it was little over a year ago. yes the fuel and food price rises have at least as much to do with the economics of Covid
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 14, 2022 21:14:11 GMT
The 'ideal' interest rate for the economy is 4% Why? Bank of England target rate for inflation is 2% - therefore 4% gives a reasonable real rate of return for bank deposits.
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Oct 14, 2022 21:18:50 GMT
Bank of England target rate for inflation is 2% - therefore 4% gives a reasonable real rate of return for bank deposits. Why aim for either of those two things. Why not aim for 0% inflation and 0% base rate.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 14, 2022 21:23:02 GMT
Bank of England target rate for inflation is 2% - therefore 4% gives a reasonable real rate of return for bank deposits. Why aim for either of those two things. Why not aim for 0% inflation and 0% base rate. 0% inflation is an ideal but not particularly desired. If inflation is too low then, given our economy is built on consumer spending, people may put off from spending because they expect prices to fall.
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Oct 14, 2022 22:40:20 GMT
Inflation at 0 isn't likely to reduce people's willingness to spend, particularly if interest rates are 0.
People are less likely to spend where interest rates are higher, that is why the government are raising interest rates - it is an attempt to reduce spending to control inflation.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 15, 2022 1:03:03 GMT
In the 70s wages we’re going up by ( iirc) about 10% every year and house prices were booming . It was feasible ( for a few years ) to buy a house with a mortgage you could hardly afford and within a year or two be in a much better position when your wages went up. It was expected . Then the negative equity and job losses came in , in the 80s and people who got on the carousel too late ended up losing houses that were worth less than they paid for them . I sincerely hope we do not get a repeat of that because we are starting from a far worse platform now than we were in the 1970s. Well the negative equity was Maggie’s Brilliant (in reality asshole) Chancellors doing. I was there and saw it first hand I bought and sold a house in less than 24 hours because I saw what was coming. Lawson stood up and declared that he was going to destroy dual income mortgage interest relief at source for unmarried couples. The issue was that married couples like Moira and I were only allowed tax relief on the first 25,000 (later £30000) of our mortgage. The fact that this MIRAS business had such a huge impact was clear from the fact that a week after the MIRAS threshold was raised to £30,000, the two no and a half bed terraced houses priced at £24,850 when I bought one when MIRAS covered only £25k rose overnight to £29,995 Which was instrumental in getting me £31,000 when I sold the house I’d bought for £24850 five years earlier. Property prices had hardly budged in the five years in question in Newport, and suddenly when the chancellor hands you another £5000 of tax relief, the price of the house rises to meet the new limit Nothing fishy there But Lawson was about to superlatively screw all of us The thing was, a “couple” living in sin were allowed to claim 30% tax relief on £30,000 EACH so their £60,000 mortgage would be about 15% cheaper than mine. And mortgage rates those days were between 8 and 17% So Lawson decided to level the playing field by terminating dual income MIRAS Not at 6pm or when he sat down like fuel and booze and fags changes No. In SIX MONTHS TIME The day he said this I was about to view a house valued at £39,000. I agreed a sale of my own subject to contract at 9:30 am, viewed the one we wanted at 1pm and completed contracts on both sales by 5pm I did so by obtaining insurance policies costing about £500 each which guaranteed to pay up if the search found something shitty being developed, and by taking the surveyor to the house I was buying and offering cash for his survey right there I did this because I knew things were going to go ape And they did The value of my £39,000 house on which I had just completed rise to £55,999 by the day I moved in not because it had appreciated but because fanatical unmarried couples were rushing round trying to buy a house before the curtain fell on the dual relief On the day before the axe fell, six estate agents knocked my door offering me valuations of £89,900 if I agreed to move now. At six on an arse in red braces screamed to a halt in the street and nearly bashed down my door offering me a suitcase of money to sell him my house there and then. It was insane And then the window closed and the valuation on my home tank d from £89,900 to £49,900 And the world fell into negative equity
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 15, 2022 7:11:47 GMT
Inflation at 0 isn't likely to reduce people's willingness to spend, particularly if interest rates are 0. People are less likely to spend where interest rates are higher, that is why the government are raising interest rates - it is an attempt to reduce spending to control inflation. inflation currently is not driven by excess demand - its driven by a shortage of supply.
|
|
|
Post by B0ycey on Oct 15, 2022 7:20:30 GMT
I certainly agree with the idea of "Trickle Up Economics". But we have to accept that cutting taxes means more borrowing or cuts in services and that was caused the markets to reject Trussonomics. I don't know what the opinion of Johnson paying everyone is sit at home twiddling their thumbs is on here, but we are now having to pay for this borrowing and so the government doesn't have the options it once had to help people with their bills today. I am more of the opinion we should adopt the Nordic model and that means higher taxes. Certain higher taxes for the very rich in any case.
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 15, 2022 9:03:19 GMT
If you cut things like VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duties, you actually get more revenues due to increased sales.
When VAT was reduced to 15% to stimulate growth (the lowest EU rules allowed us to), it stimulated the economy.
Cut alcohol duties and help hospitality. Pubs across the UK are on their knees with energy prices, high rents, high duties and Sky subscription costs.
Force Sky to give them a better deal. Cut their energy taxes, cut the cost of a pint, customers will buy more.
Increased sales, higher tax revenues.
The economy will stagnate if the public have to practice austerity.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 15, 2022 10:58:57 GMT
Given we are on the verge of a recession I'm still trying to understand the logic of increasing Business taxation by 30% - do people really think that is going to increase investment and attract business to the UK..
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Oct 15, 2022 11:11:42 GMT
Given we are on the verge of a recession I'm still trying to understand the logic of increasing Business taxation by 30% - do people really think that is going to increase investment and attract business to the UK.. If that is true, and that is a big if it will have an inflationary effect It will likely make essential goods and services more expensive It will likely put business that are delivering wants rather than needs in jeopardy Since the objective right now is to get inflation under control it would seem a rather bizarre move
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 15, 2022 11:16:43 GMT
If you cut things like VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duties, you actually get more revenues due to increased sales. When VAT was reduced to 15% to stimulate growth (the lowest EU rules allowed us to), it stimulated the economy. Cut alcohol duties and help hospitality. Pubs across the UK are on their knees with energy prices, high rents, high duties and Sky subscription costs. Force Sky to give them a better deal. Cut their energy taxes, cut the cost of a pint, customers will buy more. Increased sales, higher tax revenues. The economy will stagnate if the public have to practice austerity. You get todays's Liz Truss School of Economics Prize. Sadly for you it's a fools gold plated steaming turd Just cutting taxes over and over (and worse your 'force them' ideas) and all you get is short term GDP growth from sales of imported TVs etc. Actual growth of the UK productive sectors gets crippled by the high interest rates, inflation and instability it produces.
|
|