Investments - Strategies, Ideas, Options & advice

[RichA]

That narrative misses the point completely… that swappers will be the next to complain..

A couple that gets paid £70,000 a year each are not "classic middle earners." They are in the top 10% of UK earners.
It's nonsense.
The median UK salary is £40,000 and they're earning 75% more than that.
The fictional couple need to learn how to manage their money; they could be quite wealthy.

 

[SteveW86]

A couple that gets paid £70,000 a year each are not "classic middle earners." They are in the top 10% of UK earners.
It's nonsense.
The median UK salary is £40,000 and they're earning 75% more than that.
The fictional couple need to learn how to manage their money; they could be quite wealthy.

I was thinking very similar reading that.

 

[Hobbit]

The budget, as almost always, comes with tax rises. Why?

Everyone wants decent access to healthcare, more especially when they urgently need it. Whether it’s to A&E or quick referrals for something time sensitive like a cancer diagnosis. The narrative often trotted out is an inefficient NHS. There are inefficiencies but it’s nowhere near the narrative trotted out.

Everyone wants decent social services, but again the ‘shouting’ is all about those that have made shirking a life style choice. Social Services extends way beyond paying for those that lose their job, many of which try desperately to get back on the jobs ladder. And, again, everyone wants decent Social Services especially when they need them, whether for themselves or their parents when a care home is needed.

Then there’s general infrastructure, including who pays for the excessive prices for electricity & gas.

All the above costs money. Actually, it costs more money than just accepting the status quo. Borrowing is an option, but the current level of borrowing is already too high. I guess that leaves two options, 1) taxation, and 2) efficiency savings. Efficiency savings over countless years has meant there’s very little left to shave off, certainly not enough to create the cash to spend elsewhere.

Taxation is the only viable answer. Taxation hurts, no one want to give more money but pretty much everyone wants a better health service & Social Services. If you want to improve things, not just maintain the status quo, you’ve got to pay for it. The mechanics and semantics around that are difficult to discuss without crossing the political line. All I will say about that is both sides are right and both sides are wrong, dependant on your political leaning.

 

[Voyager EMH]

The budget, as almost always, comes with tax rises. Why?

Everyone wants decent access to healthcare, more especially when they urgently need it. Whether it’s to A&E or quick referrals for something time sensitive like a cancer diagnosis. The narrative often trotted out is an inefficient NHS. There are inefficiencies but it’s nowhere near the narrative trotted out.

Everyone wants decent social services, but again the ‘shouting’ is all about those that have made shirking a life style choice. Social Services extends way beyond paying for those that lose their job, many of which try desperately to get back on the jobs ladder. And, again, everyone wants decent Social Services especially when they need them, whether for themselves or their parents when a care home is needed.

Then there’s general infrastructure, including who pays for the excessive prices for electricity & gas.

All the above costs money. Actually, it costs more money than just accepting the status quo. Borrowing is an option, but the current level of borrowing is already too high. I guess that leaves two options, 1) taxation, and 2) efficiency savings. Efficiency savings over countless years has meant there’s very little left to shave off, certainly not enough to create the cash to spend elsewhere.

Taxation is the only viable answer. Taxation hurts, no one want to give more money but pretty much everyone wants a better health service & Social Services. If you want to improve things, not just maintain the status quo, you’ve got to pay for it. The mechanics and semantics around that are difficult to discuss without crossing the political line. All I will say about that is both sides are right and both sides are wrong, dependant on your political leaning.

Excellent.

But I disagree with the statement, "Taxation hurts".
Lack of, or insufficient taxation hurts. Hurts the economy and hurts the majority.
Taxation is done to provide us with things we need. This is the opposite of hurting.
Taxation causes whingeing - would be a more appropriate statement, I believe.

Being poor hurts. It can be an enduring hurting.

 

[Voyager EMH]

That narrative misses the point completely… that swappers will be the next to complain..

Oh, I apologise.
I took the complaining couple's moaning to be a serious criticism. I did not realise that it was done in jest.

 

[Mudball]

A couple that gets paid £70,000 a year each are not "classic middle earners." They are in the top 10% of UK earners.
It's nonsense.
The median UK salary is £40,000 and they're earning 75% more than that.
The fictional couple need to learn how to manage their money; they could be quite wealthy.

Disagree.. 70k is just about managing ... if you in and around London.. and have a 'normal' family with 2 kids + house/flat + a vehicle. Thanks to return to office, just the monthly pass to London is about £350-70 of post tax money. If you live further out because housing is not affordable then it is even more. So £70k > £51k > £4.3K annual pass.

We can all argue about lifestyle inflation, unncessary expections etc. The reality is down south, the ££££ does not go very far as many expect

 

[RichA]

Disagree.. 70k is just about managing ... if you in and around London.. and have a 'normal' family with 2 kids + house/flat + a vehicle. Thanks to return to office, just the monthly pass to London is about £350-70 of post tax money. If you live further out because housing is not affordable then it is even more. So £70k > £51k > £4.3K annual pass.

We can all argue about lifestyle inflation, unncessary expections etc. The reality is down south, the ££££ does not go very far as many expect

Depends if we're talking about fictional anecdotal people with unrealistic expectations or factual anecdotes.
I've commuted into London for 30 years, living in a Hertfordshire commuter town. MrsA works close to home. We're much, much closer to the national average salary than the fictional couple. Nowhere near a combined income of £140,000; that seems like a Lottery Set For Life sum.
We run two ICE cars and do 30,000 miles per year between us.
We aren't rich but we live modestly and certainly aren't struggling.
The effect of the budget on us is negligible; estimated at £300 worse off for the year.

It mostly seems like political scaremongering and point-scoring.

 

[GreiginFife]

The real squeezed middle.. which everyone wants to blame for making the choices like - working hard to get jobs, paye, saving hard to buy a house/pension, aspiring too much by sending kids to private schools.

We should be worshipping them not treating them as unlimited ATMs


View attachment 60144

So this “couple” are paying 25% of their gross income as additional pension contributions? Or £35000 per year?
I think that might contribute to their predicament.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Disagree.. 70k is just about managing ... if you in and around London.. and have a 'normal' family with 2 kids + house/flat + a vehicle. Thanks to return to office, just the monthly pass to London is about £350-70 of post tax money. If you live further out because housing is not affordable then it is even more. So £70k > £51k > £4.3K annual pass.

We can all argue about lifestyle inflation, unncessary expections etc. The reality is down south, the ££££ does not go very far as many expect

The example given is not £70k, it's £140k combined. If you are not managing there, you need lessons on financial management or to re-evaluate your life choices.

 

[IanM]

Post edited by personal no politics filter.

Suffice to say. Some people actually live outside the South East. It's miles cheaper and more pleasant.... as long as you can remain employed.

 

[IanM]

The example given is not £70k, it's £140k combined. If you are not managing there, you need lessons on financial management or to re-evaluate your life choices.

I wonder what that £140k regionally adjusted for the North East would be?

My house in Monmouthshire is twice the size of my nephew's who lives near Arnos Grove Tube, top of the Piccadilly Line. Mine is valued at less half of his. Utter madness.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I wonder what that £140k regionally adjusted for the North East would be?

My house in Monmouthshire is twice the size of my nephew's who lives near Arnos Grove Tube, top of the Piccadilly Line. Mine is valued at less half of his. Utter madness.

I fully appreciate there are big regional differences but even so, it's a lot of money. Would the equivalent be £100k - £110k?

In terms of how would it look, you can live in hotspots in the NE and £140k wouldn't see you living an exceptional lifestyle. In other parts, it would. It would be the same where you are. Obviously, it would still go further than the London area (you could add another digit on and it would not make me move to the London area.The quality of life I can have here, as with you in S Wales, is greater than I would have there.)

 

[IanM]

There's probably a statto in the ONS who could tell you sensible numbers. But it isnt that simple due to urban, rural disparity, and some places are holiday zones.

I moved to Monmouthshire for a role I took up. It lasted two years, and for the next 15 I didnt work a commutable distance from where we lived and had to stay away all week.

Covid changed the working culture so it might be easier to move away now.

 

[D-S]

No one has an issue with raising certain taxes, the issue is I don't trust the goverment to spend it wisely. It will almost all be wasted and the people who are footing the bill, will see very little benefit. Those who benefit most will be those who have done nothing to deserve it

Aren’t the voter turnout numbers very low in this demographic though?

 

[Hobbit]

No one has an issue with raising certain taxes, the issue is I don't trust the goverment to spend it wisely. It will almost all be wasted and the people who are footing the bill, will see very little benefit. Those who benefit most will be those who have done nothing to deserve it, so Labour can buy future votes. It's their modus operandi.

See below… stereotyping a demographic?

Aren’t the voter turnout numbers very low in this demographic though?

 

[D-S]

See below… stereotyping a demographic?

Is % voter turnout of a demographic stereotyping?
If you say pensioners have a high % turnout at elections or 18 - 24 year olds have a low turnout is this somehow stigmatising them?

 

[Voyager EMH]

No one has an issue with raising certain taxes, the issue is I don't trust the goverment to spend it wisely. It will almost all be wasted and the people who are footing the bill, will see very little benefit. Those who benefit most will be those who have done nothing to deserve it

Housing benefit does not go to poor people. It ends up in the hands of the owners of properties that poor people live in.
The housing benefit pay-outs are massive. It is a huge proportion of the over all welfare bill.
Tax-payers pay for it and it ends up in the hands of people who have done nothing to deserve it - as you so rightly say.
Poor people who receive benefits are not salting it away in tax-avoidance schemes in the British Virgin Islands or family trusts administered in the Isle of Man. That money is circulated straight back into the economy.
But taxpayers money, paid out in housing benefit, does end up in those places in the accounts of wealthy owners of property.

"Who benefit most" is hardly ever poor people. They usually remain poor.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

No one has an issue with raising certain taxes, the issue is I don't trust the goverment to spend it wisely. It will almost all be wasted and the people who are footing the bill, will see very little benefit. Those who benefit most will be those who have done nothing to deserve it,

We all see and experience the benefit from there being a healthy and socially 'cared for' society.

And there are many, many ways that different governments can find, and have found, to spaff money up the wall - some of absolutely zero lasting (or indeed any) benefit to the general public.

I am not going to debate who deserves what...indeed I might well argue that as a relatively well off individual I have done little to 'deserve' what I have - my situation is largely one of circumstance, good fortune and often luck - the good fortune and luck that the circumstances of many do not afford in life.

ETA..Enough division, resentment and anger have been created in the UK over recent years by a few self-serving individuals, without there being any need for those of us who have a little or a lot more than many, seeking and creating division amongst those who have least.

 

[RichA]

What if the worker on £35k has 5 kids?
It’s not only the unemployed who have more than 2 kids.

I'm also fairly sure it's not the fault of any of those kids that their parents are on benefits.

 

[Hobbit]

According to


Based on UK Budget 2025 analysis from OBR and IFS:- A £35k worker faces ~£1,400 annual loss from extended income tax threshold freezes (fiscal drag increases tax liability).- A non-working family with 5 kids on benefits gains ~£10,000 yearly from scrapping the two-child cap, adding support for the extra 3 children (~£3,455 each annually).
Does this seem fair?

What is the non-working family’s income?

The worker earns £35k, loses £1,400 in the extended tax threshold freeze but then gets extra for any children beyond 2 children.

Whilst your narrow example is accurate, it ignores all the working families with more than 2 children.