Discussion:
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal"
Add Reply
Pamela
2020-02-03 17:12:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15% fall.

Now the pound falls further. What a mess!

"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal

"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain would
not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he complies."

<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
Incubus
2020-02-03 17:44:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further. What a mess!
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain would
not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
Good for inward investment. Since we're all so parochial and fearful of
foreigners, it's not as though we Leavers are going abroad any time soon
anyway.

I'll be able to find some British workers to build my bunker soon enough.
Pamela
2020-02-03 17:53:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's
been worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further. What a mess!
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain
would not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal,
while Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-
johnson-takes-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
Good for inward investment. Since we're all so parochial and fearful of
foreigners, it's not as though we Leavers are going abroad any time soon
anyway.
I'll be able to find some British workers to build my bunker soon enough.
Boris' brilliant international trade deals may not even compensate for the
falling pound.
Keema's Nan
2020-02-03 18:38:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further. What a mess!
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain would
not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
Good for inward investment. Since we're all so parochial and fearful of
foreigners, it's not as though we Leavers are going abroad any time soon
anyway.
I'll be able to find some British workers to build my bunker soon enough.
Yes, it is the Remain voting fifth columnists who are worried about how few
Euros they will get when they eventually decide to flee (something they said
they were going to do the day after the referendum, but seem unable to
actually carry out their promise).
Roger
2020-02-03 20:41:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit.
Yep.

This was due to the Euro being so weak against the dollar. Sterling tracks the dollar more than the Euro.

I know you don't believe in hard facts but here we go:

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=USD&view=10Y

Go Figure.

BTW, The lowest the pound has ever been was 1.02 in 2008 when the Europhile Gordon Brown was PM. A Euro was worth 1.11 when BJ came into office. When the UK left the EU it was worth 1.19....does that mean BJ's done a good job :D
Pamela
2020-02-03 21:38:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit.
Yep.
This was due to the Euro being so weak against the dollar. Sterling
tracks the dollar more than the Euro.
https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=USD&view=10Y
Go Figure.
BTW, The lowest the pound has ever been was 1.02 in 2008 when the
Europhile Gordon Brown was PM. A Euro was worth 1.11 when BJ came into
office. When the UK left the EU it was worth 1.19....does that mean BJ's
done a good job :D
Sterling against the dollar is largely unchanged for those two periods (which
you clipped out in your reply).

However the sterling-dollar exchange rate doesn't make any difference to the
declining sterling-Euro rate used for when we buy EU. That is what we are
talking about until you clipped out the discussion.

As I said, EU goods are now 15% more expensive to us than before Brexit.
Pamela
2020-02-04 19:42:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Sterling against the dollar is largely unchanged for those two periods
(which you clipped out in your reply).
However the sterling-dollar exchange rate doesn't make any difference
to the declining sterling-Euro rate used for when we buy EU.
Exchange rates 101: There is no absolute baseline.
If sterling/dollar remains largely unchaged, and the Euro drops against
the dollar, then sterling climbs against the Euro.
If this is due to UK factors, as you would suggest, then the UK's
importance on the world economic stage is superior to the US and EU :D
But then your whole argument could be thrown out with the bathwater if
we look at average tendecies with other currencies. The disruption is a
result of the 2008 crisis, the US pulled out quicker than the EU, the
'lump' was a transitory phase effect.
If you want to try read in stupid idealogical reasoning into exchange
rates, take a look at the Sterling Dollar rate since the UK joined the
EEC in 1973.....The average rate has HALVED over that period. And no
suprise considering the difference in GDP growth rate.
As I said, the sterling-dollar exchange rate which you introduced into this
discussion doesn't make any difference to the declining sterling-Euro rate
used for goods we buy from the EU.

EU goods have become 15% more expensive since the referendum on grounds of
exchange rates alone.
WWWWWWWWDWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
2020-02-03 19:08:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's
been worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15%
fall.
Now the pound falls further. What a mess!
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain
would not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade
deal, while Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless
he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
You don't get very far in negotiations by threatening people.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
FMurtz
2020-02-04 00:32:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further. What a mess!
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain would
not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
Waffle waffle waffle, wait a year.
JNugent
2020-02-06 04:00:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further. What a mess!
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain would
not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.

Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
Grikkbassturddo®™
2020-02-06 12:50:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further. What a mess!
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain would
not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
JNugent
2020-02-06 13:00:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further. What a mess!
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain would
not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50% more than
that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice that. No-one ever
suggested that we needed to have negative rates in order to "do well".
Stealing the value of savings by transferring it to borrowers is not a
moral policy and in any case can only persist for so long.
Grikbassturder®™
2020-02-06 13:49:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further. What a mess!
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain would
not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50% more than
that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice that. No-one ever
suggested that we needed to have negative rates in order to "do well".
Nobody other than savers ever suggested that those abnormally high
interest rates were a Good Thing™ either.
Post by JNugent
Stealing the value of savings by transferring it to borrowers is not a
moral policy and in any case can only persist for so long.
It's the new normal...ever since 2008. Your savings are being eaten
away by inflation. Get used to it.
Peeler
2020-02-06 14:55:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Feb 2020 05:49:03 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassturder®™", farted
Post by Grikbassturder®™
Nobody other than savers ever suggested that those abnormally high
interest rates were a Good Thing™ either.
Post by JNugent
Stealing the value of savings by transferring it to borrowers is not a
moral policy and in any case can only persist for so long.
It's the new normal...ever since 2008. Your savings are being eaten
away by inflation. Get used to it.
These senile idiots on uk.legal just won't catch on what's the matter with
you, eh, psychopath? And you are not even TRYING to hide it! LOL
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2020-02-06 14:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 13:00:32 +0000, JNugent, another brain dead,
Post by JNugent
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50% more than
that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice that. No-one ever
suggested that we needed to have negative rates in order to "do well".
Stealing the value of savings by transferring it to borrowers is not a
moral policy and in any case can only persist for so long.
Yeah, senile idiot, discuss economics with the resident pedophilic
psychopathic troll now! <tsk>
Fredxx
2020-02-06 20:46:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by JNugent
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit.  It's
been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that
Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50% more than
that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice that. No-one ever
suggested that we needed to have negative rates in order to "do well".
Stealing the value of savings by transferring it to borrowers is not a
moral policy and in any case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.

It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over their
needs to expect higher interest rates.

May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are more
closely aligned with poor investment in industry.

Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
JNugent
2020-02-07 00:01:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit.
It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that
Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50% more
than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice that. No-one
ever suggested that we needed to have negative rates in order to "do
well". Stealing the value of savings by transferring it to borrowers
is not a moral policy and in any case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over their
needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at least 2%
on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its implication is that a
cash saver should currently be able to get about 3.8% (tax paid or
tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that would be nice. Especially
since I spent a working and mortgage-paying life paying far higher rates
when savers were reaping up to 10%.
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are more
closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either one's own
money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides benefit to the
lender as well as the borrower.
abelard
2020-02-07 00:10:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit.
It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that
Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50% more
than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice that. No-one
ever suggested that we needed to have negative rates in order to "do
well". Stealing the value of savings by transferring it to borrowers
is not a moral policy and in any case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over their
needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at least 2%
on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its implication is that a
cash saver should currently be able to get about 3.8% (tax paid or
tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that would be nice. Especially
since I spent a working and mortgage-paying life paying far higher rates
when savers were reaping up to 10%.
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are more
closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either one's own
money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides benefit to the
lender as well as the borrower.
there is an interpretation of your comments

you want safe returns with zero risk...obviously
you can get better with higher risks

the money market is heavily loaded with risk averse
savers like you...esp now the far eastern savers
have joined a planetary market
you appear to be competing with the oriental safety
first savers
--
www.abelard.org
Fredxx
2020-02-07 00:19:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit.
It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that
Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50% more
than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice that. No-one
ever suggested that we needed to have negative rates in order to "do
well". Stealing the value of savings by transferring it to borrowers
is not a moral policy and in any case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over their
needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at least 2%
on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its implication is that a
cash saver should currently be able to get about 3.8% (tax paid or
tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that would be nice. Especially
since I spent a working and mortgage-paying life paying far higher rates
when savers were reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient value in
recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in interest rates
created a greater loss than any gain through interest receipts.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are more
closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either one's own
money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides benefit to the
lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than borrowers,
then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you upheld capitalism and
the balancing of supply and demand.

I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
Pamela
2020-02-07 11:20:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit.
It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU
trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that
Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade
deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-
john
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by Pamela
son-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50% more
than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice that. No-one
ever suggested that we needed to have negative rates in order to "do
well". Stealing the value of savings by transferring it to borrowers
is not a moral policy and in any case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over their
needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at least 2%
on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its implication is that a
cash saver should currently be able to get about 3.8% (tax paid or
tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that would be nice. Especially
since I spent a working and mortgage-paying life paying far higher
rates when savers were reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient value in
recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in interest rates
created a greater loss than any gain through interest receipts.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are more
closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either one's own
money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides benefit to the
lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than borrowers,
then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you upheld capitalism and
the balancing of supply and demand.
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
"Selfish" a judgemental word for self-interest.
JNugent
2020-02-07 11:56:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit.
It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that
Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50% more
than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice that. No-one
ever suggested that we needed to have negative rates in order to "do
well". Stealing the value of savings by transferring it to borrowers
is not a moral policy and in any case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over their
needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at least 2%
on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its implication is that a
cash saver should currently be able to get about 3.8% (tax paid or
tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that would be nice. Especially
since I spent a working and mortgage-paying life paying far higher
rates when savers were reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient value in
recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in interest rates
created a greater loss than any gain through interest receipts.
That is nonsense of the highest order. I have "acquired" nothing within
the potential value of my house. I cannot spend it. It will never be
mine to spend. Of all the tripe ever uttered in all the gin joints in
all the towns in all the world, that one - "you have acquired value in
your house" - is competing to be the most risible.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are more
closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
The MLR must, of necessity, be somewhat higher than the rate of
inflation (currently a little under 2%), otherwise the interest rate is
negative. The retail rate has to cover the costs of the banking process
and a return for investors.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either one's
own money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides benefit to
the lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than borrowers,
then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you upheld capitalism and
the balancing of supply and demand.
Then let the Treasury and the BoE keep out of it - particularly by
ceasing to pump billions of pounds out into the economy unsupported by
production. That is not the free market in operation. It is the veryt
definition of government interference.
Post by Fredxx
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
I am always prepared to support free markets. We don't have one at the
moment. it is heavily rigged in favour of borrowers (for no obvious
reason - it never used to be, especially when I was a borrower) and
against savers (the same savers, largely, who were paying 12% mortgages).
Fredxx
2020-02-07 12:23:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit.
It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that
Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50% more
than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice that.
No-one ever suggested that we needed to have negative rates in
order to "do well". Stealing the value of savings by transferring
it to borrowers is not a moral policy and in any case can only
persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over their
needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at least
2% on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its implication is that
a cash saver should currently be able to get about 3.8% (tax paid or
tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that would be nice. Especially
since I spent a working and mortgage-paying life paying far higher
rates when savers were reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient value
in recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in interest
rates created a greater loss than any gain through interest receipts.
That is nonsense of the highest order. I have "acquired" nothing within
the potential value of my house. I cannot spend it. It will never be
mine to spend. Of all the tripe ever uttered in all the gin joints in
all the towns in all the world, that one - "you have acquired value in
your house" - is competing to be the most risible.
Are you saying your house has no financial value? Saying it is risible
to point out that you're sitting on a high value asset that has
accumulated value over the same time interest rates are low is nothing
less than pathetic.

Are you really that myopic?
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are more
closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
The MLR must, of necessity, be somewhat higher than the rate of
inflation (currently a little under 2%), otherwise the interest rate is
negative. The retail rate has to cover the costs of the banking process
and a return for investors.
It does not have to be higher. You also have the capital to spend, or
would you rather high interest, and high inflation to erode your capital?
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either one's
own money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides benefit to
the lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than borrowers,
then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you upheld capitalism
and the balancing of supply and demand.
Then let the Treasury and the BoE keep out of it - particularly by
ceasing to pump billions of pounds out into the economy unsupported by
production. That is not the free market in operation. It is the veryt
definition of government interference.
There was a time when high street interest rates did deviate from MLR.

Nothing wrong with pumping money into the economy. A small amount of
inflation is good for the economy. It's also good for savers as the
interest rates would otherwise be lower.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
I am always prepared to support free markets. We don't have one at the
moment. it is heavily rigged in favour of borrowers (for no obvious
reason - it never used to be, especially when I was a borrower) and
against savers (the same savers, largely, who were paying 12% mortgages).
I'm glad you agree the market is in favour of borrowers. When a
government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they might prefer a
low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid more into the pot.....
JNugent
2020-02-07 12:38:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit.
It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that
Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50%
more than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice that.
No-one ever suggested that we needed to have negative rates in
order to "do well". Stealing the value of savings by transferring
it to borrowers is not a moral policy and in any case can only
persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over
their needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at least
2% on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its implication is
that a cash saver should currently be able to get about 3.8% (tax
paid or tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that would be nice.
Especially since I spent a working and mortgage-paying life paying
far higher rates when savers were reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient value
in recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in interest
rates created a greater loss than any gain through interest receipts.
That is nonsense of the highest order. I have "acquired" nothing
within the potential value of my house. I cannot spend it. It will
never be mine to spend. Of all the tripe ever uttered in all the gin
joints in all the towns in all the world, that one - "you have
acquired value in your house" - is competing to be the most risible.
Are you saying your house has no financial value?
You know full well that I am not saying that.

I am telling (or rather, reminding) you that the notional value of my
home is not relevant. I cannot liqidate the value of my home without
selling all or part of it. It is stupid to insist otherwise. Are you
going to insist otherwise?
Post by Fredxx
Saying it is risible
to point out that you're sitting on a high value asset that has
accumulated value over the same time interest rates are low is nothing
less than pathetic.
You are being exceptionally silly. You know that the notional value of
my home does not benefit me.
Post by Fredxx
Are you really that myopic?
Do you really not know what "myopic" means?
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are more
closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
The MLR must, of necessity, be somewhat higher than the rate of
inflation (currently a little under 2%), otherwise the interest rate
is negative. The retail rate has to cover the costs of the banking
process and a return for investors.
It does not have to be higher. You also have the capital to spend, or
would you rather high interest, and high inflation to erode your capital?
Higher interest rates would inhibit, not encourage, inflation.

It is surprising that you don't know that.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either one's
own money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides benefit to
the lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than
borrowers, then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you upheld
capitalism and the balancing of supply and demand.
Then let the Treasury and the BoE keep out of it - particularly by
ceasing to pump billions of pounds out into the economy unsupported by
production. That is not the free market in operation. It is the veryt
definition of government interference.
There was a time when high street interest rates did deviate from MLR.
Nothing wrong with pumping money into the economy. A small amount of
inflation is good for the economy. It's also good for savers as the
interest rates would otherwise be lower.
Interest rates would otherwise be significantly higher, not lower.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
I am always prepared to support free markets. We don't have one at the
moment. it is heavily rigged in favour of borrowers (for no obvious
reason - it never used to be, especially when I was a borrower) and
against savers (the same savers, largely, who were paying 12% mortgages).
I'm glad you agree the market is in favour of borrowers.
"Agree"?

I emphatically *state* it. You have not done so. At least, not until now.
Post by Fredxx
When a
government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they might prefer a
low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Fredxx
2020-02-07 13:14:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 04:00:07 +0000, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit.
It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that
Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade
deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50%
more than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice
that. No-one ever suggested that we needed to have negative rates
in order to "do well". Stealing the value of savings by
transferring it to borrowers is not a moral policy and in any
case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over
their needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at least
2% on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its implication is
that a cash saver should currently be able to get about 3.8% (tax
paid or tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that would be nice.
Especially since I spent a working and mortgage-paying life paying
far higher rates when savers were reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient value
in recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in interest
rates created a greater loss than any gain through interest receipts.
That is nonsense of the highest order. I have "acquired" nothing
within the potential value of my house. I cannot spend it. It will
never be mine to spend. Of all the tripe ever uttered in all the gin
joints in all the towns in all the world, that one - "you have
acquired value in your house" - is competing to be the most risible.
Are you saying your house has no financial value?
You know full well that I am not saying that.
I am telling (or rather, reminding) you that the notional value of my
home is not relevant. I cannot liqidate the value of my home without
selling all or part of it. It is stupid to insist otherwise. Are you
going to insist otherwise?
Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options. If you
discard these options it will be through narrow mindedness.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Saying it is risible to point out that you're sitting on a high value
asset that has accumulated value over the same time interest rates are
low is nothing less than pathetic.
You are being exceptionally silly. You know that the notional value of
my home does not benefit me.
You are bing even sillier if you don't recognise the value of your home.
Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options.

If you become incapacitated it might also determine the choice of future
care facility.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Are you really that myopic?
Do you really not know what "myopic" means?
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are more
closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
The MLR must, of necessity, be somewhat higher than the rate of
inflation (currently a little under 2%), otherwise the interest rate
is negative. The retail rate has to cover the costs of the banking
process and a return for investors.
It does not have to be higher. You also have the capital to spend, or
would you rather high interest, and high inflation to erode your capital?
Higher interest rates would inhibit, not encourage, inflation.
It is surprising that you don't know that.
It is not surprising you don't know that there are other influences that
govern inflation. The value of the GBP for one.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either one's
own money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides benefit
to the lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than
borrowers, then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you upheld
capitalism and the balancing of supply and demand.
Then let the Treasury and the BoE keep out of it - particularly by
ceasing to pump billions of pounds out into the economy unsupported
by production. That is not the free market in operation. It is the
veryt definition of government interference.
There was a time when high street interest rates did deviate from MLR.
Nothing wrong with pumping money into the economy. A small amount of
inflation is good for the economy. It's also good for savers as the
interest rates would otherwise be lower.
Interest rates would otherwise be significantly higher, not lower.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
I am always prepared to support free markets. We don't have one at
the moment. it is heavily rigged in favour of borrowers (for no
obvious reason - it never used to be, especially when I was a
borrower) and against savers (the same savers, largely, who were
paying 12% mortgages).
I'm glad you agree the market is in favour of borrowers.
"Agree"?
I emphatically *state* it. You have not done so. At least, not until now.
Good, the market can only be good. You have done well in the past. It
usually favours one or the other depending on perspective.

Best put your money in alternative places for higher yield. Just be
aware of the consequences. The choice is yours. If you choose to put in
low interest rate options then that is your choice and best to stop
whingeing.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they might
prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid more into
the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
That sounds like a scam from redirection of income, presumably away from
your parents. Were you born with a silver or gold spoon in your mouth?

Your generation still didn't and probably still don't pay enough.

All you can do now is spend hours on Usenet.
JNugent
2020-02-07 13:38:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 04:00:07 +0000, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before
Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU
trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned
that Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade
deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will
fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50%
more than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice
that. No-one ever suggested that we needed to have negative
rates in order to "do well". Stealing the value of savings by
transferring it to borrowers is not a moral policy and in any
case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over
their needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at
least 2% on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its
implication is that a cash saver should currently be able to get
about 3.8% (tax paid or tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that
would be nice. Especially since I spent a working and
mortgage-paying life paying far higher rates when savers were
reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient
value in recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in
interest rates created a greater loss than any gain through
interest receipts.
That is nonsense of the highest order. I have "acquired" nothing
within the potential value of my house. I cannot spend it. It will
never be mine to spend. Of all the tripe ever uttered in all the gin
joints in all the towns in all the world, that one - "you have
acquired value in your house" - is competing to be the most risible.
Are you saying your house has no financial value?
You know full well that I am not saying that.
I am telling (or rather, reminding) you that the notional value of my
home is not relevant. I cannot liqidate the value of my home without
selling all or part of it. It is stupid to insist otherwise. Are you
going to insist otherwise?
Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options. If you
discard these options it will be through narrow mindedness.
That's your best yet.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Saying it is risible to point out that you're sitting on a high value
asset that has accumulated value over the same time interest rates
are low is nothing less than pathetic.
You are being exceptionally silly. You know that the notional value of
my home does not benefit me.
You are bing even sillier if you don't recognise the value of your home.
Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options.
Are you going to even try to be serious?
Post by Fredxx
If you become incapacitated it might also determine the choice of future
care facility.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Are you really that myopic?
Do you really not know what "myopic" means?
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are
more closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
The MLR must, of necessity, be somewhat higher than the rate of
inflation (currently a little under 2%), otherwise the interest rate
is negative. The retail rate has to cover the costs of the banking
process and a return for investors.
It does not have to be higher. You also have the capital to spend, or
would you rather high interest, and high inflation to erode your capital?
Higher interest rates would inhibit, not encourage, inflation.
It is surprising that you don't know that.
It is not surprising you don't know that there are other influences that
govern inflation. The value of the GBP for one.
Ah... I see your problem.

You have an idea that these concepts are related (and they are), but you
don't know *how* they are related.

There's no shame in that, necessarily.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either
one's own money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides
benefit to the lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than
borrowers, then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you upheld
capitalism and the balancing of supply and demand.
Then let the Treasury and the BoE keep out of it - particularly by
ceasing to pump billions of pounds out into the economy unsupported
by production. That is not the free market in operation. It is the
veryt definition of government interference.
There was a time when high street interest rates did deviate from MLR.
Nothing wrong with pumping money into the economy. A small amount of
inflation is good for the economy. It's also good for savers as the
interest rates would otherwise be lower.
Interest rates would otherwise be significantly higher, not lower.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
I am always prepared to support free markets. We don't have one at
the moment. it is heavily rigged in favour of borrowers (for no
obvious reason - it never used to be, especially when I was a
borrower) and against savers (the same savers, largely, who were
paying 12% mortgages).
I'm glad you agree the market is in favour of borrowers.
"Agree"?
I emphatically *state* it. You have not done so. At least, not until now.
Good, the market can only be good. You have done well in the past. It
usually favours one or the other depending on perspective.
Best put your money in alternative places for higher yield. Just be
aware of the consequences. The choice is yours. If you choose to put in
low interest rate options then that is your choice and best to stop
whingeing.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
That sounds like a scam from redirection of income, presumably away from
your parents. Were you born with a silver or gold spoon in your mouth?
That was the standard income tax rate under Wilson (actually 8s/3d in
the pound).

And you didn't know that.
Post by Fredxx
Your generation still didn't and probably still don't pay enough.
Even though I was paying income tax - as a teenager - at a rate higher
then the topmost rate now payable by a millennial snowflake?
Post by Fredxx
All you can do now is spend hours on Usenet.
Greekbastard®™
2020-02-07 14:16:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 04:00:07 +0000, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before
Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU
trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned
that Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade
deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will
fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50%
more than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice
that. No-one ever suggested that we needed to have negative
rates in order to "do well". Stealing the value of savings by
transferring it to borrowers is not a moral policy and in any
case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over
their needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at
least 2% on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its
implication is that a cash saver should currently be able to get
about 3.8% (tax paid or tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that
would be nice. Especially since I spent a working and
mortgage-paying life paying far higher rates when savers were
reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient
value in recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in
interest rates created a greater loss than any gain through
interest receipts.
That is nonsense of the highest order. I have "acquired" nothing
within the potential value of my house. I cannot spend it. It will
never be mine to spend. Of all the tripe ever uttered in all the gin
joints in all the towns in all the world, that one - "you have
acquired value in your house" - is competing to be the most risible.
Are you saying your house has no financial value?
You know full well that I am not saying that.
I am telling (or rather, reminding) you that the notional value of my
home is not relevant. I cannot liqidate the value of my home without
selling all or part of it. It is stupid to insist otherwise. Are you
going to insist otherwise?
Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options. If you
discard these options it will be through narrow mindedness.
That's your best yet.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Saying it is risible to point out that you're sitting on a high value
asset that has accumulated value over the same time interest rates
are low is nothing less than pathetic.
You are being exceptionally silly. You know that the notional value of
my home does not benefit me.
You are bing even sillier if you don't recognise the value of your home.
Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options.
Are you going to even try to be serious?
Post by Fredxx
If you become incapacitated it might also determine the choice of future
care facility.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Are you really that myopic?
Do you really not know what "myopic" means?
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are
more closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
The MLR must, of necessity, be somewhat higher than the rate of
inflation (currently a little under 2%), otherwise the interest rate
is negative. The retail rate has to cover the costs of the banking
process and a return for investors.
It does not have to be higher. You also have the capital to spend, or
would you rather high interest, and high inflation to erode your capital?
Higher interest rates would inhibit, not encourage, inflation.
It is surprising that you don't know that.
It is not surprising you don't know that there are other influences that
govern inflation. The value of the GBP for one.
Ah... I see your problem.
You have an idea that these concepts are related (and they are), but you
don't know *how* they are related.
There's no shame in that, necessarily.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either
one's own money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides
benefit to the lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than
borrowers, then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you upheld
capitalism and the balancing of supply and demand.
Then let the Treasury and the BoE keep out of it - particularly by
ceasing to pump billions of pounds out into the economy unsupported
by production. That is not the free market in operation. It is the
veryt definition of government interference.
There was a time when high street interest rates did deviate from MLR.
Nothing wrong with pumping money into the economy. A small amount of
inflation is good for the economy. It's also good for savers as the
interest rates would otherwise be lower.
Interest rates would otherwise be significantly higher, not lower.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
I am always prepared to support free markets. We don't have one at
the moment. it is heavily rigged in favour of borrowers (for no
obvious reason - it never used to be, especially when I was a
borrower) and against savers (the same savers, largely, who were
paying 12% mortgages).
I'm glad you agree the market is in favour of borrowers.
"Agree"?
I emphatically *state* it. You have not done so. At least, not until now.
Good, the market can only be good. You have done well in the past. It
usually favours one or the other depending on perspective.
Best put your money in alternative places for higher yield. Just be
aware of the consequences. The choice is yours. If you choose to put in
low interest rate options then that is your choice and best to stop
whingeing.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
That sounds like a scam from redirection of income, presumably away from
your parents. Were you born with a silver or gold spoon in your mouth?
That was the standard income tax rate under Wilson (actually 8s/3d in
the pound).
And you didn't know that.
Post by Fredxx
Your generation still didn't and probably still don't pay enough.
Even though I was paying income tax - as a teenager - at a rate higher
then the topmost rate now payable by a millennial snowflake?
On *significantly* lower earnings. There you go.
Peeler
2020-02-07 14:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 06:16:43 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
That was the standard income tax rate under Wilson (actually 8s/3d in
the pound).
And you didn't know that.
Post by Fredxx
Your generation still didn't and probably still don't pay enough.
Even though I was paying income tax - as a teenager - at a rate higher
then the topmost rate now payable by a millennial snowflake?
On *significantly* lower earnings. There you go.
Did you EVER pay ANY taxes on the "income" from your peddling, you typical
peddling serb peasant (see sig)?
--
Dumb serb peasant Razovic trying to peddle used satellite dishes on Usenet
LOL:
"If you are in London or nearby, please e-mail me (***@callnetuk.com) - I
may have one available."
JNugent
2020-02-08 16:05:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
That sounds like a scam from redirection of income, presumably away from
your parents. Were you born with a silver or gold spoon in your mouth?
That was the standard income tax rate under Wilson (actually 8s/3d in
the pound).
And you didn't know that.
Post by Fredxx
Your generation still didn't and probably still don't pay enough.
Even though I was paying income tax - as a teenager - at a rate higher
then the topmost rate now payable by a millennial snowflake?
On *significantly* lower earnings. There you go.
So what? Everything is relative.

The semi-official snowflake fantasy narrative nowadays is that we were
all buying houses at 16.
Greekbastard®™
2020-02-08 16:33:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
That sounds like a scam from redirection of income, presumably away from
your parents. Were you born with a silver or gold spoon in your mouth?
That was the standard income tax rate under Wilson (actually 8s/3d in
the pound).
And you didn't know that.
Post by Fredxx
Your generation still didn't and probably still don't pay enough.
Even though I was paying income tax - as a teenager - at a rate higher
then the topmost rate now payable by a millennial snowflake?
On *significantly* lower earnings. There you go.
So what? Everything is relative.
So how much tax DID you pay on a wage of 15s 6d a week?
Post by JNugent
The semi-official snowflake fantasy narrative nowadays is that we were
all buying houses at 16.
Not even buying cars, apparently.
JNugent
2020-02-08 16:48:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
That sounds like a scam from redirection of income, presumably away from
your parents. Were you born with a silver or gold spoon in your mouth?
That was the standard income tax rate under Wilson (actually 8s/3d in
the pound).
And you didn't know that.
Post by Fredxx
Your generation still didn't and probably still don't pay enough.
Even though I was paying income tax - as a teenager - at a rate higher
then the topmost rate now payable by a millennial snowflake?
On *significantly* lower earnings. There you go.
So what? Everything is relative.
So how much tax DID you pay on a wage of 15s 6d a week?
I never earned as little as that.
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
The semi-official snowflake fantasy narrative nowadays is that we were
all buying houses at 16.
Not even buying cars, apparently.
Quite correct. The 1960s, for a lot of people, were still little
different from how the 1940s had been.
Greekbastard®™
2020-02-08 17:00:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
That sounds like a scam from redirection of income, presumably away from
your parents. Were you born with a silver or gold spoon in your mouth?
That was the standard income tax rate under Wilson (actually 8s/3d in
the pound).
And you didn't know that.
Post by Fredxx
Your generation still didn't and probably still don't pay enough.
Even though I was paying income tax - as a teenager - at a rate higher
then the topmost rate now payable by a millennial snowflake?
On *significantly* lower earnings. There you go.
So what? Everything is relative.
So how much tax DID you pay on a wage of 15s 6d a week?
I never earned as little as that.
Well, it couldn't have been much more than that, just out of school.
So the amount of tax you did pay at 42% was actually quite negligible.
Post by JNugent
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
The semi-official snowflake fantasy narrative nowadays is that we were
all buying houses at 16.
Not even buying cars, apparently.
Quite correct. The 1960s, for a lot of people, were still little
different from how the 1940s had been.
Improving, but still in the shadow of wartime austerity.
Until Carnaby Street came along.
Peeler
2020-02-08 18:17:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 09:00:56 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Greekbastard®™
Improving, but still in the shadow of wartime austerity.
Until Carnaby Street came along.
NOTHING has EVER improved for you, psychopath! You were a perverted
psychopath back then, and you are a perverted psychopath now! It's genetic
with you!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"A lowering of the age of consent to reflect the rate at which today's
youngsters 'mature'."
MID: <gKNUE.1374684$***@usenetxs.com>
JNugent
2020-02-09 00:22:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Greekbastard®™
So how much tax DID you pay on a wage of 15s 6d a week?
I never earned as little as that.
Well, it couldn't have been much more than that, just out of school.
So the amount of tax you did pay at 42% was actually quite negligible.
I earned several hundred percent more than the amount you quote.
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
The semi-official snowflake fantasy narrative nowadays is that we were
all buying houses at 16.
Not even buying cars, apparently.
Quite correct. The 1960s, for a lot of people, were still little
different from how the 1940s had been.
Improving, but still in the shadow of wartime austerity.
Until Carnaby Street came along.
Peeler
2020-02-09 09:52:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 00:22:23 +0000, JNugent, the notorious, troll-feeding,
Post by JNugent
I earned several hundred percent more than the amount you quote.
You are certainly a hundred percent troll-feeding senile asshole!
Greekbasturd®™
2020-02-09 12:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Greekbastard®™
So how much tax DID you pay on a wage of 15s 6d a week?
I never earned as little as that.
Well, it couldn't have been much more than that, just out of school.
So the amount of tax you did pay at 42% was actually quite negligible.
I earned several hundred percent more than the amount you quote.
Even 500% of the amount I quoted is still only £3 17s 6d a week. What
was the tax on THAT?

Remind me...what was the Personal Allowance (if any) back then?
Peeler
2020-02-08 18:13:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 16:48:33 +0000, JNugent, the notorious, troll-feeding,
Post by JNugent
Quite correct. The 1960s, for a lot of people, were still little
different from how the 1940s had been.
You remember the 1940s, troll-feeding senile idiot???? I just KNEW you were
a senile idiot! LOL
Peeler
2020-02-08 16:34:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 16:05:37 +0000, JNugent, the notorious, troll-feeding,
Post by JNugent
Post by Greekbastard®™
On *significantly* lower earnings. There you go.
So what? Everything is relative.
Indeed! And in relation to the psychopathic perverted troll, you are a
troll-feeding senile idiot!
Pamela
2020-02-08 18:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
That sounds like a scam from redirection of income, presumably away from
your parents. Were you born with a silver or gold spoon in your mouth?
That was the standard income tax rate under Wilson (actually 8s/3d in
the pound).
And you didn't know that.
Post by Fredxx
Your generation still didn't and probably still don't pay enough.
Even though I was paying income tax - as a teenager - at a rate higher
then the topmost rate now payable by a millennial snowflake?
On *significantly* lower earnings. There you go.
So what? Everything is relative.
The semi-official snowflake fantasy narrative nowadays is that we were
all buying houses at 16.
Oh my, I remember those years of scrimping & saving and living a life far
less comfortable than Millenials require. Don't get me started!
JNugent
2020-02-09 00:24:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
That sounds like a scam from redirection of income, presumably away from
your parents. Were you born with a silver or gold spoon in your mouth?
That was the standard income tax rate under Wilson (actually 8s/3d in
the pound).
And you didn't know that.
Post by Fredxx
Your generation still didn't and probably still don't pay enough.
Even though I was paying income tax - as a teenager - at a rate higher
then the topmost rate now payable by a millennial snowflake?
On *significantly* lower earnings. There you go.
So what? Everything is relative.
The semi-official snowflake fantasy narrative nowadays is that we were
all buying houses at 16.
Oh my, I remember those years of scrimping & saving and living a life far
less comfortable than Millenials require. Don't get me started!
Quite so.
Farmer Giles
2020-02-07 16:52:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 04:00:07 +0000, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before
Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU
trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned
that Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade
deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless
he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will
fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50%
more than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice
that. No-one ever suggested that we needed to have negative
rates in order to "do well". Stealing the value of savings by
transferring it to borrowers is not a moral policy and in any
case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over
their needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is
the inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at
least 2% on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its
implication is that a cash saver should currently be able to get
about 3.8% (tax paid or tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that
would be nice. Especially since I spent a working and
mortgage-paying life paying far higher rates when savers were
reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient
value in recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in
interest rates created a greater loss than any gain through
interest receipts.
That is nonsense of the highest order. I have "acquired" nothing
within the potential value of my house. I cannot spend it. It will
never be mine to spend. Of all the tripe ever uttered in all the
gin joints in all the towns in all the world, that one - "you have
acquired value in your house" - is competing to be the most risible.
Are you saying your house has no financial value?
You know full well that I am not saying that.
I am telling (or rather, reminding) you that the notional value of my
home is not relevant. I cannot liqidate the value of my home without
selling all or part of it. It is stupid to insist otherwise. Are you
going to insist otherwise?
Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options. If
you discard these options it will be through narrow mindedness.
That's your best yet.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Saying it is risible to point out that you're sitting on a high
value asset that has accumulated value over the same time interest
rates are low is nothing less than pathetic.
You are being exceptionally silly. You know that the notional value
of my home does not benefit me.
You are bing even sillier if you don't recognise the value of your
home. Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options.
Are you going to even try to be serious?
Post by Fredxx
If you become incapacitated it might also determine the choice of
future care facility.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Are you really that myopic?
Do you really not know what "myopic" means?
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are
more closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
The MLR must, of necessity, be somewhat higher than the rate of
inflation (currently a little under 2%), otherwise the interest
rate is negative. The retail rate has to cover the costs of the
banking process and a return for investors.
It does not have to be higher. You also have the capital to spend,
or would you rather high interest, and high inflation to erode your
capital?
Higher interest rates would inhibit, not encourage, inflation.
It is surprising that you don't know that.
It is not surprising you don't know that there are other influences
that govern inflation. The value of the GBP for one.
Ah... I see your problem.
You have an idea that these concepts are related (and they are), but you
don't know *how* they are related.
There's no shame in that, necessarily.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either
one's own money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides
benefit to the lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than
borrowers, then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you
upheld capitalism and the balancing of supply and demand.
Then let the Treasury and the BoE keep out of it - particularly by
ceasing to pump billions of pounds out into the economy unsupported
by production. That is not the free market in operation. It is the
veryt definition of government interference.
There was a time when high street interest rates did deviate from MLR.
Nothing wrong with pumping money into the economy. A small amount of
inflation is good for the economy. It's also good for savers as the
interest rates would otherwise be lower.
Interest rates would otherwise be significantly higher, not lower.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
I am always prepared to support free markets. We don't have one at
the moment. it is heavily rigged in favour of borrowers (for no
obvious reason - it never used to be, especially when I was a
borrower) and against savers (the same savers, largely, who were
paying 12% mortgages).
I'm glad you agree the market is in favour of borrowers.
"Agree"?
I emphatically *state* it. You have not done so. At least, not until now.
Good, the market can only be good. You have done well in the past. It
usually favours one or the other depending on perspective.
Best put your money in alternative places for higher yield. Just be
aware of the consequences. The choice is yours. If you choose to put
in low interest rate options then that is your choice and best to stop
whingeing.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Only for a fairly brief period, I recall that is was generally around
33% - do you have any figures available? Also, of course, NI rates were
lower and there was no VAT. It should also be remembered that many
things were free, or cost very little, that have to be paid for
nowadays: Prescriptions, NHS dental treatment, hospital parking, MIRAS,
etc.

Couple that with no university tuition fees and available grants, and I
think we did rather well in those days. Higher earners paid much more
tax than now, of course. But that's down to Thatcher's policy of taking
money from the poor to give to the rich.
JNugent
2020-02-07 17:39:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 04:00:07 +0000, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before
Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU
trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned
that Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade
deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless
he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will
fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50%
more than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice
that. No-one ever suggested that we needed to have negative
rates in order to "do well". Stealing the value of savings by
transferring it to borrowers is not a moral policy and in any
case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over
their needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is
the inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of
at least 2% on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its
implication is that a cash saver should currently be able to get
about 3.8% (tax paid or tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than
that would be nice. Especially since I spent a working and
mortgage-paying life paying far higher rates when savers were
reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient
value in recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in
interest rates created a greater loss than any gain through
interest receipts.
That is nonsense of the highest order. I have "acquired" nothing
within the potential value of my house. I cannot spend it. It will
never be mine to spend. Of all the tripe ever uttered in all the
gin joints in all the towns in all the world, that one - "you have
acquired value in your house" - is competing to be the most risible.
Are you saying your house has no financial value?
You know full well that I am not saying that.
I am telling (or rather, reminding) you that the notional value of
my home is not relevant. I cannot liqidate the value of my home
without selling all or part of it. It is stupid to insist otherwise.
Are you going to insist otherwise?
Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options. If
you discard these options it will be through narrow mindedness.
That's your best yet.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Saying it is risible to point out that you're sitting on a high
value asset that has accumulated value over the same time interest
rates are low is nothing less than pathetic.
You are being exceptionally silly. You know that the notional value
of my home does not benefit me.
You are bing even sillier if you don't recognise the value of your
home. Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options.
Are you going to even try to be serious?
Post by Fredxx
If you become incapacitated it might also determine the choice of
future care facility.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Are you really that myopic?
Do you really not know what "myopic" means?
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are
more closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
The MLR must, of necessity, be somewhat higher than the rate of
inflation (currently a little under 2%), otherwise the interest
rate is negative. The retail rate has to cover the costs of the
banking process and a return for investors.
It does not have to be higher. You also have the capital to spend,
or would you rather high interest, and high inflation to erode your
capital?
Higher interest rates would inhibit, not encourage, inflation.
It is surprising that you don't know that.
It is not surprising you don't know that there are other influences
that govern inflation. The value of the GBP for one.
Ah... I see your problem.
You have an idea that these concepts are related (and they are), but
you don't know *how* they are related.
There's no shame in that, necessarily.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either
one's own money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides
benefit to the lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than
borrowers, then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you
upheld capitalism and the balancing of supply and demand.
Then let the Treasury and the BoE keep out of it - particularly by
ceasing to pump billions of pounds out into the economy
unsupported by production. That is not the free market in
operation. It is the veryt definition of government interference.
There was a time when high street interest rates did deviate from MLR.
Nothing wrong with pumping money into the economy. A small amount
of inflation is good for the economy. It's also good for savers as
the interest rates would otherwise be lower.
Interest rates would otherwise be significantly higher, not lower.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
I am always prepared to support free markets. We don't have one at
the moment. it is heavily rigged in favour of borrowers (for no
obvious reason - it never used to be, especially when I was a
borrower) and against savers (the same savers, largely, who were
paying 12% mortgages).
I'm glad you agree the market is in favour of borrowers.
"Agree"?
I emphatically *state* it. You have not done so. At least, not until now.
Good, the market can only be good. You have done well in the past. It
usually favours one or the other depending on perspective.
Best put your money in alternative places for higher yield. Just be
aware of the consequences. The choice is yours. If you choose to put
in low interest rate options then that is your choice and best to
stop whingeing.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Only for a fairly brief period, I recall that is was generally around
33% - do you have any figures available?
There's a page from Hansard which records Gerald Nabarro's 1966 attempt
to reduce the rate from 8s/3d to a lower figure.
Post by Farmer Giles
Also, of course, NI rates were lower
There was no NI "rate". National Insurance was paid at a flat rate
(depending on the worker's circumstances).
Post by Farmer Giles
and there was no VAT.
We had Purchase Tax at 33% (added to the price of almost anything worth
having). PT was even carried over into car-pricing as "Special Car Tax".
It was eventually abolished (at last) in the mid-90s by Major's
government. Until then, SPT was added to the price of a car before VAT
was added.
Post by Farmer Giles
It should also be remembered that many
things were free, or cost very little, that have to be paid for
nowadays: Prescriptions, NHS dental treatment, hospital parking, MIRAS,
etc.
Prescriptions were not free and had not been so since about 1950 (Harold
Wilson famously resigned from Attlee's government over the introduction
of prescription charges).

NHS dental treatment has never been free as far as I am aware. Its
connection with the NHS was tenuous, then as now.

"Hospital parking", eh? That's a good 'un. I wonder how many of us were
able to benefit from that? Certainly not us.
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available grants, and I
think we did rather well in those days.
Some of us did. Most students in HE today would not have been able to
(because not intelligent enough to) get into a university in 1966.
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more
tax than now, of course. But that's down to Thatcher's policy of taking
money from the poor to give to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Farmer Giles
2020-02-07 19:03:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 04:00:07 +0000, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before
Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a
15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU
trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned
that Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit
trade deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless
he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will
fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about)
50% more than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about)
twice that. No-one ever suggested that we needed to have
negative rates in order to "do well". Stealing the value of
savings by transferring it to borrowers is not a moral policy
and in any case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over
their needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is
the inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of
at least 2% on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its
implication is that a cash saver should currently be able to
get about 3.8% (tax paid or tax-free in an ISA). A bit more
than that would be nice. Especially since I spent a working and
mortgage-paying life paying far higher rates when savers were
reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient
value in recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in
interest rates created a greater loss than any gain through
interest receipts.
That is nonsense of the highest order. I have "acquired" nothing
within the potential value of my house. I cannot spend it. It
will never be mine to spend. Of all the tripe ever uttered in all
the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, that one - "you
have acquired value in your house" - is competing to be the most
risible.
Are you saying your house has no financial value?
You know full well that I am not saying that.
I am telling (or rather, reminding) you that the notional value of
my home is not relevant. I cannot liqidate the value of my home
without selling all or part of it. It is stupid to insist
otherwise. Are you going to insist otherwise?
Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options. If
you discard these options it will be through narrow mindedness.
That's your best yet.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Saying it is risible to point out that you're sitting on a high
value asset that has accumulated value over the same time interest
rates are low is nothing less than pathetic.
You are being exceptionally silly. You know that the notional value
of my home does not benefit me.
You are bing even sillier if you don't recognise the value of your
home. Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options.
Are you going to even try to be serious?
Post by Fredxx
If you become incapacitated it might also determine the choice of
future care facility.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Are you really that myopic?
Do you really not know what "myopic" means?
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are
more closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
The MLR must, of necessity, be somewhat higher than the rate of
inflation (currently a little under 2%), otherwise the interest
rate is negative. The retail rate has to cover the costs of the
banking process and a return for investors.
It does not have to be higher. You also have the capital to spend,
or would you rather high interest, and high inflation to erode
your capital?
Higher interest rates would inhibit, not encourage, inflation.
It is surprising that you don't know that.
It is not surprising you don't know that there are other influences
that govern inflation. The value of the GBP for one.
Ah... I see your problem.
You have an idea that these concepts are related (and they are), but
you don't know *how* they are related.
There's no shame in that, necessarily.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either
one's own money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides
benefit to the lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than
borrowers, then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you
upheld capitalism and the balancing of supply and demand.
Then let the Treasury and the BoE keep out of it - particularly
by ceasing to pump billions of pounds out into the economy
unsupported by production. That is not the free market in
operation. It is the veryt definition of government interference.
There was a time when high street interest rates did deviate from MLR.
Nothing wrong with pumping money into the economy. A small amount
of inflation is good for the economy. It's also good for savers as
the interest rates would otherwise be lower.
Interest rates would otherwise be significantly higher, not lower.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
I am always prepared to support free markets. We don't have one
at the moment. it is heavily rigged in favour of borrowers (for
no obvious reason - it never used to be, especially when I was a
borrower) and against savers (the same savers, largely, who were
paying 12% mortgages).
I'm glad you agree the market is in favour of borrowers.
"Agree"?
I emphatically *state* it. You have not done so. At least, not until now.
Good, the market can only be good. You have done well in the past.
It usually favours one or the other depending on perspective.
Best put your money in alternative places for higher yield. Just be
aware of the consequences. The choice is yours. If you choose to put
in low interest rate options then that is your choice and best to
stop whingeing.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Only for a fairly brief period, I recall that is was generally around
33% - do you have any figures available?
There's a page from Hansard which records Gerald Nabarro's 1966 attempt
to reduce the rate from 8s/3d to a lower figure.
That was not the question I asked you, do you have figures for the 1960s?

BTW, how old were you in 1966?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Also, of course, NI rates were lower
There was no NI "rate". National Insurance was paid at a flat rate
(depending on the worker's circumstances).
Of course there was a rate, stop being silly. There was a laid down NI
contribution rate, whether it was a flat rate or not is irrelevant.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
and there was no VAT.
We had Purchase Tax at 33% (added to the price of almost anything worth
having). PT was even carried over into car-pricing as "Special Car Tax".
It was eventually abolished (at last) in the mid-90s by Major's
government. Until then, SPT was added to the price of a car before VAT
was added.
It wasn't levied on services, nor second-hand goods.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
It should also be remembered that many things were free, or cost very
little, that have to be paid for nowadays: Prescriptions, NHS dental
treatment, hospital parking, MIRAS, etc.
Prescriptions were not free and had not been so since about 1950 (Harold
Wilson famously resigned from Attlee's government over the introduction
of prescription charges).
I said free or cost very little. I recall something like two shillings
in the early 1960s - but they were free for a spell a few years later.
Post by JNugent
NHS dental treatment has never been free as far as I am aware. Its
connection with the NHS was tenuous, then as now.
I can't remember the exact details but I'm fairly sure that NHS
dentistry cost little or nothing at times in the 1960s or 70s.
Post by JNugent
"Hospital parking", eh? That's a good 'un. I wonder how many of us were
able to benefit from that? Certainly not us.
What do you mean, did you or your family never visit anyone in hospital
during 1960/70s?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available grants, and
I think we did rather well in those days.
Some of us did. Most students in HE today would not have been able to
(because not intelligent enough to) get into a university in 1966.
Well you apparently got in, so that disproves that claim for a start -
but what on earth has that piece of nonsense got to do with university
grants and no tuition fees?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's down
to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.

Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I bet
you think that all those parasites in the City in the 'loadsamoney' days
of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family silver, were all
dealing in their 'own money'.
Pamela
2020-02-07 19:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
TRIMMED
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's down
to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I bet
you think that all those parasites in the City in the 'loadsamoney' days
of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family silver, were all
dealing in their 'own money'.
If "someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively", then whose money
is it if it's not theirs? I'm puzzled.
Farmer Giles
2020-02-07 19:23:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
TRIMMED
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's down
to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I bet
you think that all those parasites in the City in the 'loadsamoney' days
of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family silver, were all
dealing in their 'own money'.
If "someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively", then whose money
is it if it's not theirs? I'm puzzled.
"John Bercow has been quietly boosting his salary with a series of pay
rises - despite Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn turning down the extra money.

The Speaker has become the highest paid politician in Britain over
recent years, with his total salary now well over £152,000 - nearly
£2,000 more than the PM.

He is set to move further ahead this year as another pay rise kicks in
that Mrs May and ministers have refused."

Daily Mail 2018


Now I wonder whose money that was he was getting?
Pamela
2020-02-07 22:42:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
TRIMMED
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I bet
you think that all those parasites in the City in the 'loadsamoney'
days of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family silver, were all
dealing in their 'own money'.
If "someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively", then whose
money is it if it's not theirs? I'm puzzled.
"John Bercow has been quietly boosting his salary with a series of pay
rises - despite Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn turning down the extra money.
The Speaker has become the highest paid politician in Britain over
recent years, with his total salary now well over £152,000 - nearly
£2,000 more than the PM.
He is set to move further ahead this year as another pay rise kicks in
that Mrs May and ministers have refused."
Daily Mail 2018
Now I wonder whose money that was he was getting?
You may argue whether or not he deserved it, but if Bercow received the
money as pay then surely the money is his.

You're not allowed to dip your hand into his pocket and retrieve whatever
money you reckon he doesn't deserve. Where would that end?
Farmer Giles
2020-02-08 09:17:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
TRIMMED
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I bet
you think that all those parasites in the City in the 'loadsamoney'
days of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family silver, were all
dealing in their 'own money'.
If "someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively", then whose
money is it if it's not theirs? I'm puzzled.
"John Bercow has been quietly boosting his salary with a series of pay
rises - despite Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn turning down the extra money.
The Speaker has become the highest paid politician in Britain over
recent years, with his total salary now well over £152,000 - nearly
£2,000 more than the PM.
He is set to move further ahead this year as another pay rise kicks in
that Mrs May and ministers have refused."
Daily Mail 2018
Now I wonder whose money that was he was getting?
You may argue whether or not he deserved it, but if Bercow received the
money as pay then surely the money is his.
You're not allowed to dip your hand into his pocket and retrieve whatever
money you reckon he doesn't deserve. Where would that end?
Well he dipped his hand in our pockets, as did many of his fellow MPs
with their bogus expenses claims.
Fredxx
2020-02-08 12:19:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
   TRIMMED
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I bet
you think that all those parasites in the City in the 'loadsamoney'
days of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family silver, were all
dealing in their 'own money'.
If "someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively", then whose
money is it if it's not theirs?  I'm puzzled.
"John Bercow has been quietly boosting his salary with a series of pay
rises - despite Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn turning down the extra money.
The Speaker has become the highest paid politician in Britain over
recent years, with his total salary now well over £152,000 - nearly
£2,000 more than the PM.
He is set to move further ahead this year as another pay rise kicks in
that Mrs May and ministers have refused."
Daily Mail 2018
Now I wonder whose money that was he was getting?
You may argue whether or not he deserved it, but if Bercow received the
money as pay then surely the money is his.
You're not allowed to dip your hand into his pocket and retrieve whatever
money you reckon he doesn't deserve.  Where would that end?
Well he dipped his hand in our pockets, as did many of his fellow MPs
with their bogus expenses claims.
Except we are now paying considerably more for a Operational Assurance
Unit to vet the expenses than any shenanigans perpetrated beforehand
cost 'us'.
Farmer Giles
2020-02-08 13:20:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
   TRIMMED
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I bet
you think that all those parasites in the City in the 'loadsamoney'
days of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family silver, were all
dealing in their 'own money'.
If "someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively", then whose
money is it if it's not theirs?  I'm puzzled.
"John Bercow has been quietly boosting his salary with a series of pay
rises - despite Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn turning down the extra money.
The Speaker has become the highest paid politician in Britain over
recent years, with his total salary now well over £152,000 - nearly
£2,000 more than the PM.
He is set to move further ahead this year as another pay rise kicks in
that Mrs May and ministers have refused."
Daily Mail 2018
Now I wonder whose money that was he was getting?
You may argue whether or not he deserved it, but if Bercow received the
money as pay then surely the money is his.
You're not allowed to dip your hand into his pocket and retrieve whatever
money you reckon he doesn't deserve.  Where would that end?
Well he dipped his hand in our pockets, as did many of his fellow MPs
with their bogus expenses claims.
Except we are now paying considerably more for a Operational Assurance
Unit to vet the expenses than any shenanigans perpetrated beforehand
cost 'us'.
So what are you saying, that we should just let them take what they want?
Fredxx
2020-02-09 10:22:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
   TRIMMED
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I bet
you think that all those parasites in the City in the 'loadsamoney'
days of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family silver, were all
dealing in their 'own money'.
If "someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively", then whose
money is it if it's not theirs?  I'm puzzled.
"John Bercow has been quietly boosting his salary with a series of pay
rises - despite Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn turning down the extra money.
The Speaker has become the highest paid politician in Britain over
recent years, with his total salary now well over £152,000 - nearly
£2,000 more than the PM.
He is set to move further ahead this year as another pay rise kicks in
that Mrs May and ministers have refused."
Daily Mail 2018
Now I wonder whose money that was he was getting?
You may argue whether or not he deserved it, but if Bercow received the
money as pay then surely the money is his.
You're not allowed to dip your hand into his pocket and retrieve whatever
money you reckon he doesn't deserve.  Where would that end?
Well he dipped his hand in our pockets, as did many of his fellow MPs
with their bogus expenses claims.
Except we are now paying considerably more for a Operational Assurance
Unit to vet the expenses than any shenanigans perpetrated beforehand
cost 'us'.
So what are you saying, that we should just let them take what they want?
No, I am saying that their expenses and receipts should be published and
it should be up to the public to scrutinise rather than an expensive quango.
Keema's Nan
2020-02-09 10:30:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
TRIMMED
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely
that.
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I
bet
you think that all those parasites in the City in the 'loadsamoney'
days of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family silver,
were all
dealing in their 'own money'.
If "someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively", then
whose
money is it if it's not theirs? I'm puzzled.
"John Bercow has been quietly boosting his salary with a series of pay
rises - despite Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn turning down the extra
money.
The Speaker has become the highest paid politician in Britain over
recent years, with his total salary now well over £152,000 - nearly
£2,000 more than the PM.
He is set to move further ahead this year as another pay rise kicks in
that Mrs May and ministers have refused."
Daily Mail 2018
Now I wonder whose money that was he was getting?
You may argue whether or not he deserved it, but if Bercow received the
money as pay then surely the money is his.
You're not allowed to dip your hand into his pocket and retrieve whatever
money you reckon he doesn't deserve. Where would that end?
Well he dipped his hand in our pockets, as did many of his fellow MPs
with their bogus expenses claims.
Except we are now paying considerably more for a Operational Assurance
Unit to vet the expenses than any shenanigans perpetrated beforehand
cost 'us'.
So what are you saying, that we should just let them take what they want?
No, I am saying that their expenses and receipts should be published and
it should be up to the public to scrutinise rather than an expensive quango.
Or, even simpler, draw concentric circles with increasing radii centred on
Westminster and give fixed allowances for each MP whose constituency falls
within each zone.
Joe
2020-02-08 17:26:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 12:19:09 +0000
Post by Fredxx
Post by Farmer Giles
Well he dipped his hand in our pockets, as did many of his fellow
MPs with their bogus expenses claims.
Except we are now paying considerably more for a Operational
Assurance Unit to vet the expenses than any shenanigans perpetrated
beforehand cost 'us'.
Funny, HMRC manages to do that for the millions of self-employed and
company directors in the UK, none of whom would have been permitted the
abuses made by some MPs.

"Broadly, tax relief is available when expenses are incurred ‘wholly,
exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of the
employment.’"

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/taxation-of-employee-expenses-call-for-evidence/taxation-of-employee-expenses-call-for-evidence

Expenses paid by an employer which do not comply with this requirement
are deemed 'benefits in kind' and have income tax and National Insurance
charged on them.

HMRC seems to manage that for normal people by itself, and does not need
a separate government department to help it.
--
Joe
Joe
2020-02-08 09:22:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 22:42:01 GMT
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
"John Bercow has been quietly boosting his salary with a series of
pay rises - despite Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn turning down the
extra money.
The Speaker has become the highest paid politician in Britain over
recent years, with his total salary now well over _152,000 - nearly
_2,000 more than the PM.
He is set to move further ahead this year as another pay rise kicks
in that Mrs May and ministers have refused."
Daily Mail 2018
Now I wonder whose money that was he was getting?
You may argue whether or not he deserved it, but if Bercow received
the money as pay then surely the money is his.
You're not allowed to dip your hand into his pocket and retrieve
whatever money you reckon he doesn't deserve. Where would that end?
Governments might start doing it?
--
Joe
Pamela
2020-02-08 09:24:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 22:42:01 GMT
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
"John Bercow has been quietly boosting his salary with a series of
pay rises - despite Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn turning down the
extra money.
The Speaker has become the highest paid politician in Britain over
recent years, with his total salary now well over _152,000 - nearly
_2,000 more than the PM.
He is set to move further ahead this year as another pay rise kicks
in that Mrs May and ministers have refused."
Daily Mail 2018
Now I wonder whose money that was he was getting?
You may argue whether or not he deserved it, but if Bercow received
the money as pay then surely the money is his.
You're not allowed to dip your hand into his pocket and retrieve
whatever money you reckon he doesn't deserve. Where would that end?
Governments might start doing it?
Death and taxes are unavoidable.
JNugent
2020-02-08 16:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 22:42:01 GMT
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
"John Bercow has been quietly boosting his salary with a series of
pay rises - despite Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn turning down the
extra money.
The Speaker has become the highest paid politician in Britain over
recent years, with his total salary now well over _152,000 - nearly
_2,000 more than the PM.
He is set to move further ahead this year as another pay rise kicks
in that Mrs May and ministers have refused."
Daily Mail 2018
Now I wonder whose money that was he was getting?
You may argue whether or not he deserved it, but if Bercow received
the money as pay then surely the money is his.
You're not allowed to dip your hand into his pocket and retrieve
whatever money you reckon he doesn't deserve. Where would that end?
Governments might start doing it?
:-)
JNugent
2020-02-07 20:07:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 04:00:07 +0000, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before
Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a
15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU
trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned
that Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit
trade deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods
unless he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will
fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about)
50% more than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about)
twice that. No-one ever suggested that we needed to have
negative rates in order to "do well". Stealing the value of
savings by transferring it to borrowers is not a moral
policy and in any case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money
over their needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is
the inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of
at least 2% on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its
implication is that a cash saver should currently be able to
get about 3.8% (tax paid or tax-free in an ISA). A bit more
than that would be nice. Especially since I spent a working
and mortgage-paying life paying far higher rates when savers
were reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient
value in recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in
interest rates created a greater loss than any gain through
interest receipts.
That is nonsense of the highest order. I have "acquired" nothing
within the potential value of my house. I cannot spend it. It
will never be mine to spend. Of all the tripe ever uttered in
all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, that one -
"you have acquired value in your house" - is competing to be the
most risible.
Are you saying your house has no financial value?
You know full well that I am not saying that.
I am telling (or rather, reminding) you that the notional value of
my home is not relevant. I cannot liqidate the value of my home
without selling all or part of it. It is stupid to insist
otherwise. Are you going to insist otherwise?
Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options. If
you discard these options it will be through narrow mindedness.
That's your best yet.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Saying it is risible to point out that you're sitting on a high
value asset that has accumulated value over the same time
interest rates are low is nothing less than pathetic.
You are being exceptionally silly. You know that the notional
value of my home does not benefit me.
You are bing even sillier if you don't recognise the value of your
home. Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options.
Are you going to even try to be serious?
Post by Fredxx
If you become incapacitated it might also determine the choice of
future care facility.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Are you really that myopic?
Do you really not know what "myopic" means?
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are
more closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low
in comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
The MLR must, of necessity, be somewhat higher than the rate of
inflation (currently a little under 2%), otherwise the interest
rate is negative. The retail rate has to cover the costs of the
banking process and a return for investors.
It does not have to be higher. You also have the capital to
spend, or would you rather high interest, and high inflation to
erode your capital?
Higher interest rates would inhibit, not encourage, inflation.
It is surprising that you don't know that.
It is not surprising you don't know that there are other influences
that govern inflation. The value of the GBP for one.
Ah... I see your problem.
You have an idea that these concepts are related (and they are), but
you don't know *how* they are related.
There's no shame in that, necessarily.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either
one's own money or borrow it at a realistic rate which
provides benefit to the lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than
borrowers, then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you
upheld capitalism and the balancing of supply and demand.
Then let the Treasury and the BoE keep out of it - particularly
by ceasing to pump billions of pounds out into the economy
unsupported by production. That is not the free market in
operation. It is the veryt definition of government interference.
There was a time when high street interest rates did deviate from MLR.
Nothing wrong with pumping money into the economy. A small amount
of inflation is good for the economy. It's also good for savers
as the interest rates would otherwise be lower.
Interest rates would otherwise be significantly higher, not lower.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
I am always prepared to support free markets. We don't have one
at the moment. it is heavily rigged in favour of borrowers (for
no obvious reason - it never used to be, especially when I was a
borrower) and against savers (the same savers, largely, who were
paying 12% mortgages).
I'm glad you agree the market is in favour of borrowers.
"Agree"?
I emphatically *state* it. You have not done so. At least, not until now.
Good, the market can only be good. You have done well in the past.
It usually favours one or the other depending on perspective.
Best put your money in alternative places for higher yield. Just be
aware of the consequences. The choice is yours. If you choose to
put in low interest rate options then that is your choice and best
to stop whingeing.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Only for a fairly brief period, I recall that is was generally around
33% - do you have any figures available?
There's a page from Hansard which records Gerald Nabarro's 1966
attempt to reduce the rate from 8s/3d to a lower figure.
That was not the question I asked you, do you have figures for the 1960s?
8s/3d in the pound standard rate. I already said so.
Post by Farmer Giles
BTW, how old were you in 1966?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Also, of course, NI rates were lower
There was no NI "rate". National Insurance was paid at a flat rate
(depending on the worker's circumstances).
Of course there was a rate, stop being silly. There was a laid down NI
contribution rate, whether it was a flat rate or not is irrelevant.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
and there was no VAT.
We had Purchase Tax at 33% (added to the price of almost anything
worth having). PT was even carried over into car-pricing as "Special
Car Tax". It was eventually abolished (at last) in the mid-90s by
Major's government. Until then, SPT was added to the price of a car
before VAT was added.
It wasn't levied on services, nor second-hand goods.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
It should also be remembered that many things were free, or cost very
little, that have to be paid for nowadays: Prescriptions, NHS dental
treatment, hospital parking, MIRAS, etc.
Prescriptions were not free and had not been so since about 1950
(Harold Wilson famously resigned from Attlee's government over the
introduction of prescription charges).
I said free or cost very little. I recall something like two shillings
in the early 1960s - but they were free for a spell a few years later.
Post by JNugent
NHS dental treatment has never been free as far as I am aware. Its
connection with the NHS was tenuous, then as now.
I can't remember the exact details but I'm fairly sure that NHS
dentistry cost little or nothing at times in the 1960s or 70s.
Post by JNugent
"Hospital parking", eh? That's a good 'un. I wonder how many of us
were able to benefit from that? Certainly not us.
What do you mean, did you or your family never visit anyone in hospital
during 1960/70s?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available grants, and
I think we did rather well in those days.
Some of us did. Most students in HE today would not have been able to
(because not intelligent enough to) get into a university in 1966.
Well you apparently got in, so that disproves that claim for a start -
but what on earth has that piece of nonsense got to do with university
grants and no tuition fees?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I bet
you think that all those parasites in the City in the 'loadsamoney' days
of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family silver, were all
dealing in their 'own money'.
Farmer Giles
2020-02-07 20:27:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<Snipped>
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had
paid more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Only for a fairly brief period, I recall that is was generally
around 33% - do you have any figures available?
There's a page from Hansard which records Gerald Nabarro's 1966
attempt to reduce the rate from 8s/3d to a lower figure.
That was not the question I asked you, do you have figures for the 1960s?
8s/3d in the pound standard rate. I already said so.
Throughout the 1960s?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
BTW, how old were you in 1966?
No answer?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Also, of course, NI rates were lower
There was no NI "rate". National Insurance was paid at a flat rate
(depending on the worker's circumstances).
Of course there was a rate, stop being silly. There was a laid down NI
contribution rate, whether it was a flat rate or not is irrelevant.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
and there was no VAT.
We had Purchase Tax at 33% (added to the price of almost anything
worth having). PT was even carried over into car-pricing as "Special
Car Tax". It was eventually abolished (at last) in the mid-90s by
Major's government. Until then, SPT was added to the price of a car
before VAT was added.
It wasn't levied on services, nor second-hand goods.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
It should also be remembered that many things were free, or cost
very little, that have to be paid for nowadays: Prescriptions, NHS
dental treatment, hospital parking, MIRAS, etc.
Prescriptions were not free and had not been so since about 1950
(Harold Wilson famously resigned from Attlee's government over the
introduction of prescription charges).
I said free or cost very little. I recall something like two shillings
in the early 1960s - but they were free for a spell a few years later.
Post by JNugent
NHS dental treatment has never been free as far as I am aware. Its
connection with the NHS was tenuous, then as now.
I can't remember the exact details but I'm fairly sure that NHS
dentistry cost little or nothing at times in the 1960s or 70s.
Post by JNugent
"Hospital parking", eh? That's a good 'un. I wonder how many of us
were able to benefit from that? Certainly not us.
What do you mean, did you or your family never visit anyone in
hospital during 1960/70s?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available grants,
and I think we did rather well in those days.
Some of us did. Most students in HE today would not have been able to
(because not intelligent enough to) get into a university in 1966.
Well you apparently got in, so that disproves that claim for a start -
but what on earth has that piece of nonsense got to do with university
grants and no tuition fees?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I bet
you think that all those parasites in the City in the 'loadsamoney'
days of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family silver, were all
dealing in their 'own money'.
JNugent
2020-02-08 02:12:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising
they might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation
had paid more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Only for a fairly brief period, I recall that is was generally
around 33% - do you have any figures available?
There's a page from Hansard which records Gerald Nabarro's 1966
attempt to reduce the rate from 8s/3d to a lower figure.
That was not the question I asked you, do you have figures for the 1960s?
8s/3d in the pound standard rate. I already said so.
Throughout the 1960s?
Yes.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
BTW, how old were you in 1966?
No answer?
I was pressed for time.

I was in my mid-teens (not long after leaving school).
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Also, of course, NI rates were lower
There was no NI "rate". National Insurance was paid at a flat rate
(depending on the worker's circumstances).
Of course there was a rate, stop being silly. There was a laid down
NI contribution rate, whether it was a flat rate or not is irrelevant.
A flat charge is not a "rate" as that term is usually understood.

The flat rate (AFAICR) varied between groups.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
and there was no VAT.
We had Purchase Tax at 33% (added to the price of almost anything
worth having). PT was even carried over into car-pricing as "Special
Car Tax". It was eventually abolished (at last) in the mid-90s by
Major's government. Until then, SPT was added to the price of a car
before VAT was added.
It wasn't levied on services, nor second-hand goods.
True. But SET (Selective Employment Tax) was levied on the employment of
everyone in service industries.

What? You don't remember Wilson's SET?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
It should also be remembered that many things were free, or cost
very little, that have to be paid for nowadays: Prescriptions, NHS
dental treatment, hospital parking, MIRAS, etc.
Prescriptions were not free and had not been so since about 1950
(Harold Wilson famously resigned from Attlee's government over the
introduction of prescription charges).
I said free or cost very little. I recall something like two
shillings in the early 1960s - but they were free for a spell a few
years later.
When?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
NHS dental treatment has never been free as far as I am aware. Its
connection with the NHS was tenuous, then as now.
I can't remember the exact details but I'm fairly sure that NHS
dentistry cost little or nothing at times in the 1960s or 70s.
"Little or nothing".

You could say that of petrol, complete with its 400% taxation.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
"Hospital parking", eh? That's a good 'un. I wonder how many of us
were able to benefit from that? Certainly not us.
What do you mean, did you or your family never visit anyone in
hospital during 1960/70s?
We did (from time to time).

But we didn't have - and were unable to afford - a car.

You will quickly appreciate that free parking was not a tremendous
benefit to us (or the majority of the population) at the time.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available grants,
and I think we did rather well in those days.
Some of us did. Most students in HE today would not have been able
to (because not intelligent enough to) get into a university in 1966.
Well you apparently got in, so that disproves that claim for a start
You failed your charm school course, then?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
- but what on earth has that piece of nonsense got to do with
Post by Farmer Giles
university grants and no tuition fees?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a socialist
lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort of
right.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I bet
you think that all those parasites in the City in the 'loadsamoney'
days of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family silver, were
all dealing in their 'own money'.
I have no opinion on earners on "The City".
Farmer Giles
2020-02-08 08:04:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising
they might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation
had paid more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Only for a fairly brief period, I recall that is was generally
around 33% - do you have any figures available?
There's a page from Hansard which records Gerald Nabarro's 1966
attempt to reduce the rate from 8s/3d to a lower figure.
That was not the question I asked you, do you have figures for the 1960s?
8s/3d in the pound standard rate. I already said so.
Throughout the 1960s?
Yes.
No, it wasn't.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
BTW, how old were you in 1966?
No answer?
I was pressed for time.
I was in my mid-teens (not long after leaving school).
So in all probability you paid none of this 43% income tax you were
complaining about.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Also, of course, NI rates were lower
There was no NI "rate". National Insurance was paid at a flat rate
(depending on the worker's circumstances).
Of course there was a rate, stop being silly. There was a laid down
NI contribution rate, whether it was a flat rate or not is irrelevant.
A flat charge is not a "rate" as that term is usually understood.
The flat rate (AFAICR) varied between groups.
So there was no 'rate', but the 'flat rate' varied between groups. I see.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
and there was no VAT.
We had Purchase Tax at 33% (added to the price of almost anything
worth having). PT was even carried over into car-pricing as
"Special Car Tax". It was eventually abolished (at last) in the
mid-90s by Major's government. Until then, SPT was added to the
price of a car before VAT was added.
It wasn't levied on services, nor second-hand goods.
True. But SET (Selective Employment Tax) was levied on the employment of
everyone in service industries.
What? You don't remember Wilson's SET?
Oh dear, talk about clutching at straws! SET was paid by the employer,
not the employee - and it was 'selective'. It's purpose was to support
manufacturing industries.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
It should also be remembered that many things were free, or cost
very little, that have to be paid for nowadays: Prescriptions, NHS
dental treatment, hospital parking, MIRAS, etc.
Prescriptions were not free and had not been so since about 1950
(Harold Wilson famously resigned from Attlee's government over the
introduction of prescription charges).
I said free or cost very little. I recall something like two
shillings in the early 1960s - but they were free for a spell a few
years later.
When?
In 1965 for about three years.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
NHS dental treatment has never been free as far as I am aware. Its
connection with the NHS was tenuous, then as now.
I can't remember the exact details but I'm fairly sure that NHS
dentistry cost little or nothing at times in the 1960s or 70s.
"Little or nothing".
You could say that of petrol, complete with its 400% taxation.
You could, but I was talking about NHS dentistry.

Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man, so
not massively different in real terms to now.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
"Hospital parking", eh? That's a good 'un. I wonder how many of us
were able to benefit from that? Certainly not us.
What do you mean, did you or your family never visit anyone in
hospital during 1960/70s?
We did (from time to time).
But we didn't have - and were unable to afford - a car.
And there was you talking (in another discussion) about buying a new car
in the 1970s.
Post by JNugent
You will quickly appreciate that free parking was not a tremendous
benefit to us (or the majority of the population) at the time.
I don't accept that. Many people had cars at the time - I bought my
first car in 1964.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available grants,
and I think we did rather well in those days.
Some of us did. Most students in HE today would not have been able
to (because not intelligent enough to) get into a university in 1966.
Well you apparently got in, so that disproves that claim for a start
You failed your charm school course, then?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
- but what on earth has that piece of nonsense got to do with
Post by Farmer Giles
university grants and no tuition fees?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort of
right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load. Thatcher reversed
that completely. The shift to indirect taxation (i.e. VAT) placed a
heavier burden on the poorest.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I
bet you think that all those parasites in the City in the
'loadsamoney' days of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family
silver, were all dealing in their 'own money'.
I have no opinion on earners on "The City".
No, I'm sure you don't.
Pamela
2020-02-08 09:27:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort
of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load. Thatcher reversed
that completely. The shift to indirect taxation (i.e. VAT) placed a
heavier burden on the poorest.
How can a tax like VAT place a heavier burden on the poor than the rich? A
rich person will buy more than a poor one and consequently have paid more
VAT.
Farmer Giles
2020-02-08 09:39:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort
of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load. Thatcher reversed
that completely. The shift to indirect taxation (i.e. VAT) placed a
heavier burden on the poorest.
How can a tax like VAT place a heavier burden on the poor than the rich? A
rich person will buy more than a poor one and consequently have paid more
VAT.
VAT is a tax on goods and services, and the unavoidable aspects of such
will generally take a greater share of the disposable income of those
who are struggling.
Pamela
2020-02-08 11:08:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But
that's down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor
to give to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort
of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load. Thatcher
reversed that completely. The shift to indirect taxation (i.e. VAT)
placed a heavier burden on the poorest.
How can a tax like VAT place a heavier burden on the poor than the
rich? A rich person will buy more than a poor one and consequently
have paid more VAT.
VAT is a tax on goods and services, and the unavoidable aspects of such
will generally take a greater share of the disposable income of those
who are struggling.
That's true enough regarding disposable income but when to comes to taxes
like VAT a rich person is carrying a greater burden than a poor person.

Are you proposing consumption taxes be somehow set to reflected a person's
disposable income?
Farmer Giles
2020-02-08 11:25:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But
that's down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor
to give to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort
of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load. Thatcher
reversed that completely. The shift to indirect taxation (i.e. VAT)
placed a heavier burden on the poorest.
How can a tax like VAT place a heavier burden on the poor than the
rich? A rich person will buy more than a poor one and consequently
have paid more VAT.
VAT is a tax on goods and services, and the unavoidable aspects of such
will generally take a greater share of the disposable income of those
who are struggling.
That's true enough regarding disposable income but when to comes to taxes
like VAT a rich person is carrying a greater burden than a poor person.
Not if their income tax has been massively reduced at the same time they
aren't.
Post by Pamela
Are you proposing consumption taxes be somehow set to reflected a person's
disposable income?
I'm not proposing anything, just simply stating that Thatcher's
reduction in direct taxes and doubling of VAT to compensate had a
greater effect on the less well off - and that's all I have to say on
the matter.
JNugent
2020-02-08 16:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
VAT is a tax on goods and services, and the unavoidable aspects of such
will generally take a greater share of the disposable income of those
who are struggling.
That's true enough regarding disposable income but when to comes to taxes
like VAT a rich person is carrying a greater burden than a poor person.
Not if their income tax has been massively reduced at the same time they
aren't.
What do you understand the phrase "when to comes to taxes like VAT" to mean?
Greekbastard®™
2020-02-08 17:04:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort
of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load. Thatcher reversed
that completely. The shift to indirect taxation (i.e. VAT) placed a
heavier burden on the poorest.
How can a tax like VAT place a heavier burden on the poor than the
rich?  A
rich person will buy more than a poor one and consequently have paid more
VAT.
VAT is a tax on goods and services, and the unavoidable aspects of such
will generally take a greater share of the disposable income of those
who are struggling.
How?
x% is x%.
A rich person pays exactly the same for a given item as a poor person.
And therefore pays the same VAT.
Remember also that many basic commodities are exempt from VAT.
And many others are not.
Peeler
2020-02-08 18:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 09:04:03 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Greekbastard®™
A rich person pays exactly the same for a given item as a poor person.
And therefore pays the same VAT.
Remember also that many basic commodities are exempt from VAT.
And many others are not.
Trying to get your claws into that troll-feeding senile idiot now, you
miserable troll? LOL
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
JNugent
2020-02-09 00:23:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort
of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load. Thatcher reversed
that completely. The shift to indirect taxation (i.e. VAT) placed a
heavier burden on the poorest.
How can a tax like VAT place a heavier burden on the poor than the
rich?  A
rich person will buy more than a poor one and consequently have paid more
VAT.
VAT is a tax on goods and services, and the unavoidable aspects of such
will generally take a greater share of the disposable income of those
who are struggling.
How?
x% is x%.
A rich person pays exactly the same for a given item as a poor person.
And therefore pays the same VAT.
...but spends more than a less affluent person and so pays more VAt (at
the same percentage rate).
Post by Greekbastard®™
Remember also that many basic commodities are exempt from VAT.
And many others are not.
Such as?
Peeler
2020-02-09 09:55:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 00:23:23 +0000, JNugent, the notorious, troll-feeding,
Post by JNugent
Post by Greekbastard®™
A rich person pays exactly the same for a given item as a poor person.
And therefore pays the same VAT.
...but spends more than a less affluent person and so pays more VAt (at
the same percentage rate).
Yep, that's the kind of retarded idiotic "conversation" that's become the
hallmark of uk.legal over the last year! <VBG> Fucking stupid senile idiots!
Keema's Nan
2020-02-09 10:17:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peeler
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 00:23:23 +0000, JNugent, the notorious, troll-feeding,
Post by JNugent
Post by Greekbastard®™
A rich person pays exactly the same for a given item as a poor person.
And therefore pays the same VAT.
...but spends more than a less affluent person and so pays more VAt (at
the same percentage rate).
Yep, that's the kind of retarded idiotic "conversation" that's become the
hallmark of uk.legal over the last year!
Irony alert....
Post by Peeler
<VBG> Fucking stupid senile idiots!
Peeler
2020-02-09 10:39:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Peeler
Yep, that's the kind of retarded idiotic "conversation" that's become the
hallmark of uk.legal over the last year!
Irony alert....
It's ALWAYS senile idiots alert with you senile idiots!
Greekbasturd®™
2020-02-09 13:00:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give to
the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort
of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load. Thatcher reversed
that completely. The shift to indirect taxation (i.e. VAT) placed a
heavier burden on the poorest.
How can a tax like VAT place a heavier burden on the poor than the
rich?  A
rich person will buy more than a poor one and consequently have paid more
VAT.
VAT is a tax on goods and services, and the unavoidable aspects of such
will generally take a greater share of the disposable income of those
who are struggling.
How?
x% is x%.
A rich person pays exactly the same for a given item as a poor person.
And therefore pays the same VAT.
...but spends more than a less affluent person and so pays more VAt (at
the same percentage rate).
Yebbut does a rich person earning six times as much as a poor person
buy six times as many TVs, DVD players etc?
Post by JNugent
Post by Greekbastard®™
Remember also that many basic commodities are exempt from VAT.
And many others are not.
Such as?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services

"Food and drink for human consumption is usually zero-rated but some
items are always standard-rated. These include catering, alcoholic
drinks, confectionery, crisps and savoury snacks, hot food, sports
drinks, hot takeaways, ice cream, soft drinks and mineral water.

Restaurants must always charge VAT on everything eaten either on their
premises or in communal areas designated for their customers to use,
such as shared tables in a shopping centre or airport food courts.

In addition, restaurants and takeaway vendors must charge VAT on all
hot takeaways and home deliveries, but do not need to charge VAT on
cold takeaway food unless it’s to be eaten in a designated area."
Pamela
2020-02-08 17:42:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But
that's down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor
to give to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort
of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load. Thatcher
reversed that completely. The shift to indirect taxation (i.e. VAT)
placed a heavier burden on the poorest.
How can a tax like VAT place a heavier burden on the poor than the
rich? A rich person will buy more than a poor one and consequently
have paid more VAT.
Don't introduce basic arithmetic into the discussion. Some can't cope
with that.
This discussion is in danger of becoming arithemetic versus "fairness".
JNugent
2020-02-09 00:24:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pamela
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But
that's down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor
to give to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort
of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load. Thatcher
reversed that completely. The shift to indirect taxation (i.e. VAT)
placed a heavier burden on the poorest.
How can a tax like VAT place a heavier burden on the poor than the
rich? A rich person will buy more than a poor one and consequently
have paid more VAT.
Don't introduce basic arithmetic into the discussion. Some can't cope
with that.
This discussion is in danger of becoming arithemetic versus "fairness".
Well, yes, given some odd definitions of "fairness".
JNugent
2020-02-08 16:25:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising
they might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation
had paid more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Only for a fairly brief period, I recall that is was generally
around 33% - do you have any figures available?
There's a page from Hansard which records Gerald Nabarro's 1966
attempt to reduce the rate from 8s/3d to a lower figure.
That was not the question I asked you, do you have figures for the 1960s?
8s/3d in the pound standard rate. I already said so.
Throughout the 1960s?
Yes.
No, it wasn't.
What was it, then?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
BTW, how old were you in 1966?
No answer?
I was pressed for time.
I was in my mid-teens (not long after leaving school).
So in all probability you paid none of this 43% income tax you were
complaining about.
In all fact, I certainly did.

Are you under the impression that teenagers were exempt from taxation?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Also, of course, NI rates were lower
There was no NI "rate". National Insurance was paid at a flat rate
(depending on the worker's circumstances).
Of course there was a rate, stop being silly. There was a laid down
NI contribution rate, whether it was a flat rate or not is irrelevant.
The phrase "the NI rate" implies that it was a form of income tax,
collected as a proportion of income. That didn't happen until the Budget
of 1974, just after Labour got back into power.

It is important to distinguish the retrogressive income tax which NI now
is from the true *contribution* it was from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
A flat charge is not a "rate" as that term is usually understood.
The flat rate (AFAICR) varied between groups.
So there was no 'rate', but the 'flat rate' varied between groups. I see.
You paid a bit less if you were only 15. That's the sort of distinction
between groups to which I refer. But once you were 18 (or maybe 21) you
paid the standard contribution each week.

Married women could opt to pay a reduced, almost token, weekly contribution.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
and there was no VAT.
We had Purchase Tax at 33% (added to the price of almost anything
worth having). PT was even carried over into car-pricing as
"Special Car Tax". It was eventually abolished (at last) in the
mid-90s by Major's government. Until then, SPT was added to the
price of a car before VAT was added.
It wasn't levied on services, nor second-hand goods.
True. But SET (Selective Employment Tax) was levied on the employment
of everyone in service industries.
What? You don't remember Wilson's SET?
Oh dear, talk about clutching at straws! SET was paid by the employer,
not the employee - and it was 'selective'. It's purpose was to support
manufacturing industries.
It's purpose was to push workers into manufacturing as opposed to the
industries which were actually growing, from car repairs to banking.

It was a hair-raisingly bad tax. The employer, in paying it, was facing
extra costs in employing workers. Have a guess what effect that had on
employment.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
It should also be remembered that many things were free, or cost
very little, that have to be paid for nowadays: Prescriptions,
NHS dental treatment, hospital parking, MIRAS, etc.
Prescriptions were not free and had not been so since about 1950
(Harold Wilson famously resigned from Attlee's government over the
introduction of prescription charges).
I said free or cost very little. I recall something like two
shillings in the early 1960s - but they were free for a spell a few
years later.
When?
In 1965 for about three years.
I don't remember that at all. But I was then in the peak of health and
rarely visited my GP.

Why did Labour re-introduce prescription charges in 1968 (assuming for a
moment that they were free from 1965 for three years)?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
NHS dental treatment has never been free as far as I am aware. Its
connection with the NHS was tenuous, then as now.
I can't remember the exact details but I'm fairly sure that NHS
dentistry cost little or nothing at times in the 1960s or 70s.
"Little or nothing".
You could say that of petrol, complete with its 400% taxation.
You could, but I was talking about NHS dentistry.
Everything cost "little or nothing" in those days. The same was true of
wages.

Everything is relative.
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government minister
(Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme that the
average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week. That would
require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's wage at the place
I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around" 50p an hour). Actually,
I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump price was more like three for a
pound than four for a pound.

As an apprentice, I first earned (or was paid) 2s/1d an hour, which
increased annually with a bigger rise at 18.
Post by Farmer Giles
so not massively different in real terms to now.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
"Hospital parking", eh? That's a good 'un. I wonder how many of us
were able to benefit from that? Certainly not us.
What do you mean, did you or your family never visit anyone in
hospital during 1960/70s?
We did (from time to time).
But we didn't have - and were unable to afford - a car.
And there was you talking (in another discussion) about buying a new car
in the 1970s.
Are you aware that the 1960s and 1970s were quite distinct from each
other and were not the same time?

I started wiork when I was 15. In 1978 (when I bought my first new car)
I was in the second half of my twenties.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
You will quickly appreciate that free parking was not a tremendous
benefit to us (or the majority of the population) at the time.
I don't accept that. Many people had cars at the time - I bought my
first car in 1964.
A. It was not a benefit at all to people who didn't have a car.

B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available grants,
and I think we did rather well in those days.
Some of us did. Most students in HE today would not have been able
to (because not intelligent enough to) get into a university in 1966.
Well you apparently got in, so that disproves that claim for a start
You failed your charm school course, then?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
- but what on earth has that piece of nonsense got to do with
Post by Farmer Giles
university grants and no tuition fees?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give
to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort
of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load.
That is no principle at all. On that basis, you would abolish fuel tax
and tobacco tax. Good luck trying to persuade the Treasury of that.
Post by Farmer Giles
Thatcher reversed
that completely. The shift to indirect taxation (i.e. VAT) placed a
heavier burden on the poorest.
The introduction of VAT was a condition of joining the Common Market.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I
bet you think that all those parasites in the City in the
'loadsamoney' days of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family
silver, were all dealing in their 'own money'.
I have no opinion on earners on "The City".
No, I'm sure you don't.
That's right. I am not obsessed with such matters. Or with what their
religion is.
Keema's Nan
2020-02-08 16:42:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising
they might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation
had paid more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Only for a fairly brief period, I recall that is was generally
around 33% - do you have any figures available?
There's a page from Hansard which records Gerald Nabarro's 1966
attempt to reduce the rate from 8s/3d to a lower figure.
That was not the question I asked you, do you have figures for the
1960s?
8s/3d in the pound standard rate. I already said so.
Throughout the 1960s?
Yes.
No, it wasn't.
What was it, then?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
BTW, how old were you in 1966?
No answer?
I was pressed for time.
I was in my mid-teens (not long after leaving school).
So in all probability you paid none of this 43% income tax you were
complaining about.
In all fact, I certainly did.
Are you under the impression that teenagers were exempt from taxation?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Also, of course, NI rates were lower
There was no NI "rate". National Insurance was paid at a flat rate
(depending on the worker's circumstances).
Of course there was a rate, stop being silly. There was a laid down
NI contribution rate, whether it was a flat rate or not is irrelevant.
The phrase "the NI rate" implies that it was a form of income tax,
collected as a proportion of income. That didn't happen until the Budget
of 1974, just after Labour got back into power.
It is important to distinguish the retrogressive income tax which NI now
is from the true *contribution* it was from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
A flat charge is not a "rate" as that term is usually understood.
The flat rate (AFAICR) varied between groups.
So there was no 'rate', but the 'flat rate' varied between groups. I see.
You paid a bit less if you were only 15. That's the sort of distinction
between groups to which I refer. But once you were 18 (or maybe 21) you
paid the standard contribution each week.
Married women could opt to pay a reduced, almost token, weekly contribution.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
and there was no VAT.
We had Purchase Tax at 33% (added to the price of almost anything
worth having). PT was even carried over into car-pricing as
"Special Car Tax". It was eventually abolished (at last) in the
mid-90s by Major's government. Until then, SPT was added to the
price of a car before VAT was added.
It wasn't levied on services, nor second-hand goods.
True. But SET (Selective Employment Tax) was levied on the employment
of everyone in service industries.
What? You don't remember Wilson's SET?
Oh dear, talk about clutching at straws! SET was paid by the employer,
not the employee - and it was 'selective'. It's purpose was to support
manufacturing industries.
It's purpose was to push workers into manufacturing as opposed to the
industries which were actually growing, from car repairs to banking.
It was a hair-raisingly bad tax. The employer, in paying it, was facing
extra costs in employing workers. Have a guess what effect that had on
employment.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
It should also be remembered that many things were free, or cost
very little, that have to be paid for nowadays: Prescriptions,
NHS dental treatment, hospital parking, MIRAS, etc.
Prescriptions were not free and had not been so since about 1950
(Harold Wilson famously resigned from Attlee's government over the
introduction of prescription charges).
I said free or cost very little. I recall something like two
shillings in the early 1960s - but they were free for a spell a few
years later.
When?
In 1965 for about three years.
I don't remember that at all. But I was then in the peak of health and
rarely visited my GP.
Why did Labour re-introduce prescription charges in 1968 (assuming for a
moment that they were free from 1965 for three years)?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
NHS dental treatment has never been free as far as I am aware. Its
connection with the NHS was tenuous, then as now.
I can't remember the exact details but I'm fairly sure that NHS
dentistry cost little or nothing at times in the 1960s or 70s.
"Little or nothing".
You could say that of petrol, complete with its 400% taxation.
You could, but I was talking about NHS dentistry.
Everything cost "little or nothing" in those days. The same was true of
wages.
Everything is relative.
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government minister
(Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme that the
average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week. That would
require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's wage at the place
I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around" 50p an hour). Actually,
I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump price was more like three for a
pound than four for a pound.
No. I could still get over 3 gallons for £1 when I bought my first car, and
that wasn’t until 1972 because I couldn’t afford one until then.

We started to moan when £1’s worth got us less than 3 gallons, but that
must have been late 1972 when prices seemed to rise quite rapidly due to
strikes and large wage demands from the unions trying to wreck the Heath
government.

And then of course there was the OPEC oil production cuts the following year,
and we never saw 3 gallons to £1 again.(I can’t quite relate to the fact
that the price then equates to 7.4p per litre).
Post by JNugent
As an apprentice, I first earned (or was paid) 2s/1d an hour, which
increased annually with a bigger rise at 18.
Post by Farmer Giles
so not massively different in real terms to now.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
"Hospital parking", eh? That's a good 'un. I wonder how many of us
were able to benefit from that? Certainly not us.
What do you mean, did you or your family never visit anyone in
hospital during 1960/70s?
We did (from time to time).
But we didn't have - and were unable to afford - a car.
And there was you talking (in another discussion) about buying a new car
in the 1970s.
Are you aware that the 1960s and 1970s were quite distinct from each
other and were not the same time?
I started wiork when I was 15. In 1978 (when I bought my first new car)
I was in the second half of my twenties.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
You will quickly appreciate that free parking was not a tremendous
benefit to us (or the majority of the population) at the time.
I don't accept that. Many people had cars at the time - I bought my
first car in 1964.
A. It was not a benefit at all to people who didn't have a car.
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available grants,
and I think we did rather well in those days.
Some of us did. Most students in HE today would not have been able
to (because not intelligent enough to) get into a university in 1966.
Well you apparently got in, so that disproves that claim for a start
You failed your charm school course, then?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
- but what on earth has that piece of nonsense got to do with
Post by Farmer Giles
university grants and no tuition fees?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But that's
down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor to give
to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely
that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort
of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load.
That is no principle at all. On that basis, you would abolish fuel tax
and tobacco tax. Good luck trying to persuade the Treasury of that.
Post by Farmer Giles
Thatcher reversed
that completely. The shift to indirect taxation (i.e. VAT) placed a
heavier burden on the poorest.
The introduction of VAT was a condition of joining the Common Market.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded excessively
doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's their money. I
bet you think that all those parasites in the City in the
'loadsamoney' days of Thatcher, when she was selling off the family
silver, were all dealing in their 'own money'.
I have no opinion on earners on "The City".
No, I'm sure you don't.
That's right. I am not obsessed with such matters. Or with what their
religion is.
JNugent
2020-02-09 00:21:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government minister
(Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme that the
average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week. That would
require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's wage at the place
I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around" 50p an hour). Actually,
I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump price was more like three for a
pound than four for a pound.
No. I could still get over 3 gallons for £1 when I bought my first car, and
that wasn’t until 1972 because I couldn’t afford one until then.
I got my first car in 1972. I had briefly owned a van in 1971.

You are right: petrol was about 33p a gallon in 1972. It had been
hovering around that price for a couple of years, but that wasn't to
last for very long after 1972.
Post by Keema's Nan
We started to moan when £1’s worth got us less than 3 gallons, but that
must have been late 1972 when prices seemed to rise quite rapidly due to
strikes and large wage demands from the unions trying to wreck the Heath
government.
I don't recall that. It was still around 33p a gallon (less if you
bought ICI petrol) in mid-1973.
Post by Keema's Nan
And then of course there was the OPEC oil production cuts the following year,
and we never saw 3 gallons to £1 again.(I can’t quite relate to the fact
that the price then equates to 7.4p per litre).
It was a shock. There's no doubt about that.
Farmer Giles
2020-02-08 20:48:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
<Snipped>
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising
they might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your
generation had paid more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Only for a fairly brief period, I recall that is was generally
around 33% - do you have any figures available?
There's a page from Hansard which records Gerald Nabarro's 1966
attempt to reduce the rate from 8s/3d to a lower figure.
That was not the question I asked you, do you have figures for the 1960s?
8s/3d in the pound standard rate. I already said so.
Throughout the 1960s?
Yes.
No, it wasn't.
What was it, then?
Well it wasn't 42% throughout the sixties, which you claimed it was, so
you provide the figures to back up what you claimed - that's how it
works. Either that or admit that you were wrong - once again.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
BTW, how old were you in 1966?
No answer?
I was pressed for time.
I was in my mid-teens (not long after leaving school).
So in all probability you paid none of this 43% income tax you were
complaining about.
In all fact, I certainly did.
Are you under the impression that teenagers were exempt from taxation?
Why would I be when I was a teenager in the 1960s, and worked full-time
every year apart from 1961, when I was still at school? I also know that
as an apprentice in the mid-1960s - which you claimed you were - you
would have paid very little income tax.

If you disagree, perhaps you'd care to say what you earned and how much
income tax you paid on it?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Also, of course, NI rates were lower
There was no NI "rate". National Insurance was paid at a flat
rate (depending on the worker's circumstances).
Of course there was a rate, stop being silly. There was a laid
down NI contribution rate, whether it was a flat rate or not is
irrelevant.
The phrase "the NI rate" implies that it was a form of income tax,
collected as a proportion of income. That didn't happen until the Budget
of 1974, just after Labour got back into power.
It is important to distinguish the retrogressive income tax which NI now
is from the true *contribution* it was from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
A flat charge is not a "rate" as that term is usually understood.
The flat rate (AFAICR) varied between groups.
So there was no 'rate', but the 'flat rate' varied between groups. I see.
You paid a bit less if you were only 15. That's the sort of distinction
between groups to which I refer. But once you were 18 (or maybe 21) you
paid the standard contribution each week.
Married women could opt to pay a reduced, almost token, weekly
contribution.
Oh dear, you are really ridiculous sometimes* (*to be generous to you).
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
and there was no VAT.
We had Purchase Tax at 33% (added to the price of almost anything
worth having). PT was even carried over into car-pricing as
"Special Car Tax". It was eventually abolished (at last) in the
mid-90s by Major's government. Until then, SPT was added to the
price of a car before VAT was added.
It wasn't levied on services, nor second-hand goods.
True. But SET (Selective Employment Tax) was levied on the employment
of everyone in service industries.
What? You don't remember Wilson's SET?
Oh dear, talk about clutching at straws! SET was paid by the employer,
not the employee - and it was 'selective'. It's purpose was to support
manufacturing industries.
It's purpose was to push workers into manufacturing as opposed to the
industries which were actually growing, from car repairs to banking.
It was a hair-raisingly bad tax. The employer, in paying it, was facing
extra costs in employing workers. Have a guess what effect that had on
employment.
All irrelevant, as you know, but I suppose any straws will do when
you're sinking.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
It should also be remembered that many things were free, or cost
very little, that have to be paid for nowadays: Prescriptions,
NHS dental treatment, hospital parking, MIRAS, etc.
Prescriptions were not free and had not been so since about 1950
(Harold Wilson famously resigned from Attlee's government over
the introduction of prescription charges).
I said free or cost very little. I recall something like two
shillings in the early 1960s - but they were free for a spell a
few years later.
When?
In 1965 for about three years.
I don't remember that at all. But I was then in the peak of health and
rarely visited my GP.
What you remember or don't remember doesn't determine anything. The fact
is, you were wrong again. Have you ever thought of admitting it sometimes?
Post by JNugent
Why did Labour re-introduce prescription charges in 1968 (assuming for a
moment that they were free from 1965 for three years)?
Irrelevant.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
NHS dental treatment has never been free as far as I am aware.
Its connection with the NHS was tenuous, then as now.
I can't remember the exact details but I'm fairly sure that NHS
dentistry cost little or nothing at times in the 1960s or 70s.
"Little or nothing".
You could say that of petrol, complete with its 400% taxation.
You could, but I was talking about NHS dentistry.
Everything cost "little or nothing" in those days. The same was true of
wages.
Everything is relative.
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in those days in
real terms than they do now, so that is further nonsense.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government minister
(Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme that the
average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week. That would
require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's wage at the place
I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around" 50p an hour). Actually,
I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump price was more like three for a
pound than four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits! I was,
however, talking in general terms and I can tell you that at that time
around £12 for a 44 hour week was considered about the norm. Of course
it varied, and some industries got more - and some less. A farm labourer
at that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week, for example,
whereas someone working in a car factory would probably have got quite a
bit more.

When I passed my driving test in 1963 you got four gallons of petrol for
£1, so I would say that my (general) figures were pretty accurate.
Post by JNugent
As an apprentice, I first earned (or was paid) 2s/1d an hour, which
increased annually with a bigger rise at 18.
Post by Farmer Giles
so not massively different in real terms to now.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
"Hospital parking", eh? That's a good 'un. I wonder how many of
us were able to benefit from that? Certainly not us.
What do you mean, did you or your family never visit anyone in
hospital during 1960/70s?
We did (from time to time).
But we didn't have - and were unable to afford - a car.
And there was you talking (in another discussion) about buying a new
car in the 1970s.
Are you aware that the 1960s and 1970s were quite distinct from each
other and were not the same time?
And did you pay for hospital car parking in the 1970s?
Post by JNugent
I started wiork when I was 15. In 1978 (when I bought my first new car)
I was in the second half of my twenties.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
You will quickly appreciate that free parking was not a tremendous
benefit to us (or the majority of the population) at the time.
I don't accept that. Many people had cars at the time - I bought my
first car in 1964.
A. It was not a benefit at all to people who didn't have a car.
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly, but I would say that close to most 'families' did.
Then again I supposed it depended on where you lived. My family, who
were not well off by any means, had a car from the 1950s onwards.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in those days.
Some of us did. Most students in HE today would not have been
able to (because not intelligent enough to) get into a university
in 1966.
Well you apparently got in, so that disproves that claim for a start
You failed your charm school course, then?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
- but what on earth has that piece of nonsense got to do with
Post by Farmer Giles
university grants and no tuition fees?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But
that's down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor
to give to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're sort
of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load.
That is no principle at all. On that basis, you would abolish fuel tax
and tobacco tax. Good luck trying to persuade the Treasury of that.
You get more ridiculous with every utterance. The general view on
taxation is that it should be progressive. That is that it should, in
the interests of fairness and equability (although I know that your
somewhat warped values of social justice and fairplay make that a
difficult concept for you to grasp), have some relationship to the
ability to pay.

In other words, it is generally recognised that higher earners should
pay a higher percentage of their earnings than those on a low-income.
Indirect taxation has the opposite effect. In fact, with VAT, lower
earners generally pay a far higher percentage of their disposable income
in tax. This is regressive and not conducive to social cohesion.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Thatcher reversed that completely. The shift to indirect taxation
(i.e. VAT) placed a heavier burden on the poorest.
The introduction of VAT was a condition of joining the Common Market.
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher increasing it
from 8% to 15% in 1979?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded
excessively doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's
their money. I bet you think that all those parasites in the City
in the 'loadsamoney' days of Thatcher, when she was selling off
the family silver, were all dealing in their 'own money'.
I have no opinion on earners on "The City".
No, I'm sure you don't.
That's right. I am not obsessed with such matters. Or with what their
religion is.
Not obsessed, or doesn't support your absurd views?
Joe
2020-02-08 21:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:48:23 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in those days in
real terms than they do now, so that is further nonsense.
Food, certainly, clothes, domestic appliances, probably not beer, which
has seen relatively high inflation over decades.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government
minister (Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme
that the average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week.
That would require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's
wage at the place I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around"
50p an hour). Actually, I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump
price was more like three for a pound than four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits! I was,
however, talking in general terms and I can tell you that at that
time around £12 for a 44 hour week was considered about the norm. Of
course it varied, and some industries got more - and some less. A
farm labourer at that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week,
for example, whereas someone working in a car factory would probably
have got quite a bit more.
I got just over £10 a week (gross) for a factory job in the summer of
1970, a makework job for a teenager. There was no official work
experience then, but once over fifteen, there was a range of paid
holiday work available. The reasoning was that both teenager and
employer could look each other over, and indeed, that company provided
my first full-time job a few years later.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly, but I would say that close to most 'families'
did. Then again I supposed it depended on where you lived. My family,
who were not well off by any means, had a car from the 1950s onwards.
I think that means you *were* well off for the time. In the mid-60s, I
was playing in the local streets at the weekend, and being residential
they had little traffic and hardly any parked cars, otherwise playing
would have been difficult. My parents were not poor, but certainly
couldn't afford a car. I recall two children at my primary school being
brought to school by car. And no, I didn't live on a sink estate, but
in one of many residential streets in an area full of respectable
terraced houses.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in those days.
The economics were different. Only 8-10% of school-leavers went to
university then, and they received a salary premium much higher than
today's 40-50%. The government got their tuition fees and grants back
with significant interest over the life of the graduate, something that
could not happen today.
Post by Farmer Giles
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher increasing it
from 8% to 15% in 1979?
You forgot to mention that it wasn't just 8%, was it? Real luxuries,
like petrol (which also carried 'duty') were charged 25% VAT, a level
which also disappeared.
--
Joe
Farmer Giles
2020-02-08 21:51:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:48:23 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in those days in
real terms than they do now, so that is further nonsense.
Food, certainly, clothes, domestic appliances, probably not beer, which
has seen relatively high inflation over decades.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government
minister (Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme
that the average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week.
That would require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's
wage at the place I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around"
50p an hour). Actually, I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump
price was more like three for a pound than four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits! I was,
however, talking in general terms and I can tell you that at that
time around £12 for a 44 hour week was considered about the norm. Of
course it varied, and some industries got more - and some less. A
farm labourer at that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week,
for example, whereas someone working in a car factory would probably
have got quite a bit more.
I got just over £10 a week (gross) for a factory job in the summer of
1970, a makework job for a teenager. There was no official work
experience then, but once over fifteen, there was a range of paid
holiday work available. The reasoning was that both teenager and
employer could look each other over, and indeed, that company provided
my first full-time job a few years later.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly, but I would say that close to most 'families'
did. Then again I supposed it depended on where you lived. My family,
who were not well off by any means, had a car from the 1950s onwards.
I think that means you *were* well off for the time. In the mid-60s, I
was playing in the local streets at the weekend, and being residential
they had little traffic and hardly any parked cars, otherwise playing
would have been difficult. My parents were not poor, but certainly
couldn't afford a car. I recall two children at my primary school being
brought to school by car. And no, I didn't live on a sink estate, but
in one of many residential streets in an area full of respectable
terraced houses.
I assure you we weren't well off, Joe, far from it. But I do accept that
few children were taken to school by car in those days, I certainly
never was.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in those days.
The economics were different. Only 8-10% of school-leavers went to
university then, and they received a salary premium much higher than
today's 40-50%. The government got their tuition fees and grants back
with significant interest over the life of the graduate, something that
could not happen today.
That's granted, but the choice was there.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher increasing it
from 8% to 15% in 1979?
You forgot to mention that it wasn't just 8%, was it? Real luxuries,
like petrol (which also carried 'duty') were charged 25% VAT, a level
which also disappeared.
My point was purely about the shift from direct taxation to indirect
taxation in 1979 - by that I mean Thatcher's reduction in tax for high
earners coupled with a near doubling of VAT.
Keema's Nan
2020-02-09 08:51:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:48:23 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in those days in
real terms than they do now, so that is further nonsense.
Food, certainly, clothes, domestic appliances, probably not beer, which
has seen relatively high inflation over decades.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government
minister (Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme
that the average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week.
That would require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's
wage at the place I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around"
50p an hour). Actually, I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump
price was more like three for a pound than four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits! I was,
however, talking in general terms and I can tell you that at that
time around £12 for a 44 hour week was considered about the norm. Of
course it varied, and some industries got more - and some less. A
farm labourer at that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week,
for example, whereas someone working in a car factory would probably
have got quite a bit more.
I got just over £10 a week (gross) for a factory job in the summer of
1970, a makework job for a teenager. There was no official work
experience then, but once over fifteen, there was a range of paid
holiday work available. The reasoning was that both teenager and
employer could look each other over, and indeed, that company provided
my first full-time job a few years later.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly, but I would say that close to most 'families'
did. Then again I supposed it depended on where you lived. My family,
who were not well off by any means, had a car from the 1950s onwards.
I think that means you *were* well off for the time. In the mid-60s, I
was playing in the local streets at the weekend, and being residential
they had little traffic and hardly any parked cars, otherwise playing
would have been difficult. My parents were not poor, but certainly
couldn't afford a car. I recall two children at my primary school being
brought to school by car. And no, I didn't live on a sink estate, but
in one of many residential streets in an area full of respectable
terraced houses.
I assure you we weren't well off, Joe, far from it. But I do accept that
few children were taken to school by car in those days, I certainly
never was.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in those days.
The economics were different. Only 8-10% of school-leavers went to
university then, and they received a salary premium much higher than
today's 40-50%. The government got their tuition fees and grants back
with significant interest over the life of the graduate, something that
could not happen today.
That's granted, but the choice was there.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher increasing it
from 8% to 15% in 1979?
You forgot to mention that it wasn't just 8%, was it? Real luxuries,
like petrol (which also carried 'duty') were charged 25% VAT, a level
which also disappeared.
My point was purely about the shift from direct taxation to indirect
taxation in 1979 - by that I mean Thatcher's reduction in tax for high
earners coupled with a near doubling of VAT.
I believe the theory was that by transferring tax from direct to indirect
methods, the individual had the choice to pay less tax by not buying items
which were subject to high rates of VAT.

Which is why inflation shot up from 10% to 16% within months of Thatcher’s
election; but of course (as lying politicians always do) they blamed that on
the previous government.
Farmer Giles
2020-02-09 09:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:48:23 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in those days in
real terms than they do now, so that is further nonsense.
Food, certainly, clothes, domestic appliances, probably not beer, which
has seen relatively high inflation over decades.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government
minister (Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme
that the average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week.
That would require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's
wage at the place I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around"
50p an hour). Actually, I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump
price was more like three for a pound than four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits! I was,
however, talking in general terms and I can tell you that at that
time around £12 for a 44 hour week was considered about the norm. Of
course it varied, and some industries got more - and some less. A
farm labourer at that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week,
for example, whereas someone working in a car factory would probably
have got quite a bit more.
I got just over £10 a week (gross) for a factory job in the summer of
1970, a makework job for a teenager. There was no official work
experience then, but once over fifteen, there was a range of paid
holiday work available. The reasoning was that both teenager and
employer could look each other over, and indeed, that company provided
my first full-time job a few years later.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly, but I would say that close to most 'families'
did. Then again I supposed it depended on where you lived. My family,
who were not well off by any means, had a car from the 1950s onwards.
I think that means you *were* well off for the time. In the mid-60s, I
was playing in the local streets at the weekend, and being residential
they had little traffic and hardly any parked cars, otherwise playing
would have been difficult. My parents were not poor, but certainly
couldn't afford a car. I recall two children at my primary school being
brought to school by car. And no, I didn't live on a sink estate, but
in one of many residential streets in an area full of respectable
terraced houses.
I assure you we weren't well off, Joe, far from it. But I do accept that
few children were taken to school by car in those days, I certainly
never was.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in those days.
The economics were different. Only 8-10% of school-leavers went to
university then, and they received a salary premium much higher than
today's 40-50%. The government got their tuition fees and grants back
with significant interest over the life of the graduate, something that
could not happen today.
That's granted, but the choice was there.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher increasing it
from 8% to 15% in 1979?
You forgot to mention that it wasn't just 8%, was it? Real luxuries,
like petrol (which also carried 'duty') were charged 25% VAT, a level
which also disappeared.
My point was purely about the shift from direct taxation to indirect
taxation in 1979 - by that I mean Thatcher's reduction in tax for high
earners coupled with a near doubling of VAT.
I believe the theory was that by transferring tax from direct to indirect
methods, the individual had the choice to pay less tax by not buying items
which were subject to high rates of VAT.
Which is why inflation shot up from 10% to 16% within months of Thatcher’s
election; but of course (as lying politicians always do) they blamed that on
the previous government.
It also caused unemployment to rise rapidly, and made her the most
unpopular PM since the war. She was saved by her bit of Falklands jingoism.
Keema's Nan
2020-02-09 09:39:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:48:23 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in those days in
real terms than they do now, so that is further nonsense.
Food, certainly, clothes, domestic appliances, probably not beer, which
has seen relatively high inflation over decades.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government
minister (Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme
that the average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week.
That would require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's
wage at the place I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around"
50p an hour). Actually, I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump
price was more like three for a pound than four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits! I was,
however, talking in general terms and I can tell you that at that
time around £12 for a 44 hour week was considered about the norm. Of
course it varied, and some industries got more - and some less. A
farm labourer at that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week,
for example, whereas someone working in a car factory would probably
have got quite a bit more.
I got just over £10 a week (gross) for a factory job in the summer of
1970, a makework job for a teenager. There was no official work
experience then, but once over fifteen, there was a range of paid
holiday work available. The reasoning was that both teenager and
employer could look each other over, and indeed, that company provided
my first full-time job a few years later.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly, but I would say that close to most 'families'
did. Then again I supposed it depended on where you lived. My family,
who were not well off by any means, had a car from the 1950s onwards.
I think that means you *were* well off for the time. In the mid-60s, I
was playing in the local streets at the weekend, and being residential
they had little traffic and hardly any parked cars, otherwise playing
would have been difficult. My parents were not poor, but certainly
couldn't afford a car. I recall two children at my primary school being
brought to school by car. And no, I didn't live on a sink estate, but
in one of many residential streets in an area full of respectable
terraced houses.
I assure you we weren't well off, Joe, far from it. But I do accept that
few children were taken to school by car in those days, I certainly
never was.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in those days.
The economics were different. Only 8-10% of school-leavers went to
university then, and they received a salary premium much higher than
today's 40-50%. The government got their tuition fees and grants back
with significant interest over the life of the graduate, something that
could not happen today.
That's granted, but the choice was there.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher increasing it
from 8% to 15% in 1979?
You forgot to mention that it wasn't just 8%, was it? Real luxuries,
like petrol (which also carried 'duty') were charged 25% VAT, a level
which also disappeared.
My point was purely about the shift from direct taxation to indirect
taxation in 1979 - by that I mean Thatcher's reduction in tax for high
earners coupled with a near doubling of VAT.
I believe the theory was that by transferring tax from direct to indirect
methods, the individual had the choice to pay less tax by not buying items
which were subject to high rates of VAT.
Which is why inflation shot up from 10% to 16% within months of Thatcher’s
election; but of course (as lying politicians always do) they blamed that on
the previous government.
It also caused unemployment to rise rapidly, and made her the most
unpopular PM since the war. She was saved by her bit of Falklands jingoism.
Yes. I remember that. Her policies were directly to blame for one of the most
savage recessions I can remember.

Although, if you had a few quid savings it was not all bad; because non-food
retailers were so desperate for cashflow, they were discounting items by
around 50% for a time and great bargains were to be had.

The rise of the Bank Rate to 17% didn’t help either, because the value of
sterling shot up (and as usual all right wingers puffed their chests out with
pride) and many exporters went bust because British goods were more
expensive. The result was manufacturing output declined by over 30% and the
mass unemployment was paid for by North Sea oil revenues.
Farmer Giles
2020-02-09 11:16:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:48:23 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in those days in
real terms than they do now, so that is further nonsense.
Food, certainly, clothes, domestic appliances, probably not beer, which
has seen relatively high inflation over decades.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government
minister (Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme
that the average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week.
That would require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's
wage at the place I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around"
50p an hour). Actually, I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump
price was more like three for a pound than four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits! I was,
however, talking in general terms and I can tell you that at that
time around £12 for a 44 hour week was considered about the norm. Of
course it varied, and some industries got more - and some less. A
farm labourer at that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week,
for example, whereas someone working in a car factory would probably
have got quite a bit more.
I got just over £10 a week (gross) for a factory job in the summer of
1970, a makework job for a teenager. There was no official work
experience then, but once over fifteen, there was a range of paid
holiday work available. The reasoning was that both teenager and
employer could look each other over, and indeed, that company provided
my first full-time job a few years later.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly, but I would say that close to most 'families'
did. Then again I supposed it depended on where you lived. My family,
who were not well off by any means, had a car from the 1950s onwards.
I think that means you *were* well off for the time. In the mid-60s, I
was playing in the local streets at the weekend, and being residential
they had little traffic and hardly any parked cars, otherwise playing
would have been difficult. My parents were not poor, but certainly
couldn't afford a car. I recall two children at my primary school being
brought to school by car. And no, I didn't live on a sink estate, but
in one of many residential streets in an area full of respectable
terraced houses.
I assure you we weren't well off, Joe, far from it. But I do accept that
few children were taken to school by car in those days, I certainly
never was.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in those days.
The economics were different. Only 8-10% of school-leavers went to
university then, and they received a salary premium much higher than
today's 40-50%. The government got their tuition fees and grants back
with significant interest over the life of the graduate, something that
could not happen today.
That's granted, but the choice was there.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher increasing it
from 8% to 15% in 1979?
You forgot to mention that it wasn't just 8%, was it? Real luxuries,
like petrol (which also carried 'duty') were charged 25% VAT, a level
which also disappeared.
My point was purely about the shift from direct taxation to indirect
taxation in 1979 - by that I mean Thatcher's reduction in tax for high
earners coupled with a near doubling of VAT.
I believe the theory was that by transferring tax from direct to indirect
methods, the individual had the choice to pay less tax by not buying items
which were subject to high rates of VAT.
Which is why inflation shot up from 10% to 16% within months of Thatcher’s
election; but of course (as lying politicians always do) they blamed that on
the previous government.
It also caused unemployment to rise rapidly, and made her the most
unpopular PM since the war. She was saved by her bit of Falklands jingoism.
Yes. I remember that. Her policies were directly to blame for one of the most
savage recessions I can remember.
Although, if you had a few quid savings it was not all bad; because non-food
retailers were so desperate for cashflow, they were discounting items by
around 50% for a time and great bargains were to be had.
The rise of the Bank Rate to 17% didn’t help either, because the value of
sterling shot up (and as usual all right wingers puffed their chests out with
pride) and many exporters went bust because British goods were more
expensive. The result was manufacturing output declined by over 30% and the
mass unemployment was paid for by North Sea oil revenues.
That is spot on.
Keema's Nan
2020-02-09 11:38:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:48:23 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in those days in
real terms than they do now, so that is further nonsense.
Food, certainly, clothes, domestic appliances, probably not beer, which
has seen relatively high inflation over decades.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working
man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government
minister (Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme
that the average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week.
That would require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's
wage at the place I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around"
50p an hour). Actually, I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump
price was more like three for a pound than four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits! I was,
however, talking in general terms and I can tell you that at that
time around £12 for a 44 hour week was considered about the norm. Of
course it varied, and some industries got more - and some less. A
farm labourer at that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week,
for example, whereas someone working in a car factory would probably
have got quite a bit more.
I got just over £10 a week (gross) for a factory job in the summer of
1970, a makework job for a teenager. There was no official work
experience then, but once over fifteen, there was a range of paid
holiday work available. The reasoning was that both teenager and
employer could look each other over, and indeed, that company provided
my first full-time job a few years later.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly, but I would say that close to most 'families'
did. Then again I supposed it depended on where you lived. My family,
who were not well off by any means, had a car from the 1950s onwards.
I think that means you *were* well off for the time. In the mid-60s, I
was playing in the local streets at the weekend, and being residential
they had little traffic and hardly any parked cars, otherwise playing
would have been difficult. My parents were not poor, but certainly
couldn't afford a car. I recall two children at my primary school being
brought to school by car. And no, I didn't live on a sink estate, but
in one of many residential streets in an area full of respectable
terraced houses.
I assure you we weren't well off, Joe, far from it. But I do accept that
few children were taken to school by car in those days, I certainly
never was.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in those days.
The economics were different. Only 8-10% of school-leavers went to
university then, and they received a salary premium much higher than
today's 40-50%. The government got their tuition fees and grants back
with significant interest over the life of the graduate, something that
could not happen today.
That's granted, but the choice was there.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher increasing it
from 8% to 15% in 1979?
You forgot to mention that it wasn't just 8%, was it? Real luxuries,
like petrol (which also carried 'duty') were charged 25% VAT, a level
which also disappeared.
My point was purely about the shift from direct taxation to indirect
taxation in 1979 - by that I mean Thatcher's reduction in tax for high
earners coupled with a near doubling of VAT.
I believe the theory was that by transferring tax from direct to indirect
methods, the individual had the choice to pay less tax by not buying items
which were subject to high rates of VAT.
Which is why inflation shot up from 10% to 16% within months of Thatcher’s
election; but of course (as lying politicians always do) they blamed that on
the previous government.
It also caused unemployment to rise rapidly, and made her the most
unpopular PM since the war. She was saved by her bit of Falklands jingoism.
Yes. I remember that. Her policies were directly to blame for one of the most
savage recessions I can remember.
Although, if you had a few quid savings it was not all bad; because non-food
retailers were so desperate for cashflow, they were discounting items by
around 50% for a time and great bargains were to be had.
The rise of the Bank Rate to 17% didn’t help either, because the value of
sterling shot up (and as usual all right wingers puffed their chests out with
pride) and many exporters went bust because British goods were more
expensive. The result was manufacturing output declined by over 30% and the
mass unemployment was paid for by North Sea oil revenues.
That is spot on.
What is also spot on, is that Thatcher decided (or was more likely told by
the economic nut jobs who were advising her at the time) that controlling the
money supply was the secret to economic policy.

The subservient BBC was thus forced into ‘money supply’ mode in order to
educate the masses, and no News or Current Affairs programme could be
broadcast without some self appointed expert trying to explain the difference
between M3, M5 and M1 (not motorways in this case, although they might as
well have been for all the sense they made).

Even after ridiculously high interest rates and a consequent rapid drop in
GDP (by over 2% in some qtrs) the precious money supply didn’t fall as
predicted, and was quietly shelved in the mid 80s in favour of ’supply
side’ economics which basically meant a Nigel Lawson boom followed by bust.

I moved house in 1987, and just two years later my new next door neighbour
bought his identical home for 50% (yes honestly) more than I paid for mine.

Apparently, this is an example of the economy being in ’safe hands’ when
Tories are in power. They had no more idea than a bunch of squirrels, just
very good propaganda.
Greekbasturd®™
2020-02-09 13:02:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 11:38:26 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:48:23 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in those days in
real terms than they do now, so that is further nonsense.
Food, certainly, clothes, domestic appliances, probably not beer, which
has seen relatively high inflation over decades.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working
man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government
minister (Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme
that the average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week.
That would require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's
wage at the place I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around"
50p an hour). Actually, I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump
price was more like three for a pound than four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits! I was,
however, talking in general terms and I can tell you that at that
time around £12 for a 44 hour week was considered about the norm. Of
course it varied, and some industries got more - and some less. A
farm labourer at that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week,
for example, whereas someone working in a car factory would probably
have got quite a bit more.
I got just over £10 a week (gross) for a factory job in the summer of
1970, a makework job for a teenager. There was no official work
experience then, but once over fifteen, there was a range of paid
holiday work available. The reasoning was that both teenager and
employer could look each other over, and indeed, that company provided
my first full-time job a few years later.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly, but I would say that close to most 'families'
did. Then again I supposed it depended on where you lived. My family,
who were not well off by any means, had a car from the 1950s onwards.
I think that means you *were* well off for the time. In the mid-60s, I
was playing in the local streets at the weekend, and being residential
they had little traffic and hardly any parked cars, otherwise playing
would have been difficult. My parents were not poor, but certainly
couldn't afford a car. I recall two children at my primary school being
brought to school by car. And no, I didn't live on a sink estate, but
in one of many residential streets in an area full of respectable
terraced houses.
I assure you we weren't well off, Joe, far from it. But I do accept that
few children were taken to school by car in those days, I certainly
never was.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in those days.
The economics were different. Only 8-10% of school-leavers went to
university then, and they received a salary premium much higher than
today's 40-50%. The government got their tuition fees and grants back
with significant interest over the life of the graduate, something that
could not happen today.
That's granted, but the choice was there.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher increasing it
from 8% to 15% in 1979?
You forgot to mention that it wasn't just 8%, was it? Real luxuries,
like petrol (which also carried 'duty') were charged 25% VAT, a level
which also disappeared.
My point was purely about the shift from direct taxation to indirect
taxation in 1979 - by that I mean Thatcher's reduction in tax for high
earners coupled with a near doubling of VAT.
I believe the theory was that by transferring tax from direct to indirect
methods, the individual had the choice to pay less tax by not buying items
which were subject to high rates of VAT.
Which is why inflation shot up from 10% to 16% within months of
Thatcher’s
election; but of course (as lying politicians always do) they blamed that on
the previous government.
It also caused unemployment to rise rapidly, and made her the most
unpopular PM since the war. She was saved by her bit of Falklands jingoism.
Yes. I remember that. Her policies were directly to blame for one of the most
savage recessions I can remember.
Although, if you had a few quid savings it was not all bad; because non-food
retailers were so desperate for cashflow, they were discounting items by
around 50% for a time and great bargains were to be had.
The rise of the Bank Rate to 17% didn’t help either, because the value of
sterling shot up (and as usual all right wingers puffed their chests out with
pride) and many exporters went bust because British goods were more
expensive. The result was manufacturing output declined by over 30% and the
mass unemployment was paid for by North Sea oil revenues.
That is spot on.
What is also spot on, is that Thatcher decided (or was more likely told by
the economic nut jobs who were advising her at the time) that controlling the
money supply was the secret to economic policy.
The subservient BBC was thus forced into ‘money supply’ mode in order to
educate the masses, and no News or Current Affairs programme could be
broadcast without some self appointed expert trying to explain the difference
between M3, M5 and M1 (not motorways in this case, although they might as
well have been for all the sense they made).
Even after ridiculously high interest rates and a consequent rapid drop in
GDP (by over 2% in some qtrs) the precious money supply didn’t fall as
predicted, and was quietly shelved in the mid 80s in favour of ’supply
side’ economics which basically meant a Nigel Lawson boom followed by bust.
I moved house in 1987, and just two years later my new next door neighbour
bought his identical home for 50% (yes honestly) more than I paid for mine.
Apparently, this is an example of the economy being in ’safe hands’ when
Tories are in power. They had no more idea than a bunch of squirrels, just
very good propaganda.
The indisputable fact is that Mrs Thatcher gave this country a well
needed kick up the backside. Were it not for her, we would still be
ruled by the likes of Arthur Scargill.
Pamela
2020-02-09 13:16:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Joe
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:48:23 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in
those days in real terms than they do now, so that is
further nonsense.
Food, certainly, clothes, domestic appliances, probably not
beer, which has seen relatively high inflation over decades.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in
the early sixties, which was around the average hourly
pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a
government minister (Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV
discussion programme that the average male industrial
worker's wage was now £17 a week. That would require an
hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's
wage at the place I worked at was more like £20 a week
("around" 50p an hour). Actually, I'm fairly sure thab by
1970, the pump price was more like three for a pound than
four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits!
I was, however, talking in general terms and I can tell you
that at that time around £12 for a 44 hour week was
considered about the norm. Of course it varied, and some
industries got more - and some less. A farm labourer at
that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week,
for example, whereas someone working in a car factory would
probably have got quite a bit more.
I got just over £10 a week (gross) for a factory job in the
summer of 1970, a makework job for a teenager. There was no
official work experience then, but once over fifteen, there
was a range of paid holiday work available. The reasoning was
that both teenager and employer could look each other over,
and indeed, that company provided my first full-time job a
few years later.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly, but I would say that close to most
'families' did. Then again I supposed it depended on where
you lived. My family, who were not well off by any means,
had a car from the 1950s onwards.
I think that means you *were* well off for the time. In the
mid-60s, I was playing in the local streets at the weekend,
and being residential they had little traffic and hardly any
parked cars, otherwise playing would have been difficult. My
parents were not poor, but certainly couldn't afford a car. I
recall two children at my primary school being brought to
school by car. And no, I didn't live on a sink estate, but
in one of many residential streets in an area full of
respectable terraced houses.
I assure you we weren't well off, Joe, far from it. But I do
accept that few children were taken to school by car in those
days, I certainly never was.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees
and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in
those days.
The economics were different. Only 8-10% of school-leavers
went to university then, and they received a salary premium
much higher than today's 40-50%. The government got their
tuition fees and grants back with significant interest over
the life of the graduate, something that could not happen
today.
That's granted, but the choice was there.
Post by Joe
Post by Farmer Giles
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher
increasing it from 8% to 15% in 1979?
You forgot to mention that it wasn't just 8%, was it? Real
luxuries, like petrol (which also carried 'duty') were
charged 25% VAT, a level which also disappeared.
My point was purely about the shift from direct taxation to
indirect taxation in 1979 - by that I mean Thatcher's reduction
in tax for high earners coupled with a near doubling of VAT.
I believe the theory was that by transferring tax from direct to
indirect methods, the individual had the choice to pay less tax
by not buying items which were subject to high rates of VAT.
Which is why inflation shot up from 10% to 16% within months of
Thatcher’s
election; but of course (as lying politicians always do) they blamed that on
the previous government.
It also caused unemployment to rise rapidly, and made her the most
unpopular PM since the war. She was saved by her bit of Falklands jingoism.
Yes. I remember that. Her policies were directly to blame for one of the most
savage recessions I can remember.
Although, if you had a few quid savings it was not all bad; because
non-food retailers were so desperate for cashflow, they were
discounting items by around 50% for a time and great bargains were to
be had.
The rise of the Bank Rate to 17% didn’t help either, because the
value of sterling shot up (and as usual all right wingers puffed
their chests out with
pride) and many exporters went bust because British goods were more
expensive. The result was manufacturing output declined by over 30%
and the mass unemployment was paid for by North Sea oil revenues.
That is spot on.
What is also spot on, is that Thatcher decided (or was more likely told
by the economic nut jobs who were advising her at the time) that
controlling the money supply was the secret to economic policy.
The subservient BBC was thus forced into ‘money supply’ mode in
order to educate the masses, and no News or Current Affairs programme
could be broadcast without some self appointed expert trying to explain
the difference between M3, M5 and M1 (not motorways in this case,
although they might as well have been for all the sense they made).
Even after ridiculously high interest rates and a consequent rapid drop
in GDP (by over 2% in some qtrs) the precious money supply didn’t fall
as predicted, and was quietly shelved in the mid 80s in favour of
’supply side’ economics which basically meant a Nigel Lawson boom
followed by bust.
I moved house in 1987, and just two years later my new next door
neighbour bought his identical home for 50% (yes honestly) more than I
paid for mine.
Groo! That must have hurt. :(
Post by Keema's Nan
Apparently, this is an example of the economy being in ’safe hands’
when Tories are in power. They had no more idea than a bunch of
squirrels, just very good propaganda.
JNugent
2020-02-09 00:40:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 20:48:23 +0000
Post by Farmer Giles
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in those days in
real terms than they do now, so that is further nonsense.
Food, certainly, clothes, domestic appliances, probably not beer, which
has seen relatively high inflation over decades.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government
minister (Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme
that the average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week.
That would require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's
wage at the place I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around"
50p an hour). Actually, I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump
price was more like three for a pound than four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits! I was,
however, talking in general terms and I can tell you that at that
time around £12 for a 44 hour week was considered about the norm. Of
course it varied, and some industries got more - and some less. A
farm labourer at that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week,
for example, whereas someone working in a car factory would probably
have got quite a bit more.
I got just over £10 a week (gross) for a factory job in the summer of
1970, a makework job for a teenager. There was no official work
experience then, but once over fifteen, there was a range of paid
holiday work available. The reasoning was that both teenager and
employer could look each other over, and indeed, that company provided
my first full-time job a few years later.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly, but I would say that close to most 'families'
did. Then again I supposed it depended on where you lived. My family,
who were not well off by any means, had a car from the 1950s onwards.
I think that means you *were* well off for the time. In the mid-60s, I
was playing in the local streets at the weekend, and being residential
they had little traffic and hardly any parked cars, otherwise playing
would have been difficult. My parents were not poor, but certainly
couldn't afford a car. I recall two children at my primary school being
brought to school by car. And no, I didn't live on a sink estate, but
in one of many residential streets in an area full of respectable
terraced houses.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in those days.
The economics were different. Only 8-10% of school-leavers went to
university then, and they received a salary premium much higher than
today's 40-50%. The government got their tuition fees and grants back
with significant interest over the life of the graduate, something that
could not happen today.
Post by Farmer Giles
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher increasing it
from 8% to 15% in 1979?
You forgot to mention that it wasn't just 8%, was it? Real luxuries,
like petrol (which also carried 'duty') were charged 25% VAT, a level
which also disappeared.
Quite so.
JNugent
2020-02-09 00:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
8s/3d in the pound standard rate. I already said so.
Throughout the 1960s?
Yes.
No, it wasn't.
What was it, then?
Well it wasn't 42% throughout the sixties, which you claimed it was, so
you provide the figures to back up what you claimed - that's how it
works. Either that or admit that you were wrong - once again.
Please state the other rates you think might have applied during the 1960s.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
BTW, how old were you in 1966?
No answer?
I was pressed for time.
I was in my mid-teens (not long after leaving school).
So in all probability you paid none of this 43% income tax you were
complaining about.
In all fact, I certainly did.
Are you under the impression that teenagers were exempt from taxation?
Why would I be when I was a teenager in the 1960s, and worked full-time
every year apart from 1961, when I was still at school? I also know that
as an apprentice in the mid-1960s - which you claimed you were - you
would have paid very little income tax.
What would the rate be?

That is the question.
Post by Farmer Giles
If you disagree, perhaps you'd care to say what you earned and how much
income tax you paid on it?
Very little and very little.

No, I can't remember the details of any of my 1960s weekly pay[packets,
but I paid both income tax and National Insurane (the latter at a flat
rate).

[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
A flat charge is not a "rate" as that term is usually understood.
The flat rate (AFAICR) varied between groups.
So there was no 'rate', but the 'flat rate' varied between groups. I see.
You paid a bit less if you were only 15. That's the sort of
distinction between groups to which I refer. But once you were 18 (or
maybe 21) you paid the standard contribution each week.
Married women could opt to pay a reduced, almost token, weekly contribution.
Oh dear, you are really ridiculous sometimes* (*to be generous to you).
Really? For quoting bits of extablished economic and social history to
people like you?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
and there was no VAT.
We had Purchase Tax at 33% (added to the price of almost
anything worth having). PT was even carried over into
car-pricing as "Special Car Tax". It was eventually abolished
(at last) in the mid-90s by Major's government. Until then, SPT
was added to the price of a car before VAT was added.
It wasn't levied on services, nor second-hand goods.
True. But SET (Selective Employment Tax) was levied on the
employment of everyone in service industries.
What? You don't remember Wilson's SET?
Oh dear, talk about clutching at straws! SET was paid by the
employer, not the employee - and it was 'selective'. It's purpose was
to support manufacturing industries.
It's purpose was to push workers into manufacturing as opposed to the
industries which were actually growing, from car repairs to banking.
It was a hair-raisingly bad tax. The employer, in paying it, was
facing extra costs in employing workers. Have a guess what effect that
had on employment.
All irrelevant, as you know, but I suppose any straws will do when
you're sinking.
Please yourself. All taxes levied on employment dissuuade employers from
employing more people.

But perhaps you think they encourage more employment.

In which case there'd be a question or two on what you think (if that's
the right word) SET was for.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
It should also be remembered that many things were free, or
Prescriptions, NHS dental treatment, hospital parking, MIRAS, etc.
Prescriptions were not free and had not been so since about 1950
(Harold Wilson famously resigned from Attlee's government over
the introduction of prescription charges).
I said free or cost very little. I recall something like two
shillings in the early 1960s - but they were free for a spell a
few years later.
When?
In 1965 for about three years.
I don't remember that at all. But I was then in the peak of health and
rarely visited my GP.
What you remember or don't remember doesn't determine anything. The fact
is, you were wrong again. Have you ever thought of admitting it sometimes?
Post by JNugent
Why did Labour re-introduce prescription charges in 1968 (assuming for
a moment that they were free from 1965 for three years)?
Irrelevant.
How?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
NHS dental treatment has never been free as far as I am aware.
Its connection with the NHS was tenuous, then as now.
I can't remember the exact details but I'm fairly sure that NHS
dentistry cost little or nothing at times in the 1960s or 70s.
"Little or nothing".
You could say that of petrol, complete with its 400% taxation.
You could, but I was talking about NHS dentistry.
Everything cost "little or nothing" in those days. The same was true
of wages.
Everything is relative.
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in those days in
real terms than they do now, so that is further nonsense.
Prove it.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government
minister (Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme
that the average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week.
That would require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's wage
at the place I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around" 50p an
hour). Actually, I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump price was more
like three for a pound than four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits! I was,
however, talking in general terms and I can tell you that at that time
around £12 for a 44 hour week was considered about the norm.
I dare say that that was correct for unskilled workers.

I was an apprentice and my social circle consisted of other apprentices
and skilled workers.
Post by Farmer Giles
Of course
it varied, and some industries got more - and some less. A farm labourer
at that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week, for example,
I quite agree (on the =basis of what I heard at the time).
Post by Farmer Giles
whereas someone working in a car factory would probably have got quite a
bit more.
Exactly.
Post by Farmer Giles
When I passed my driving test in 1963 you got four gallons of petrol for
£1, so I would say that my (general) figures were pretty accurate.
I don't disagree.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
As an apprentice, I first earned (or was paid) 2s/1d an hour, which
increased annually with a bigger rise at 18.
Post by Farmer Giles
so not massively different in real terms to now.
I have no idea what apprentices earn now (to the extent that they exist).

Do you have the figures?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
"Hospital parking", eh? That's a good 'un. I wonder how many of
us were able to benefit from that? Certainly not us.
What do you mean, did you or your family never visit anyone in
hospital during 1960/70s?
We did (from time to time).
But we didn't have - and were unable to afford - a car.
And there was you talking (in another discussion) about buying a new
car in the 1970s.
Are you aware that the 1960s and 1970s were quite distinct from each
other and were not the same time?
And did you pay for hospital car parking in the 1970s?
Never. I never went to a hospital during that decade. Or during the
1980s. Well, I might have gone for a tetanus injection, but the hospital
didn't have a car park.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
I started wiork when I was 15. In 1978 (when I bought my first new
car) I was in the second half of my twenties.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
You will quickly appreciate that free parking was not a tremendous
benefit to us (or the majority of the population) at the time.
I don't accept that. Many people had cars at the time - I bought my
first car in 1964.
A. It was not a benefit at all to people who didn't have a car.
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly,
Most people, definitely.
Post by Farmer Giles
but I would say that close to most 'families' did.
So most people didn't.

Apology accepted.
Post by Farmer Giles
Then again I supposed it depended on where you lived. My family, who
were not well off by any means, had a car from the 1950s onwards.
And?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in those days.
Some of us did. Most students in HE today would not have been
able to (because not intelligent enough to) get into a
university in 1966.
Well you apparently got in, so that disproves that claim for a start
You failed your charm school course, then?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
- but what on earth has that piece of nonsense got to do with
Post by Farmer Giles
university grants and no tuition fees?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But
that's down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor
to give to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did
precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're
sort of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load.
That is no principle at all. On that basis, you would abolish fuel tax
and tobacco tax. Good luck trying to persuade the Treasury of that.
You get more ridiculous with every utterance. The general view on
taxation is that it should be progressive.
That is no principle at all. On that basis, you would abolish fuel tax
and tobacco tax. Good luck trying to persuade the Treasury of that.
Post by Farmer Giles
That is that it should, in
the interests of fairness and equability (although I know that your
somewhat warped values of social justice and fairplay make that a
difficult concept for you to grasp), have some relationship to the
ability to pay.
You are making it up as you go along.

Look up the concept of "progressive taxation". See if you can find out
whether fuel and tobacco taxation fall within its definition.

Off you go...
Post by Farmer Giles
In other words, it is generally recognised that higher earners should
pay a higher percentage of their earnings than those on a low-income.
Indirect taxation has the opposite effect. In fact, with VAT, lower
earners generally pay a far higher percentage of their disposable income
in tax. This is regressive and not conducive to social cohesion.
Is VAT the only tax we have, then?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Thatcher reversed that completely. The shift to indirect taxation
(i.e. VAT) placed a heavier burden on the poorest.
The introduction of VAT was a condition of joining the Common Market.
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher increasing it
from 8% to 15% in 1979?
Make your mind up. Is VAT a progressive, retrogressive or regressive tax
(look that one up too)?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded
excessively doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's
their money. I bet you think that all those parasites in the City
in the 'loadsamoney' days of Thatcher, when she was selling off
the family silver, were all dealing in their 'own money'.
I have no opinion on earners on "The City".
No, I'm sure you don't.
That's right. I am not obsessed with such matters. Or with what their
religion is.
Not obsessed, or doesn't support your absurd views?
I leave pronouncements on religion entirely to predictable people such
as yourself.
Farmer Giles
2020-02-09 08:58:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
8s/3d in the pound standard rate. I already said so.
Throughout the 1960s?
Yes.
No, it wasn't.
What was it, then?
Well it wasn't 42% throughout the sixties, which you claimed it was,
so you provide the figures to back up what you claimed - that's how it
works. Either that or admit that you were wrong - once again.
Please state the other rates you think might have applied during the 1960s.
I could, and I will do after you've given your figures to back up your
claim - that it was 42% thoughout the 1960s.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
BTW, how old were you in 1966?
No answer?
I was pressed for time.
I was in my mid-teens (not long after leaving school).
So in all probability you paid none of this 43% income tax you were
complaining about.
In all fact, I certainly did.
Are you under the impression that teenagers were exempt from taxation?
Why would I be when I was a teenager in the 1960s, and worked
full-time every year apart from 1961, when I was still at school? I
also know that as an apprentice in the mid-1960s - which you claimed
you were - you would have paid very little income tax.
What would the rate be?
That is the question.
A question to which you have pronounced on, but seem unable to back up.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
If you disagree, perhaps you'd care to say what you earned and how
much income tax you paid on it?
Very little and very little.
No, I can't remember the details of any of my 1960s weekly pay[packets,
but I paid both income tax and National Insurane (the latter at a flat
rate).
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
A flat charge is not a "rate" as that term is usually understood.
The flat rate (AFAICR) varied between groups.
So there was no 'rate', but the 'flat rate' varied between groups. I see.
You paid a bit less if you were only 15. That's the sort of
distinction between groups to which I refer. But once you were 18 (or
maybe 21) you paid the standard contribution each week.
Married women could opt to pay a reduced, almost token, weekly contribution.
Oh dear, you are really ridiculous sometimes* (*to be generous to you).
Really? For quoting bits of extablished economic and social history to
people like you?
You've quoted nothing, nor have you proved that you understand the
correct use of English.

Try this: in the 1960s NI contributions were paid at a *RATE* of X
pounds per week.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
and there was no VAT.
We had Purchase Tax at 33% (added to the price of almost
anything worth having). PT was even carried over into
car-pricing as "Special Car Tax". It was eventually abolished
(at last) in the mid-90s by Major's government. Until then, SPT
was added to the price of a car before VAT was added.
It wasn't levied on services, nor second-hand goods.
True. But SET (Selective Employment Tax) was levied on the
employment of everyone in service industries.
What? You don't remember Wilson's SET?
Oh dear, talk about clutching at straws! SET was paid by the
employer, not the employee - and it was 'selective'. It's purpose
was to support manufacturing industries.
It's purpose was to push workers into manufacturing as opposed to the
industries which were actually growing, from car repairs to banking.
It was a hair-raisingly bad tax. The employer, in paying it, was
facing extra costs in employing workers. Have a guess what effect
that had on employment.
All irrelevant, as you know, but I suppose any straws will do when
you're sinking.
Please yourself. All taxes levied on employment dissuuade employers from
employing more people.
But perhaps you think they encourage more employment.
In which case there'd be a question or two on what you think (if that's
the right word) SET was for.
I know that you're floundering and getting desperate but please stop
waffling on about things which are completely irrelevant.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
It should also be remembered that many things were free, or
Prescriptions, NHS dental treatment, hospital parking, MIRAS, etc.
Prescriptions were not free and had not been so since about
1950 (Harold Wilson famously resigned from Attlee's government
over the introduction of prescription charges).
I said free or cost very little. I recall something like two
shillings in the early 1960s - but they were free for a spell a
few years later.
When?
In 1965 for about three years.
I don't remember that at all. But I was then in the peak of health
and rarely visited my GP.
What you remember or don't remember doesn't determine anything. The
fact is, you were wrong again. Have you ever thought of admitting it
sometimes?
Post by JNugent
Why did Labour re-introduce prescription charges in 1968 (assuming
for a moment that they were free from 1965 for three years)?
Irrelevant.
How?
Because you claimed they were never free and I have given you the dates
when they were (which is quite easy to check) - now you want to go on to
something completely irrelevant, once again. I understand your
desperation, and that you're not very bright, but please try and stick
to the point.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
NHS dental treatment has never been free as far as I am aware.
Its connection with the NHS was tenuous, then as now.
I can't remember the exact details but I'm fairly sure that NHS
dentistry cost little or nothing at times in the 1960s or 70s.
"Little or nothing".
You could say that of petrol, complete with its 400% taxation.
You could, but I was talking about NHS dentistry.
Everything cost "little or nothing" in those days. The same was true
of wages.
Everything is relative.
Many, if not most things - housing apart - cost more in those days in
real terms than they do now, so that is further nonsense.
Prove it.
Well it's easily provable: check food prices, consumer household
electrical goods, etc, but I'm not the one who said that 'everything
cost little or nothing in those days'. How about you try and prove that?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Anyway, a gallon of petrol cost about five shillings in the early
sixties, which was around the average hourly pay for a working man,
"Around" is a good word. I remember that in 1966, a government
minister (Richard Marsh, IIRC) bragged on a TV discussion programme
that the average male industrial worker's wage was now £17 a week.
That would require an hourly rate of 8s/6d (42.5p). A craftsman's
wage at the place I worked at was more like £20 a week ("around" 50p
an hour). Actually, I'm fairly sure thab by 1970, the pump price was
more like three for a pound than four for a pound.
Of course politicians never embellish things when it suits! I was,
however, talking in general terms and I can tell you that at that time
around £12 for a 44 hour week was considered about the norm.
I dare say that that was correct for unskilled workers.
I was an apprentice and my social circle consisted of other apprentices
and skilled workers.
Post by Farmer Giles
Of course it varied, and some industries got more - and some less. A
farm labourer at that time would have been lucky to see £12 per week,
for example,
I quite agree (on the =basis of what I heard at the time).
Post by Farmer Giles
whereas someone working in a car factory would probably have got quite
a bit more.
Exactly.
Post by Farmer Giles
When I passed my driving test in 1963 you got four gallons of petrol
for £1, so I would say that my (general) figures were pretty accurate.
I don't disagree.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
As an apprentice, I first earned (or was paid) 2s/1d an hour, which
increased annually with a bigger rise at 18.
Post by Farmer Giles
so not massively different in real terms to now.
I have no idea what apprentices earn now (to the extent that they exist).
Do you have the figures?
You've confused things there. That comment about things not being
massively different to now was about the relationship between petrol
prices and hourly wages.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
"Hospital parking", eh? That's a good 'un. I wonder how many of
us were able to benefit from that? Certainly not us.
What do you mean, did you or your family never visit anyone in
hospital during 1960/70s?
We did (from time to time).
But we didn't have - and were unable to afford - a car.
And there was you talking (in another discussion) about buying a new
car in the 1970s.
Are you aware that the 1960s and 1970s were quite distinct from each
other and were not the same time?
And did you pay for hospital car parking in the 1970s?
Never. I never went to a hospital during that decade. Or during the
1980s. Well, I might have gone for a tetanus injection, but the hospital
didn't have a car park.
I know that you clearly think the world revolves around you and your
personal circumstances, but many others do have to visit hospitals and
sometimes every day for long periods, so car-parking charges are very
important.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
I started wiork when I was 15. In 1978 (when I bought my first new
car) I was in the second half of my twenties.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
You will quickly appreciate that free parking was not a tremendous
benefit to us (or the majority of the population) at the time.
I don't accept that. Many people had cars at the time - I bought my
first car in 1964.
A. It was not a benefit at all to people who didn't have a car.
B. Most people in the mid-1960s didn't own cars.
Most people possibly,
Most people, definitely.
Post by Farmer Giles
but I would say that close to most 'families' did.
So most people didn't.
Apology accepted.
I have never claimed that 'most' people did - many is not most.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Then again I supposed it depended on where you lived. My family, who
were not well off by any means, had a car from the 1950s onwards.
And?
Which proves that car ownership was far from a rarity at the time.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Couple that with no university tuition fees and available
grants, and I think we did rather well in those days.
Some of us did. Most students in HE today would not have been
able to (because not intelligent enough to) get into a
university in 1966.
Well you apparently got in, so that disproves that claim for a start
You failed your charm school course, then?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
- but what on earth has that piece of nonsense got to do with
Post by Farmer Giles
university grants and no tuition fees?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Higher earners paid much more tax than now, of course. But
that's down to Thatcher's policy of taking money from the poor
to give to the rich.
You cannot give someone's own money to them. That's just a
socialist lie, told to deceive.
Doubling VAT and slashing higher rates of income tax did precisely that.
To the extent that it means the opposite of what you say, you're
sort of right.
It means exactly what I say. A general principle of taxation is that
those with the broadest backs carry the heaviest load.
That is no principle at all. On that basis, you would abolish fuel
tax and tobacco tax. Good luck trying to persuade the Treasury of that.
You get more ridiculous with every utterance. The general view on
taxation is that it should be progressive.
That is no principle at all. On that basis, you would abolish fuel tax
and tobacco tax. Good luck trying to persuade the Treasury of that.
Post by Farmer Giles
That is that it should, in the interests of fairness and equability
(although I know that your somewhat warped values of social justice
and fairplay make that a difficult concept for you to grasp), have
some relationship to the ability to pay.
You are making it up as you go along.
Look up the concept of "progressive taxation". See if you can find out
whether fuel and tobacco taxation fall within its definition.
Off you go...
You're the one that needs to look things up, considering much you've got
wrong.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
In other words, it is generally recognised that higher earners should
pay a higher percentage of their earnings than those on a low-income.
Indirect taxation has the opposite effect. In fact, with VAT, lower
earners generally pay a far higher percentage of their disposable
income in tax. This is regressive and not conducive to social cohesion.
Is VAT the only tax we have, then?
Has that been claimed, or are you confused once more?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Thatcher reversed that completely. The shift to indirect taxation
(i.e. VAT) placed a heavier burden on the poorest.
The introduction of VAT was a condition of joining the Common Market.
Gerraway! What on earth has that go to do with Thatcher increasing it
from 8% to 15% in 1979?
Make your mind up. Is VAT a progressive, retrogressive or regressive tax
(look that one up too)?
Are you on something?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Just because someone manages to get themselves rewarded
excessively doesn't necessarily mean they've earned it or it's
their money. I bet you think that all those parasites in the
City in the 'loadsamoney' days of Thatcher, when she was selling
off the family silver, were all dealing in their 'own money'.
I have no opinion on earners on "The City".
No, I'm sure you don't.
That's right. I am not obsessed with such matters. Or with what their
religion is.
Not obsessed, or doesn't support your absurd views?
I leave pronouncements on religion entirely to predictable people such
as yourself.
Are can't remember making any 'pronouncements' on religion - do you have
some examples?
Greekbastard®™
2020-02-07 17:42:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 04:00:07 +0000, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before
Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU
trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned
that Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade
deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless
he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will
fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50%
more than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice
that. No-one ever suggested that we needed to have negative
rates in order to "do well". Stealing the value of savings by
transferring it to borrowers is not a moral policy and in any
case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over
their needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is
the inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at
least 2% on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its
implication is that a cash saver should currently be able to get
about 3.8% (tax paid or tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that
would be nice. Especially since I spent a working and
mortgage-paying life paying far higher rates when savers were
reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient
value in recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in
interest rates created a greater loss than any gain through
interest receipts.
That is nonsense of the highest order. I have "acquired" nothing
within the potential value of my house. I cannot spend it. It will
never be mine to spend. Of all the tripe ever uttered in all the
gin joints in all the towns in all the world, that one - "you have
acquired value in your house" - is competing to be the most risible.
Are you saying your house has no financial value?
You know full well that I am not saying that.
I am telling (or rather, reminding) you that the notional value of my
home is not relevant. I cannot liqidate the value of my home without
selling all or part of it. It is stupid to insist otherwise. Are you
going to insist otherwise?
Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options. If
you discard these options it will be through narrow mindedness.
That's your best yet.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Saying it is risible to point out that you're sitting on a high
value asset that has accumulated value over the same time interest
rates are low is nothing less than pathetic.
You are being exceptionally silly. You know that the notional value
of my home does not benefit me.
You are bing even sillier if you don't recognise the value of your
home. Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options.
Are you going to even try to be serious?
Post by Fredxx
If you become incapacitated it might also determine the choice of
future care facility.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Are you really that myopic?
Do you really not know what "myopic" means?
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are
more closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
The MLR must, of necessity, be somewhat higher than the rate of
inflation (currently a little under 2%), otherwise the interest
rate is negative. The retail rate has to cover the costs of the
banking process and a return for investors.
It does not have to be higher. You also have the capital to spend,
or would you rather high interest, and high inflation to erode your
capital?
Higher interest rates would inhibit, not encourage, inflation.
It is surprising that you don't know that.
It is not surprising you don't know that there are other influences
that govern inflation. The value of the GBP for one.
Ah... I see your problem.
You have an idea that these concepts are related (and they are), but you
don't know *how* they are related.
There's no shame in that, necessarily.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either
one's own money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides
benefit to the lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than
borrowers, then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you
upheld capitalism and the balancing of supply and demand.
Then let the Treasury and the BoE keep out of it - particularly by
ceasing to pump billions of pounds out into the economy unsupported
by production. That is not the free market in operation. It is the
veryt definition of government interference.
There was a time when high street interest rates did deviate from MLR.
Nothing wrong with pumping money into the economy. A small amount of
inflation is good for the economy. It's also good for savers as the
interest rates would otherwise be lower.
Interest rates would otherwise be significantly higher, not lower.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
I am always prepared to support free markets. We don't have one at
the moment. it is heavily rigged in favour of borrowers (for no
obvious reason - it never used to be, especially when I was a
borrower) and against savers (the same savers, largely, who were
paying 12% mortgages).
I'm glad you agree the market is in favour of borrowers.
"Agree"?
I emphatically *state* it. You have not done so. At least, not until now.
Good, the market can only be good. You have done well in the past. It
usually favours one or the other depending on perspective.
Best put your money in alternative places for higher yield. Just be
aware of the consequences. The choice is yours. If you choose to put
in low interest rate options then that is your choice and best to stop
whingeing.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Only for a fairly brief period, I recall that is was generally around
33% - do you have any figures available?
It has dropped steadily from 45% in the immediate post war years to
the 20% we have today. His figure of 42% is correct for the early
1960s.
Peeler
2020-02-07 18:09:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 09:42:13 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Greekbastard®™
It has dropped steadily from 45% in the immediate post war years to
the 20% we have today. His figure of 42% is correct for the early
1960s.
SOURCE for your figures (other than your sick psychopathic head), dreckserb?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
JNugent
2020-02-08 16:30:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 04:00:07 +0000, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before
Brexit. It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15%
fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU
trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned
that Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade
deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless
he complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will
fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50%
more than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice
that. No-one ever suggested that we needed to have negative
rates in order to "do well". Stealing the value of savings by
transferring it to borrowers is not a moral policy and in any
case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over
their needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is
the inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at
least 2% on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its
implication is that a cash saver should currently be able to get
about 3.8% (tax paid or tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that
would be nice. Especially since I spent a working and
mortgage-paying life paying far higher rates when savers were
reaping up to 10%.
Diddums. You have seen your house acquire more than sufficient
value in recent years. It would be so ironic if an increase in
interest rates created a greater loss than any gain through
interest receipts.
That is nonsense of the highest order. I have "acquired" nothing
within the potential value of my house. I cannot spend it. It will
never be mine to spend. Of all the tripe ever uttered in all the
gin joints in all the towns in all the world, that one - "you have
acquired value in your house" - is competing to be the most risible.
Are you saying your house has no financial value?
You know full well that I am not saying that.
I am telling (or rather, reminding) you that the notional value of my
home is not relevant. I cannot liqidate the value of my home without
selling all or part of it. It is stupid to insist otherwise. Are you
going to insist otherwise?
Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options. If
you discard these options it will be through narrow mindedness.
That's your best yet.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Saying it is risible to point out that you're sitting on a high
value asset that has accumulated value over the same time interest
rates are low is nothing less than pathetic.
You are being exceptionally silly. You know that the notional value
of my home does not benefit me.
You are bing even sillier if you don't recognise the value of your
home. Yes, you can downsize or go into rented. These are real options.
Are you going to even try to be serious?
Post by Fredxx
If you become incapacitated it might also determine the choice of
future care facility.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Are you really that myopic?
Do you really not know what "myopic" means?
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
May low interest rates be long lived. High interest rates are
more closely aligned with poor investment in industry.
A MLR of 6% is not "high".
It is very high especially when inflation is currently so low in
comparison with times you relish with higher interest rates.
The MLR must, of necessity, be somewhat higher than the rate of
inflation (currently a little under 2%), otherwise the interest
rate is negative. The retail rate has to cover the costs of the
banking process and a return for investors.
It does not have to be higher. You also have the capital to spend,
or would you rather high interest, and high inflation to erode your
capital?
Higher interest rates would inhibit, not encourage, inflation.
It is surprising that you don't know that.
It is not surprising you don't know that there are other influences
that govern inflation. The value of the GBP for one.
Ah... I see your problem.
You have an idea that these concepts are related (and they are), but you
don't know *how* they are related.
There's no shame in that, necessarily.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Unless you also think investment is not a moral policy?
Investment is a wonderful thing. But one should invest either
one's own money or borrow it at a realistic rate which provides
benefit to the lender as well as the borrower.
Yes, it's called banking. Where there are more lenders than
borrowers, then in becomes a borrowers market. I thought you
upheld capitalism and the balancing of supply and demand.
Then let the Treasury and the BoE keep out of it - particularly by
ceasing to pump billions of pounds out into the economy unsupported
by production. That is not the free market in operation. It is the
veryt definition of government interference.
There was a time when high street interest rates did deviate from MLR.
Nothing wrong with pumping money into the economy. A small amount of
inflation is good for the economy. It's also good for savers as the
interest rates would otherwise be lower.
Interest rates would otherwise be significantly higher, not lower.
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
I suspect you do, but only when it is selfishly in your favour.
I am always prepared to support free markets. We don't have one at
the moment. it is heavily rigged in favour of borrowers (for no
obvious reason - it never used to be, especially when I was a
borrower) and against savers (the same savers, largely, who were
paying 12% mortgages).
I'm glad you agree the market is in favour of borrowers.
"Agree"?
I emphatically *state* it. You have not done so. At least, not until now.
Good, the market can only be good. You have done well in the past. It
usually favours one or the other depending on perspective.
Best put your money in alternative places for higher yield. Just be
aware of the consequences. The choice is yours. If you choose to put
in low interest rate options then that is your choice and best to stop
whingeing.
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
When a government is so far in debt, it's hardly surprising they
might prefer a low interest rate. Now if your generation had paid
more into the pot.....
Like the 42% standard tax rate I paid as a teenager?
Only for a fairly brief period, I recall that is was generally around
33% - do you have any figures available?
It has dropped steadily from 45% in the immediate post war years to
the 20% we have today. His figure of 42% is correct for the early
1960s.
...at least as far as 1966/1967.
Peeler
2020-02-08 16:39:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 16:30:27 +0000, JNugent, the notorious, troll-feeding,
Post by JNugent
Post by Greekbastard®™
It has dropped steadily from 45% in the immediate post war years to
the 20% we have today. His figure of 42% is correct for the early
1960s.
...at least as far as 1966/1967.
I doubt the serb psychopath, now trolling as "Greekbastard®™", lived in
England back then already, troll-feeding senile idiot! <BG>
Greekbastard®™
2020-02-07 14:07:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Fredxx
Post by JNugent
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit.
It's been
worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year.  That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further.  What a mess!
     "Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
     "The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that
Britain would
     not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal, while
     Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-take
s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
During the 1980s and 1990s we routinely had MLR of (about) 50% more
than that - and for a while we had MLR of (about) twice that. No-one
ever suggested that we needed to have negative rates in order to "do
well". Stealing the value of savings by transferring it to borrowers
is not a moral policy and in any case can only persist for so long.
Other countries such as Japan have had low interest rates for decades.
It's even more immoral for people with an excess of money over their
needs to expect higher interest rates.
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at least 2%
on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its implication is that a
cash saver should currently be able to get about 3.8% (tax paid or
tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that would be nice.
Well, that's just too bad. The world doesn't work like that any more.
Get used to it.
Peeler
2020-02-07 14:15:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 06:07:51 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at least 2%
on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its implication is that a
cash saver should currently be able to get about 3.8% (tax paid or
tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that would be nice.
Well, that's just too bad. The world doesn't work like that any more.
Get used to it.
If someone wanted to hear an asshole's opinion, they'd have farted, serb
asshole!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Greekbastard®™
2020-02-07 16:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 06:22:43 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Greekbastard®™
Post by JNugent
I don't know about you, but what I want - no, what I need - is the
inflation rate covered, plus a modest real-terms return of at least 2%
on top of that. That isn't much to ask and its implication is that a
cash saver should currently be able to get about 3.8% (tax paid or
tax-free in an ISA). A bit more than that would be nice.
Well, that's just too bad. The world doesn't work like that any more.
Get used to it.
Chap's probably a Brexit voter - they hark back to a rose-tinted
past, and can be reluctant to see that the world may have changed.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
He is, and the world just changed again...
...to a rose-tinted future, insh'Allah!
Peeler
2020-02-07 17:32:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:53:00 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Greekbastard®™
He is, and the world just changed again...
...to a rose-tinted future, insh'Allah!
Take your pills, pedophilic gay psycho!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID: <Y8LUE.513827$***@usenetxs.com>
Peeler
2020-02-06 14:52:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 06 Feb 2020 04:50:27 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikkbassturddo®™", farted
Post by Grikkbassturddo®™
Post by JNugent
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
No, because it was overvalued in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
That'll do WONDERS for the economy!
Turned economist now, pedophilic psychopath? LMAO
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
Pamela
2020-02-06 14:12:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's
been worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further. What a mess!
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain
would not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal,
while Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-t
ake s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
Do you expect the MLR to be changed to recover exchange rate strength,
without any effect on inflation which is what is it mandated to control?
abelard
2020-02-06 14:21:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's
been worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further. What a mess!
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain
would not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal,
while Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-t
ake s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
Do you expect the MLR to be changed to recover exchange rate strength,
without any effect on inflation which is what is it mandated to control?
you don't have clue...

i'll let others explain to you, i can't be bothered
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2020-02-06 15:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
The pound was worth about 1.40 Euros for a year before Brexit. It's
been worth less than 1.20 Euros for the last year. That's a 15% fall.
Now the pound falls further. What a mess!
"Pound falls as Boris Johnson takes tough line on EU trade deal
"The pound fell on Monday after Boris Johnson warned that Britain
would not accept alignment with EU rules in any Brexit trade deal,
while Brussels threatened to put tariffs on UK goods unless he
complies."
<www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/pound-falls-as-boris-johnson-t
ake s-tough-line-on-eu-trade-deal-brexit>
The £ has fallen because our interest rates are too low.
Increase MLR to a reasonable rate (eg, 6%) and things will fall into place.
Do you expect the MLR to be changed to recover exchange rate strength,
without any effect on inflation which is what is it mandated to control?
No, I don't.

It would indeed have an effect on inflation: it would inhibit the
tendency to inflation. Interest rate rises always do that. It would also
increase the foreign exchange value of the pound.

What's not to like?
Loading...