Cost of living squeeze in 2022
Discussion
Ian Geary said:
Apologies for quoting myself, but at least I won't get the hump about it.
Last week I postulated that:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10820467/...
"Fury as minister Rachel Maclean says people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis can work longer hours or get a better paid job to help pay the bills"
You couldn't make it up.
She actually said:- 'We do have these short-term pressures on us that we're all aware of. But over the long-term we need to have a plan to grow the economy and make sure that people are able to protect themselves better, whether that is by taking on more hours or moving to a better-paid job."Last week I postulated that:
Ian Geary said:
Politically, if the Tory minister for food stood up and said "you can mitigate the cost of living crisis by buying bulk porridge and sacks of potatoes cheaply" they would be utterly shredded by Twitter etc.
And today in the Mail (of all places? who would I thought have lapped this up) I see this headline:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10820467/...
"Fury as minister Rachel Maclean says people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis can work longer hours or get a better paid job to help pay the bills"
You couldn't make it up.
The "work longer hours or get a better paid job to help pay the bills" was in context of growing the economy but then Kay Burley did her usual changing the narrative to stir up some controversy!
Ian Geary said:
And today in the Mail (of all places? who would I thought have lapped this up) I see this headline:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10820467/...
"Fury as minister Rachel Maclean says people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis can work longer hours or get a better paid job to help pay the bills"
You couldn't make it up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10820467/...
"Fury as minister Rachel Maclean says people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis can work longer hours or get a better paid job to help pay the bills"
You couldn't make it up.
Malean said:
I think what we need to focus on now is over the long-term.
We do have these short-term pressures on us that we're all aware of. But over the long-term we need to have a plan to grow the economy and make sure that people are able to protect themselves better, whether that is by taking on more hours or moving to a better-paid job.
These are long-term actions but that is what we are focused on as a Government
Is it a bad thing if the government's plan is for in the longer term people to have better paid jobs?, is it a bad thing to want to grow the economy?, if not what is all the "fury" about?. We do have these short-term pressures on us that we're all aware of. But over the long-term we need to have a plan to grow the economy and make sure that people are able to protect themselves better, whether that is by taking on more hours or moving to a better-paid job.
These are long-term actions but that is what we are focused on as a Government
fido said:
Ian Geary said:
Apologies for quoting myself, but at least I won't get the hump about it.
Last week I postulated that:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10820467/...
"Fury as minister Rachel Maclean says people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis can work longer hours or get a better paid job to help pay the bills"
You couldn't make it up.
She actually said:- 'We do have these short-term pressures on us that we're all aware of. But over the long-term we need to have a plan to grow the economy and make sure that people are able to protect themselves better, whether that is by taking on more hours or moving to a better-paid job."Last week I postulated that:
Ian Geary said:
Politically, if the Tory minister for food stood up and said "you can mitigate the cost of living crisis by buying bulk porridge and sacks of potatoes cheaply" they would be utterly shredded by Twitter etc.
And today in the Mail (of all places? who would I thought have lapped this up) I see this headline:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10820467/...
"Fury as minister Rachel Maclean says people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis can work longer hours or get a better paid job to help pay the bills"
You couldn't make it up.
The "work longer hours or get a better paid job to help pay the bills" was in context of growing the economy but then Kay Burley did her usual changing the narrative to stir up some controversy!
Earthdweller said:
I’m assuming that Armchair is talking about the Police pension scheme which can be accessed at 48 1/2 at the earliest age
There are currently three different schemes in play ..the best being the now defunct 1987 scheme which allows you to take your full pension at 48 + if you have 30 years service
Beyond that it’s age 50 with at least 25 years service
Taking the full commutation would leave you with 50% of your best 12 months in the last three years service
It’s quite possible to take a pension of £22k at 48 on that scheme assuming you joined at 18
There are currently three different schemes in play ..the best being the now defunct 1987 scheme which allows you to take your full pension at 48 + if you have 30 years service
Beyond that it’s age 50 with at least 25 years service
Taking the full commutation would leave you with 50% of your best 12 months in the last three years service
It’s quite possible to take a pension of £22k at 48 on that scheme assuming you joined at 18
But, as said, this has all now changed.
djc206 said:
JagLover said:
Is it a bad thing if the government's plan is for in the longer term people to have better paid jobs?, is it a bad thing to want to grow the economy?, if not what is all the "fury" about?.
None of that is bad, the longer hours suggestion is definitely a bad thing.Perhaps she should have been questioned more on how the government would achieve these aims rather than on concocted outrage?
JagLover said:
She said that the government wanted to make people more "able" to do so. This might include investment in childcare, say, or in reducing the rate of benefit withdrawal on UC. It seems like a rather significant amount of fuss over some fairly uncontroversial long term aims as far as I can see.
Perhaps she should have been questioned more on how the government would achieve these aims rather than on concocted outrage?
Agreed. I’d make a terrible politician, I’d be enraged at people trying to twist my words like that rather than simply seeking clarity over exactly what I meant.Perhaps she should have been questioned more on how the government would achieve these aims rather than on concocted outrage?
R2 currently they are talking about brand new houses and their poor energy - rather than the “huff house” from Germany.
That sits on a concrete plinth but a foot of insulation below. Apparently it’s so well insulated that a candle in winter will hold it to 21 degrees whilst in the summer it’s cool.
So why are we not building houses like this? This would lower demand for energy.
Also the pushing for heat pumps on 1950’s houses it simply doesn’t work or costs MORE than the gas or electric that you currently use.
That sits on a concrete plinth but a foot of insulation below. Apparently it’s so well insulated that a candle in winter will hold it to 21 degrees whilst in the summer it’s cool.
So why are we not building houses like this? This would lower demand for energy.
Also the pushing for heat pumps on 1950’s houses it simply doesn’t work or costs MORE than the gas or electric that you currently use.
Welshbeef said:
R2 currently they are talking about brand new houses and their poor energy - rather than the “huff house” from Germany.
That sits on a concrete plinth but a foot of insulation below. Apparently it’s so well insulated that a candle in winter will hold it to 21 degrees whilst in the summer it’s cool.
So why are we not building houses like this? This would lower demand for energy.
Well I think Huf Haus is fairly pricey. They featured one on an early season of Grand Designs from what i remember.That sits on a concrete plinth but a foot of insulation below. Apparently it’s so well insulated that a candle in winter will hold it to 21 degrees whilst in the summer it’s cool.
So why are we not building houses like this? This would lower demand for energy.
That said I do think there is a strong case for tightening building regulations in this country. To make them more energy efficient, less prone to vibration transfer (in flats and terraced/semi-detached houses) and have an expected life of at least 100 years.
Welshbeef said:
Also the pushing for heat pumps on 1950’s houses it simply doesn’t work or costs MORE than the gas or electric that you currently use.
The push towards ASHP for older houses is a disaster enfolding IMO. They won't work in most older housing and noise will be a significant issue. All this talk of UBI is depressing - we want to hand even more crucial aspects of our lives to governments at best 60% of the population dislikes and distrusts at any time? Why would we do that?
Not to mention the burden of administering it alongside a taxation system that would, by design actively discourage work and hit the biggest taxpayers harder, precipitating an exit of all those who we want to keep in the UK to pay the tax to feed the UBI monster.
Then there's the disincentive to work; we've had a couple of decent length dry runs in lockdowns and furlough, people seem only to eager to stay at home and watch Netflix and we propose to make that easier?
I've mentioned it before in this thread, but the least-worst way to tax people is to tax the land they're sitting on. A Land Value Tax, set at the correct level would facilitate the end of income tax, making work pay for everyone while those with unearned wealth are taxed on the benefit they gain from that wealth.
And it was in Corbyn's manifesto. I despise Corbyn and all he stands for; apart from LVT.
Land Value Taxation is based not on what is on the land, but it's intrinsic value. In fact it's probably more correctly termed land-rental, the more valuable the land you occupy, the more you pay. For instance a 100sqm plot of Chelsea has a high intrinsic value because it's in London and is a desirable place to live where a 100sqm plot in Jaywick, less so. The Chelsea land occupier pays more because the land they occupy owes more of it's value to it's location and the community around them than the Jaywick one - neither of these things are through the efforts of it's occupier.
Land ValueTaxation is on unearned wealth, meaning that the harder you work the more you earn because that activity, your toil (perhaps the most honest of wealth creators) is not taxed, while the unearned value of the land you occupy is - the 'better' the place, the more the tax.
Land that’s on top of some hill in Northumberland is worth little and so would pay near nothing but someone using a plot Surrey to keep 3 sheep and an alpaca will be encouraged through taxation to make better use of it. Having to pay tax on the value of the land means that people will have to allocate the land to a use which will producing a decent return, which in turn helps the economy and moving us away from the service-based economic cul-de-sac we find ourselves in.
It'll never happen, because it's far to simple and fair for any government to contemplate (and it might make them considerably poorer personally too, considering the number of second-home-in-London owners among them).
Not to mention the burden of administering it alongside a taxation system that would, by design actively discourage work and hit the biggest taxpayers harder, precipitating an exit of all those who we want to keep in the UK to pay the tax to feed the UBI monster.
Then there's the disincentive to work; we've had a couple of decent length dry runs in lockdowns and furlough, people seem only to eager to stay at home and watch Netflix and we propose to make that easier?
I've mentioned it before in this thread, but the least-worst way to tax people is to tax the land they're sitting on. A Land Value Tax, set at the correct level would facilitate the end of income tax, making work pay for everyone while those with unearned wealth are taxed on the benefit they gain from that wealth.
And it was in Corbyn's manifesto. I despise Corbyn and all he stands for; apart from LVT.
Land Value Taxation is based not on what is on the land, but it's intrinsic value. In fact it's probably more correctly termed land-rental, the more valuable the land you occupy, the more you pay. For instance a 100sqm plot of Chelsea has a high intrinsic value because it's in London and is a desirable place to live where a 100sqm plot in Jaywick, less so. The Chelsea land occupier pays more because the land they occupy owes more of it's value to it's location and the community around them than the Jaywick one - neither of these things are through the efforts of it's occupier.
Land ValueTaxation is on unearned wealth, meaning that the harder you work the more you earn because that activity, your toil (perhaps the most honest of wealth creators) is not taxed, while the unearned value of the land you occupy is - the 'better' the place, the more the tax.
Land that’s on top of some hill in Northumberland is worth little and so would pay near nothing but someone using a plot Surrey to keep 3 sheep and an alpaca will be encouraged through taxation to make better use of it. Having to pay tax on the value of the land means that people will have to allocate the land to a use which will producing a decent return, which in turn helps the economy and moving us away from the service-based economic cul-de-sac we find ourselves in.
It'll never happen, because it's far to simple and fair for any government to contemplate (and it might make them considerably poorer personally too, considering the number of second-home-in-London owners among them).
Welshbeef said:
R2 currently they are talking about brand new houses and their poor energy - rather than the “huff house” from Germany.
That sits on a concrete plinth but a foot of insulation below. Apparently it’s so well insulated that a candle in winter will hold it to 21 degrees whilst in the summer it’s cool.
So why are we not building houses like this? This would lower demand for energy.
Also the pushing for heat pumps on 1950’s houses it simply doesn’t work or costs MORE than the gas or electric that you currently use.
Yes but it cost him £340 k to build. Problem with virtually all the eco stuff isn’t it doesn’t work on all the older house types we have. Of course it will of yr building from scratch. That sits on a concrete plinth but a foot of insulation below. Apparently it’s so well insulated that a candle in winter will hold it to 21 degrees whilst in the summer it’s cool.
So why are we not building houses like this? This would lower demand for energy.
Also the pushing for heat pumps on 1950’s houses it simply doesn’t work or costs MORE than the gas or electric that you currently use.
Then you’ve the end user: are you really telling me joe average out there will get their head around running an eco home via an I pad and live the required way to do so ?
austinsmirk said:
Welshbeef said:
R2 currently they are talking about brand new houses and their poor energy - rather than the “huff house” from Germany.
That sits on a concrete plinth but a foot of insulation below. Apparently it’s so well insulated that a candle in winter will hold it to 21 degrees whilst in the summer it’s cool.
So why are we not building houses like this? This would lower demand for energy.
Also the pushing for heat pumps on 1950’s houses it simply doesn’t work or costs MORE than the gas or electric that you currently use.
Yes but it cost him £340 k to build. Problem with virtually all the eco stuff isn’t it doesn’t work on all the older house types we have. Of course it will of yr building from scratch. That sits on a concrete plinth but a foot of insulation below. Apparently it’s so well insulated that a candle in winter will hold it to 21 degrees whilst in the summer it’s cool.
So why are we not building houses like this? This would lower demand for energy.
Also the pushing for heat pumps on 1950’s houses it simply doesn’t work or costs MORE than the gas or electric that you currently use.
Then you’ve the end user: are you really telling me joe average out there will get their head around running an eco home via an I pad and live the required way to do so ?
Zoopla said:
The houses are custom-designed (a small Huf Haus is typically 1,800 sq ft, while a large one comes in at 12,000 sq ft)
Zoopla said:
"A Huf Haus starts at around £300 per sq ft," says Bindewald.
So, prices starting from £540k, plus the land to build it on…Welshbeef said:
Are there cheaper versions of the huff house that can meet the needs of even the cheapest current new builds?
Yes. SIPS are pretty good, not quite a 'fully finished' pre-fab, but a quick 'wall' system you drop onto prepared foundations.Can be pretty cheap too.
Issue AIUI, is getting an affordable mortgage (either as self build, or once constructed) - needs to be an 'approved system' by the relevant bodies.
Welshbeef said:
R2 currently they are talking about brand new houses and their poor energy - rather than the “huff house” from Germany.
That sits on a concrete plinth but a foot of insulation below. Apparently it’s so well insulated that a candle in winter will hold it to 21 degrees whilst in the summer it’s cool.
So why are we not building houses like this? This would lower demand for energy.
It's a great idea,except all that energy efficiency to save money costs a fair chunk of energy and money to build in the first place. That sits on a concrete plinth but a foot of insulation below. Apparently it’s so well insulated that a candle in winter will hold it to 21 degrees whilst in the summer it’s cool.
So why are we not building houses like this? This would lower demand for energy.
Like so many things for 'saving' energy the numbers aren't quite so simple if you look at the overall cost.
Armchair_Expert said:
Earthdweller said:
I’m assuming that Armchair is talking about the Police pension scheme which can be accessed at 48 1/2 at the earliest age
There are currently three different schemes in play ..the best being the now defunct 1987 scheme which allows you to take your full pension at 48 + if you have 30 years service
Beyond that it’s age 50 with at least 25 years service
Taking the full commutation would leave you with 50% of your best 12 months in the last three years service
It’s quite possible to take a pension of £22k at 48 on that scheme assuming you joined at 18
There are currently three different schemes in play ..the best being the now defunct 1987 scheme which allows you to take your full pension at 48 + if you have 30 years service
Beyond that it’s age 50 with at least 25 years service
Taking the full commutation would leave you with 50% of your best 12 months in the last three years service
It’s quite possible to take a pension of £22k at 48 on that scheme assuming you joined at 18
But, as said, this has all now changed.
Mark Benson said:
It'll never happen, because it's far to simple and fair for any government to contemplate
It's not simple or fair. It's a thinly disguised punishment on those who own property by those who think all property is theft. It takes no account of ability to pay and is based on utterly arbitrary unrealised valuations. Annual property value taxes always end up being destructive. Its been known to actively drive property out of active use because the property tax burden exceeds the utility value or the income available to those who might live there.
If you support it you're either someone who thinks it won't hit them hard, or have enough income that funding it as an alternative to income taxes won't hurt.
If you want 'fair' just tax *all* income at a flat rate.
pquinn said:
Mark Benson said:
It'll never happen, because it's far to simple and fair for any government to contemplate
It's not simple or fair. It's a thinly disguised punishment on those who own property by those who think all property is theft. It takes no account of ability to pay and is based on utterly arbitrary unrealised valuations. Annual property value taxes always end up being destructive. Its been known to actively drive property out of active use because the property tax burden exceeds the utility value or the income available to those who might live there.
If you support it you're either someone who thinks it won't hit them hard, or have enough income that funding it as an alternative to income taxes won't hurt.
If you want 'fair' just tax *all* income at a flat rate.
However what then happens with care home costs? Oldies the care home have first charge of second behind LVT.
Also if it’s mortgages surely the mortgage is always the first charge on a property until the debt is paid otherwise they have ability to recover their costs if individual goes bust.
pquinn said:
Mark Benson said:
It'll never happen, because it's far to simple and fair for any government to contemplate
It's not simple or fair. It's a thinly disguised punishment on those who own property by those who think all property is theft. It takes no account of ability to pay and is based on utterly arbitrary unrealised valuations. Annual property value taxes always end up being destructive. Its been known to actively drive property out of active use because the property tax burden exceeds the utility value or the income available to those who might live there.
If you support it you're either someone who thinks it won't hit them hard, or have enough income that funding it as an alternative to income taxes won't hurt.
If you want 'fair' just tax *all* income at a flat rate.
As to a flat rate tax - everyone I know on 63.25% and 48.25% tax rates (anecdotally of course) describe their rate of tax as broadly fair.
Sway said:
Oh, the media are s
ts. Which is why I've already complained about the headline being discussed with the bias loaded in - when the actual article presents an entirely different picture on her actual comments.
"The mask slipped" - bks. He's blunt, and has some 'challenging' opinions, but he absolutely knows his onions on the topic of nutrition based on his direct experiences (that accord with mine on the receiving end, hence why I've already pointed out the 'activists' that are actually helpful for people in that situation, rather than the ones that make it political).
When you get interviewed on a show hosted by someone with some equally "challenging" opinions and accuse a food poverty campaigner of “taking money off some of the most vulnerable people in society and making an absolute fortune on the back of people” I'd say the mask has slipped a bit.ts. Which is why I've already complained about the headline being discussed with the bias loaded in - when the actual article presents an entirely different picture on her actual comments."The mask slipped" - b
ks. He's blunt, and has some 'challenging' opinions, but he absolutely knows his onions on the topic of nutrition based on his direct experiences (that accord with mine on the receiving end, hence why I've already pointed out the 'activists' that are actually helpful for people in that situation, rather than the ones that make it political). Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff