Cost of living crisis.

[kenny]

9 minutes 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

Its ok as its an investment. It does reduce our annual profits by 15% or so, but anyone that needs a BTL mortgage knows you don't get much of a return on the rent.

 

You rely on the house price increases to make it worth it.

[dsr-burnley]

15 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

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

On a house worth £40k-£50k, the cost of the improvements will be nowhere near recovered by the increase in value of the property.

 

The point is, why pass a law making it illegal for tenants to live in a less-than-super-insulated property while owner-occupiers have no such restriction?

[grobyfox1990]

21 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

On a house worth £40k-£50k, the cost of the improvements will be nowhere near recovered by the increase in value of the property.

 

The point is, why pass a law making it illegal for tenants to live in a less-than-super-insulated property while owner-occupiers have no such restriction?

Owner occupiers take their own risk, they have control and can live how they want. The market will punish them if they don't get up to speed quickly as costs will escalate. Tenants don't have that and are at the whims of the landlord, if the landlord is an oaf the cost will only get pushed don to tenants which is unfair and hence new regs like the renters reform bill are coming in.

 

Despite the previous poster saying there is a 'war on landlords' I don't see that, Govt are aiming to provide decent standards of living, and lazy/useless/over-leveraged landlords are getting caught out and are crying about it. Great. I can still go to an open market and set rent uncapped, and increase it whenever I want with a rolling tenancy. Not bad for a so called war.

[kenny]

11 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Owner occupiers take their own risk, they have control and can live how they want. The market will punish them if they don't get up to speed quickly as costs will escalate. Tenants don't have that and are at the whims of the landlord, if the landlord is an oaf the cost will only get pushed don to tenants which is unfair and hence new regs like the renters reform bill are coming in.

 

Despite the previous poster saying there is a 'war on landlords' I don't see that, Govt are aiming to provide decent standards of living, and lazy/useless/over-leveraged landlords are getting caught out and are crying about it. Great. I can still go to an open market and set rent uncapped, and increase it whenever I want with a rolling tenancy. Not bad for a so called war.

If the government were serious about reducing the environmental impact of the building/housing stock they would look closer to home. 

 

Public buildings, housing association properties and council houses are usually in poor state of repair and have minimal insulation in my experience. 

 

I went to a school last month, where the walls where 75mm thick and were completely uninsulated.

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, kenny said:

If the government were serious about reducing the environmental impact of the building/housing stock they would look closer to home. 

 

Public buildings, housing association properties and council houses are usually in poor state of repair and have minimal insulation in my experience. 

 

I went to a school last month, where the walls where 75mm thick and were completely uninsulated.

I agree in an ideal world, but we’re broke. We’re already at unmanageable levels of debt, doing a retrofit of public buildings should but can’t happen. Whilst the EPCs are imperfect they’re still an easy win, maybe I’m saying that as it doesn’t affect me as I did small remedial work years ago 

[kenny]

37 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I agree in an ideal world, but we’re broke. We’re already at unmanageable levels of debt, doing a retrofit of public buildings should but can’t happen. Whilst the EPCs are imperfect they’re still an easy win, maybe I’m saying that as it doesn’t affect me as I did small remedial work years ago 

Probably true. Hit the private sector rather than get your own house in order is typical at the moment.

[Innovindil]

Well got the dreaded Netflix no more sharing email, so now no more Netflix. 

 

Not much of a saving but it's the principle of the thing. Barely ever watch it anyways. 

[BKLFox]

Germany falls into a recession despite forecasts that EU will steer clear but UK to fall in, turns out they might have been looking at the paper the wrong way as UK expected for growth 🤷‍♂️ 

[Greg2607]

20 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I agree in an ideal world, but we’re broke. We’re already at unmanageable levels of debt, doing a retrofit of public buildings should but can’t happen. Whilst the EPCs are imperfect they’re still an easy win, maybe I’m saying that as it doesn’t affect me as I did small remedial work years ago 

isn't this the irony though... they tell us WE should do it, as it would help to reduce our energy bills and would "pay for itself over the medium turn".... so wouldn't it then have the same effect on medium term spend for energy bills for public spaces? - effectively reducing the ongoing cost of that building into the future.

 

what's good for the goose and all that. 

Edited 25 May 2023 by Greg2607

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

isn't this the irony though... they tell us WE should do it, as it would help to reduce our energy bills and would "pay for itself over the medium turn".... so wouldn't it then have the same effect on medium term spend for energy bills for public spaces? - effectively reducing the ongoing cost of that building into the future.

 

what's good for the goose and all that. 

Yes, and it would also reduce contributions to a problem that could well be really damn costly not too far down the line.

 

So it's a good investment either way and it would be nice if someone thought of the long game.

[grobyfox1990]

32 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

isn't this the irony though... they tell us WE should do it, as it would help to reduce our energy bills and would "pay for itself over the medium turn".... so wouldn't it then have the same effect on medium term spend for energy bills for public spaces? - effectively reducing the ongoing cost of that building into the future.

 

what's good for the goose and all that. 

Yeh don't get me wrong I agree with you, but practically not gonna happen, we're broke. This is why we need a dept for 'the future' that's solely focused on forward planning and ensuring things like hospitals collapsing doesn't happen.

[Heathrow fox]

On 24/05/2023 at 17:03, kenny said:

If the government were serious about reducing the environmental impact of the building/housing stock they would look closer to home. 

 

Public buildings, housing association properties and council houses are usually in poor state of repair and have minimal insulation in my experience. 

 

I went to a school last month, where the walls where 75mm thick and were completely uninsulated.

Can’t speak for public buildings or their general maintenance,but the vast majority of the council housing stock has had walls and lofts insulated where necessary.To what standard is another matter.

[ozleicester]

On 25/05/2023 at 02:06, grobyfox1990 said:

I agree in an ideal world, but we’re broke

A record of 2,208 billionaires were in the ranking and the total wealth was $9.1 trillion, up 18% since 2017

Billionaires have seen extraordinary increases in their wealth. During the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis years since 2020, $26 trillion (63 percent) of all new wealth was captured by the richest 1 percent, while $16 trillion (37 percent) went to the rest of the world put together. A billionaire gained roughly $1.7 million for every $1 of new global wealth earned by a person in the bottom 90 percent. Billionaire fortunes have increased by $2.7 billion a day.

Despite the uncertain times, aggregate global wealth grew by 12.7% in 2021, which is the fastest annual rate ever recorded.

 

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

A record of 2,208 billionaires were in the ranking and the total wealth was $9.1 trillion, up 18% since 2017

Billionaires have seen extraordinary increases in their wealth. During the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis years since 2020, $26 trillion (63 percent) of all new wealth was captured by the richest 1 percent, while $16 trillion (37 percent) went to the rest of the world put together. A billionaire gained roughly $1.7 million for every $1 of new global wealth earned by a person in the bottom 90 percent. Billionaire fortunes have increased by $2.7 billion a day.

Despite the uncertain times, aggregate global wealth grew by 12.7% in 2021, which is the fastest annual rate ever recorded.

 

Yeh but hsbc wealth management said if you force wealth creators to pay any tax they will all move to the Antarctic to live in igloos and won’t be so kind as to employ us all. I have no reason not to believe this 

[fox_up_north]

It is bloody ridiculous. Nobody needs that much. I'd just do a 90% tax above £5 million. You can still live like an absolute king. 

 

 

Well, better than a king. 

[grobyfox1990]

14 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

It is bloody ridiculous. Nobody needs that much. I'd just do a 90% tax above £5 million. You can still live like an absolute king. 

 

 

Well, better than a king. 

I'd accept them being treated the same as us working schmucks r.e tax rates, they don't deserve any preferential treatment. And these commentators think joe public are so stupid as to believe so many HNWIs flock offshore solely because of the low tax rates. Yes it's partly because of that but even if they were taxed at an OECD minimum rate, they'd still base offshore due to the privacy, secrecy, flexibility and stable political regime they're allowed.

[Innovindil]

Jeez I thought octopus hitting me with a £600 chancer was bad. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-65544654

 

This lady got slapped with a 116k monthly bill from Ovo. 

 

 

 

[FoyleFox]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Jeez I thought octopus hitting me with a £600 chancer was bad. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-65544654

 

This lady got slapped with a 116k monthly bill from Ovo. 

 

 

 

 

She's either running a large scale cannabis farm or something has gone wrong there!

[Parafox]

11 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yeh but hsbc wealth management said if you force wealth creators to pay any tax they will all move to the Antarctic to live in igloos and won’t be so kind as to employ us all. I have no reason not to believe this 

How much is a mortgage on an igloo these days?

 

Will there be a freeze on repayments?

 

Sometime I think @Izzy has taken over my mind. 

Edited 26 May 2023 by Parafox

[ozleicester]

[Daggers]

 

[Tommy G]

On 26/05/2023 at 08:32, fox_up_north said:

It is bloody ridiculous. Nobody needs that much. I'd just do a 90% tax above £5 million. You can still live like an absolute king. 

 

 

Well, better than a king. 

£5m in assets or income? 
 

FYI they have lowered the 45pc rate to over £125k from this month rather than £150k, not a very Tory thing to do. 

[fox_up_north]

2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

£5m in assets or income? 
 

FYI they have lowered the 45pc rate to over £125k from this month rather than £150k, not a very Tory thing to do. 

£5 million in income. I appreciate some things like assets are changeable in value and while they're an asset, if they're not actually "generating" money, they're technically worth nothing.

 

But really, £5 million a year still takes home £2.6 million after tax. I can't think of a legitimate reason for someone to need that much personal income, when they could buy a house next to Kensington Gardens outright with that money. 

 

So, someone earning £10 million, to my idea, would still take home around £3.1 - 3.5 million. 

[BKLFox]

We will always be in a constant loop of poverty it would seem
Wages not in line with inflation, big out cry, all over the news, strikes etc etc to push for wage increases
Wages growth tops forecast to gain on inflation - Interest rates go up to combat this otherwise inflation will continue to rise so i'm told but smash my pocket with higher mortgage costs than the wage increase i received

 

just can't get my head around how all this works

[FoyleFox]

14 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

We will always be in a constant loop of poverty it would seem
Wages not in line with inflation, big out cry, all over the news, strikes etc etc to push for wage increases
Wages growth tops forecast to gain on inflation - Interest rates go up to combat this otherwise inflation will continue to rise so i'm told but smash my pocket with higher mortgage costs than the wage increase i received

 

just can't get my head around how all this works

Badly.