Cost of living crisis.

[ozleicester]

..."For instance, a common worry is that rich people will respond to high taxes by working less. But there’s essentially zero empirical support for this claim. In fact, there is now close to consensus among researchers that while the rich do frequently try to avoid taxes, they don’t do so by working less."


https://theconversation.com/taxing-the-wealthy-to-the-hilt-would-make-us-all-much-better-off-203814

 

[fox_up_north]

It's the same principle for me. Could I work less to avoid paying back student loan? Yes. But then I'd also earn less. 

[dsr-burnley]

9 hours ago, ozleicester said:

..."For instance, a common worry is that rich people will respond to high taxes by working less. But there’s essentially zero empirical support for this claim. In fact, there is now close to consensus among researchers that while the rich do frequently try to avoid taxes, they don’t do so by working less."


https://theconversation.com/taxing-the-wealthy-to-the-hilt-would-make-us-all-much-better-off-203814

 

There's the evidence of doctors.  How many general practitioners work full time, since the "double whammy" of Blair's increase in pay and the marginal tax rates of 60% plus at £100k?  I'm sure one of the reasons so many doctors work part time is because they can get a very comfortable living that way and don't feel the need to do more.

 

But that's not the big issue.  It's not just the rich that we need to think about, it's the would-be rich.  People who are running a small business and doing nicely but would like to increase it into a big business and do fantabulously.  How do you turn a small business into a big business?  You take risks, you get a loan, you employ more people.  And there's the rub - if the rewards aren't there, they won't take the risks, they won't employ people.

 

I an employed by a rich man.  If he wasn't allowed to keep much of his profits, he wouldn't employ me.

[RobHawk]

24 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

There's the evidence of doctors.  How many general practitioners work full time, since the "double whammy" of Blair's increase in pay and the marginal tax rates of 60% plus at £100k?  I'm sure one of the reasons so many doctors work part time is because they can get a very comfortable living that way and don't feel the need to do more.

 

But that's not the big issue.  It's not just the rich that we need to think about, it's the would-be rich.  People who are running a small business and doing nicely but would like to increase it into a big business and do fantabulously.  How do you turn a small business into a big business?  You take risks, you get a loan, you employ more people.  And there's the rub - if the rewards aren't there, they won't take the risks, they won't employ people.

 

I an employed by a rich man.  If he wasn't allowed to keep much of his profits, he wouldn't employ me.

Surely your wage is taken before profit, so it would make no difference to your job. 

 

It would just mean less money in your bosses pocket. 

[dsr-burnley]

1 minute ago, RobHawk said:

Surely your wage is taken before profit, so it would make no difference to your job. 

 

It would just mean less money in your bosses pocket. 

Nope.  Bosses don't work for the same money as their staff.  If his tax rate went beyond the 50%+ that he pays at the moment, then he would downsize his office and do less work for fewer clients; he'd have less gross income but not a lot less net.

 

Or else he would retire.

[RobHawk]

21 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Nope.  Bosses don't work for the same money as their staff.  If his tax rate went beyond the 50%+ that he pays at the moment, then he would downsize his office and do less work for fewer clients; he'd have less gross income but not a lot less net.

 

Or else he would retire.

Ignore, misread your comment

Edited 23 May 2023 by RobHawk

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

There's the evidence of doctors.  How many general practitioners work full time, since the "double whammy" of Blair's increase in pay and the marginal tax rates of 60% plus at £100k?  I'm sure one of the reasons so many doctors work part time is because they can get a very comfortable living that way and don't feel the need to do more.

 

Your conjecture does not equal fact. Go dig out The King’s Fund study as a first step.

 

 

[dsr-burnley]

59 minutes ago, Daggers said:

 

Your conjecture does not equal fact. Go dig out The King’s Fund study as a first step.

 

 

It's possible.  In which case, they need urgently to work out why the workload - which, remember, was supposed to be easier under Blair's new contract that gave them the big pay rise - has got so much worse that it forces doctors to work fewer days.

[fox_up_north]

Same applies to teachers, police, social workers. Some jobs just aren't worth the money, whatever amount you throw at them, if you're constantly tired and stressed. 

 

You could offer me double my current wage and it wouldn't get me back in a school classroom. It all comes down to resource management; number of staff VS workload requirements. 

 

Nobody in these public service fields goes into them to get "rich". That is, unfortunately, what managers rely on - that sense of duty. I know, I've heard the arguments from them as they dump more workload or make changes: "this is in the best interest of our learners and we all need to just give that little extra for them."

 

There's only so many times you can give a little extra. 

[Daggers]

6 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's possible.  In which case, they need urgently to work out why the workload - which, remember, was supposed to be easier under Blair's new contract that gave them the big pay rise - has got so much worse that it forces doctors to work fewer days.

Erm, you do realise how long a Tory government has been in power, right?

 

Harking back to the last Labour government was a bit shit when Cameron did it - it’s fvcking hysterical now. 

[Daggers]

4 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Same applies to teachers, police, social workers. Some jobs just aren't worth the money, whatever amount you throw at them, if you're constantly tired and stressed. 

 

You could offer me double my current wage and it wouldn't get me back in a school classroom. It all comes down to resource management; number of staff VS workload requirements. 

 

Nobody in these public service fields goes into them to get "rich". That is, unfortunately, what managers rely on - that sense of duty. I know, I've heard the arguments from them as they dump more workload or make changes: "this is in the best interest of our learners and we all need to just give that little extra for them."

 

There's only so many times you can give a little extra. 

😁

 

Precisely this. There is no money that’d convince me to teach again. Admin is insane, environment is toxic, funding all but vanished for anything remotely interesting or fun - and where you now have to put on dog and pony shows almost every session and be constantly monitored. Fvck that. 

[Silebyfox_89]

Inflation down to 8.7%, lowest since August 2022. Heading in the right direction at least.

[Footballwipe]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

Erm, you do realise how long a Tory government has been in power, right?

 

Harking back to the last Labour government was a bit shit when Cameron did it - it’s fvcking hysterical now. 

Thought this was just me. Are we still talking about issues from a Prime Minister who left office 16 years ago, and through a change in government who have had 13 years to retract, change or improve what Blair implemented?

 

I wonder how much "Labour did this 20 years ago aren't they the worst" campaigning will be happening before next year's GE? Gonna be a fun one.

[Greg2607]

11 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

There's the evidence of doctors.  How many general practitioners work full time, since the "double whammy" of Blair's increase in pay and the marginal tax rates of 60% plus at £100k?  I'm sure one of the reasons so many doctors work part time is because they can get a very comfortable living that way and don't feel the need to do more.

 

But that's not the big issue.  It's not just the rich that we need to think about, it's the would-be rich.  People who are running a small business and doing nicely but would like to increase it into a big business and do fantabulously.  How do you turn a small business into a big business?  You take risks, you get a loan, you employ more people.  And there's the rub - if the rewards aren't there, they won't take the risks, they won't employ people.

 

I an employed by a rich man.  If he wasn't allowed to keep much of his profits, he wouldn't employ me.

so if i'm reading this correctly.... a contract which was SO badly negotiated in 2004.... has caused GP's to work part time and decimate the ability for the general population to see a GP.... 

 

surely since maybe 2010... something could have been renegotiated.... it's not like the tories haven't been able to do that... they do have a sizeable majority.  In much the same way that they COULD have done something about the marginal tax rate if they wanted to..... 

 

i'm not entirely sure I can name anything positive that has come out of the last 13 years from the conservatives.... what have they actually done??

[dsr-burnley]

19 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Thought this was just me. Are we still talking about issues from a Prime Minister who left office 16 years ago, and through a change in government who have had 13 years to retract, change or improve what Blair implemented?

 

I wonder how much "Labour did this 20 years ago aren't they the worst" campaigning will be happening before next year's GE? Gonna be a fun one.

I wasn't making a political point about Blair - that was a reference more to the timescale of when (and IMO at least partly why) doctors moved from full-time to part-time.  It's implied, of course, that the Tory government that has failed to improve things is at fault.

 

Same with teachers.  The amount of work (I am told) that they are forced to do on form-filling and box-ticking is absurd.  According to various sources about their working hours, they are spending certainly less than half, possibly as low as a third, of their time teaching children.  Marking comes into it, lesson planning I dare say, but a lot of the rest is useless bumf.

 

Same with police, and other public servants who have an essential job to do.  They aren't allowed to get on with it.

[Lako42]

8 hours ago, Daggers said:

 

Your conjecture does not equal fact. Go dig out The King’s Fund study as a first step.

 

 

Always seems intense for our GP who seems to work from home pretty much every week these days. 

 

Sounds like bedlam, what with the kids in the background and all that. 

[Rob1742]

On 21/05/2023 at 00:26, dsr-burnley said:

Especially as the government is determined to drive small private landlords out of business.  There are many tenants going to be put out on the streets in the near future because of the new tenancy act, and the cost of upgrading properties to get the energy efficiency certificate.  So many private tenants will be unable to get mortgages because of age, credit history, or simply because they aren't capable of handling one, and they will presumably have to put up with whatever council house (if any) they can get.

 

I only know one tenant personally, my next door neighbour.  Her property (a 3-room corner terrace) has rating F.  She doesn't care what the rating is, and she doesn't want to be thrown out on the streets because the government disagrees with her idea of what makes a nice home.

 

And I know one landlord, and their tenant is the type who (when the bathroom lights failed) had the bright idea of getting a table lamp and an extension lead, and perching the lamp on the end of the bath.  (Don't try this at home, children!)  They are happy to explain to the landlord that they can't pay the rent this week because they have just booked a holiday, and they can't pay for the next two weeks either because they will be away.  They are amiable idiots, basically.  

 

Has the government even considered that in making war on landlords, they are making their tenants suffer more?  The landlord will have to sell up and take the cash.  The tenant will be homeless.

As a landlord I have stopped increasing my portfolio and invested elsewhere.

 

It’s fine if governments are trying to discourage landlords to buy, but when you have a vacant property you literally have people fighting for it, so there is an obvious need for rentals and good landlords. 

 

Yesterday I got an email asking me to pick a tenant from a list of those that want one of my properties. You literally get tenants selling themselves to try and be the lucky tenant. 
 

It’s a tough one as I get the issue that you will get landlords that then think they don’t have to bother with the property or tenant, so this is a real problem. However if decent landlords move their portfolios on due to the legislations and poor yields, then the housing problem gets worse. 
 

It’s a difficult one to solve I believe as driving landlords away isn’t the answer, but insisting those that remain do the right things is needed.

 

I recently had a conversation with someone who is looking for investment opportunities and wanted to go through housing with me to see what I do with the intentions of mirroring the model. He decided against it and went in the stock market instead. 
 

 

[grobyfox1990]

3 hours ago, Rob1742 said:

As a landlord I have stopped increasing my portfolio and invested elsewhere.

 

It’s fine if governments are trying to discourage landlords to buy, but when you have a vacant property you literally have people fighting for it, so there is an obvious need for rentals and good landlords. 

 

Yesterday I got an email asking me to pick a tenant from a list of those that want one of my properties. You literally get tenants selling themselves to try and be the lucky tenant. 
 

It’s a tough one as I get the issue that you will get landlords that then think they don’t have to bother with the property or tenant, so this is a real problem. However if decent landlords move their portfolios on due to the legislations and poor yields, then the housing problem gets worse. 
 

It’s a difficult one to solve I believe as driving landlords away isn’t the answer, but insisting those that remain do the right things is needed.

 

I recently had a conversation with someone who is looking for investment opportunities and wanted to go through housing with me to see what I do with the intentions of mirroring the model. He decided against it and went in the stock market instead. 
 

 

I think 'making war on landlords' is exaggerated. You can still offset interest on BTLs and carry forward losses. In terms of EPCs getting up to C, this is a no brainer. Invest in your home now before it gets too late, the cost spirals and your asset loses huge amounts of value. Plus the tenant benefits from efficiencies in the home. You can say 'landlords will just sell up' but it's nowhere near that easy. Away from city centre 1 and 2 beds, who's going to queue up to buy a poor quality BTL house, even with a tenant in situ? Rates are insane and lending conditions are a lot tougher. If landlords want to sell up and are highly geared, they're going to have to accept large losses, which they deserve if they are holding EPC F's.

 

I agree with your last sentence though, why on earth would you invest in resi UK property in the short-medium term, put it all in gold.

[foxile5]

6 hours ago, Daggers said:

😁

 

Precisely this. There is no money that’d convince me to teach again. Admin is insane, environment is toxic, funding all but vanished for anything remotely interesting or fun - and where you now have to put on dog and pony shows almost every session and be constantly monitored. Fvck that. 

Add to the fact that general public treat teaching staff like dirt and it pretty much sums up the profession.

 

 

[kenny]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I think 'making war on landlords' is exaggerated. You can still offset interest on BTLs and carry forward losses. In terms of EPCs getting up to C, this is a no brainer. Invest in your home now before it gets too late, the cost spirals and your asset loses huge amounts of value. Plus the tenant benefits from efficiencies in the home. You can say 'landlords will just sell up' but it's nowhere near that easy. Away from city centre 1 and 2 beds, who's going to queue up to buy a poor quality BTL house, even with a tenant in situ? Rates are insane and lending conditions are a lot tougher. If landlords want to sell up and are highly geared, they're going to have to accept large losses, which they deserve if they are holding EPC F's.

 

I agree with your last sentence though, why on earth would you invest in resi UK property in the short-medium term, put it all in gold.

I have an 1800s rented property without mains gas and its impossible to get it up to a C on an EPC.

 

Its not cold or inefficient in any way but the EPC model is flawed at best. I think ours is an E currently.

[grobyfox1990]

14 minutes ago, kenny said:

I have an 1800s rented property without mains gas and its impossible to get it up to a C on an EPC.

 

Its not cold or inefficient in any way but the EPC model is flawed at best. I think ours is an E currently.

Fair point I would believe the EPC process is totally flawed, much like Gas safety certs, it seems you can get what you want from a 'drive-by' contractor as long as it's not that ridiculous. But not sure how else to get our awful housing stock up to scratch? No offence but I'd be shocked if you've got a queue forming to buy your place, even with a decent tenant in place? What you planning to do in 2025?

[kenny]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Fair point I would believe the EPC process is totally flawed, much like Gas safety certs, it seems you can get what you want from a 'drive-by' contractor as long as it's not that ridiculous. But not sure how else to get our awful housing stock up to scratch? No offence but I'd be shocked if you've got a queue forming to buy your place, even with a decent tenant in place? What you planning to do in 2025?

Its a pretty little place, a former blacksmiths cottage, some of the walls are wattle and daub, others are brick and stone. We could sell easy enough and we find tenants easily enough as its pretty.

 

In fairness, its also warm and cheap to run though this doesn't seem to matter on an EPC. It has electric combi boilers which give it a bad rating even though gas is supposed to be phased out.

 

There is a workaround on EPC that allows you to spend £3.5k on improvements and gives you a 5 year exemption. Last time, we removed secondary glazed windows and replaced with modern double glazed units. Next time, we will probably replace the front door or something.

[dsr-burnley]

8 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Fair point I would believe the EPC process is totally flawed, much like Gas safety certs, it seems you can get what you want from a 'drive-by' contractor as long as it's not that ridiculous. But not sure how else to get our awful housing stock up to scratch? No offence but I'd be shocked if you've got a queue forming to buy your place, even with a decent tenant in place? What you planning to do in 2025?

I live on a terrace which is partly back-to-back housing.  Next door below, the front house is grade F with a theoretical best of E; the back is grade D with theoretical best of B.  They are identical houses and the spec reads the same for both.

 

Both are rented, and I know both tenants would rather the EPC grading was ignored (as it already is!), because they like their homes and are no more keen to leave than anyone else would be at the say-so of a boxticker in London.

[grobyfox1990]

12 minutes ago, kenny said:

Its a pretty little place, a former blacksmiths cottage, some of the walls are wattle and daub, others are brick and stone. We could sell easy enough and we find tenants easily enough as its pretty.

 

In fairness, its also warm and cheap to run though this doesn't seem to matter on an EPC. It has electric combi boilers which give it a bad rating even though gas is supposed to be phased out.

 

There is a workaround on EPC that allows you to spend £3.5k on improvements and gives you a 5 year exemption. Last time, we removed secondary glazed windows and replaced with modern double glazed units. Next time, we will probably replace the front door or something.

Ah right! I had no clue! Write that off against tax and it's £2100, so £420 cash per year to evade the regulations, that's brilliant. Good luck with yours.

 

8 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I live on a terrace which is partly back-to-back housing.  Next door below, the front house is grade F with a theoretical best of E; the back is grade D with theoretical best of B.  They are identical houses and the spec reads the same for both.

 

Both are rented, and I know both tenants would rather the EPC grading was ignored (as it already is!), because they like their homes and are no more keen to leave than anyone else would be at the say-so of a boxticker in London.

Yeh but this is the premise of the change. Tenants and landlords might be happy now, but things change quickly like last year when energy bills escalated and no one was ready. They are trying to future proof against further changes and massive costs, and minimum EPCs are a good way of doing it. Bearing in mind anecdotes like the posters above confirming it doesn't always work

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Ah right! I had no clue! Write that off against tax and it's £2100, so £420 cash per year to evade the regulations, that's brilliant. Good luck with yours.

 

Yeh but this is the premise of the change. Tenants and landlords might be happy now, but things change quickly like last year when energy bills escalated and no one was ready. They are trying to future proof against further changes and massive costs, and minimum EPCs are a good way of doing it. Bearing in mind anecdotes like the posters above confirming it doesn't always work

And that's what a lot of people do not get and so why laissez-faire on these matters and others doesn't work in the long run - people prioritise short-term self-interest too often.

 

I mean, I understand the sentiment, but it doesn't lead anywhere good.