Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
So you essentially live in a commuter town outside London.
A 3 bed semi in zone 6 is around £500k, what mortgage term would you need to be paying only £800 a month?
Answer - ~£2k with a 10% deposit
Well my house isn't worth £500K
- Probably not even £400k just yet...But yea, even as caged said, £70k in London isn't as nice as in Sunderland... however it should see you through quite nicely.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,109
Yeah you aren't getting a mortgage for £800, Might as well put a 1 in front of it (and probably add some more on top for good measure), plus you would be in for an interesting ride once interest rates increase.
Think I would know what I pay a month mortgage... o.O but excuse my inaccuracy, it's £885.19.
I didn't think £250 a month for food and toiletries and domestic products and all that was too bad?
p.s My house was bought for £325k... just incase people are using the £500k number. One station outside zone 6.
Could be worse if it was per day as some people spend that on their food daily.
Most definitely. Rich? Guess it depends on your definition of rich, but I personally wouldn't say so.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
Yesterday they said they would abstain, today they did it. What is your problem.
The definition of rich changes as people acquire more, obviously. Anybody can write a list that shows they are left with very little 'disposable' income from their £70k salary after they have spent a ton of cash on things that the majority would class as a luxury - all it means is that person can write a list and total up the lines. Acting as though a slight taxation increase on people earning more than £70k a year is somehow alienating the electorate is bonkers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,109
I was using the example of buying a house today, as you are using a hypothetical 70k salary.
Also 800 a month mortgage for 325k? Any Mortgate calculator will throw out a figure at least double that.
I'm not disagreeing about the tax increase, but to argue someone in London is "Rich" because they earn over £70k is a bit of a stretch imo.
That said most Brits would be considered rich by someone on $2 a day in Africa..
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
SO an election thread turns into how much someone pays in London for a mortgage, and it isn't about the cost, its about pedantics.
Nice.
which taxrise for those on over 70K are we talking about btw?
Nice.
which taxrise for those on over 70K are we talking about btw?
I bought the house 6 months ago. I have a lower rate for 3 years, Santander did a FTB special mortgage offer. Normally would have been about £1100. 20% deposit helped...
Just to build the bigger picture I'm 27... 5ish years saving.
Was hard but worth it.
I still don't understand why you're finding it hard to believe me.
I was merely giving a real life example to prove either way if 70k was/ wasn't a lot of money for someone living in London.
Imo, as I said earlier, it gives enough for a comfortable living, especially without kids. But a far cry from rich.
It's a thing that's been going since before he was leader. Before the coalition IIRC. He's largely made it worse for himself; Tim likes to talk. He'll go on for hours about the virtues of Liberalism. His answers have generally been along the lines of "As a Liberal, I support people's rights to make their own life choices. It's none of my business if they are gay. It's not up to me to judge, just as it's not up to you to judge me as a Christian".
It's fairly obvious he isn't homophobic, but his lack of clear, direct answers has resulted in the issue following him around. Thankfully, he seems to be learning; vagueness in politics is simply an opportunity for your enemies to strike.
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
Thanks for that.
I wonder might they migrate HMRC into a beast who knows if people are married, and then sets child benefit against a family income, rather than an individual income.
Doubt it.
Soldato
Labour MP's bailing out already. 8 have stepped down so far. This will be a complete disaster for Labour.
I don't disagree. Some of the people that work part-time for me won't take overtime because they earn close to the tax free threshold. Their hourly rate when working extra hours is effectively 20% lower for doing the same work. It's a problem you're always going to find close to any tax band; overtime isn't worth it to some people. I expect the same thing happens for people earning close to £33,500 and £45,000 too.
On the avoidance thing, I'm not sure an extra 5-10% tax would really make much difference to tax avoidance among people earning £70,000-£150,000. Of the rest, I doubt more than a few will go from paying tax to avoiding it. It's not like a good accountant is free.
Personally I'm not fussed whether we're a high-tax, big-state country, or a low-tax small-state country. I'd just like to see us pick one. Most people in this country seem to expect something for nothing; low taxes and a well-funded NHS, effective state schools, care for the elderly, etc. Either we need to accept that we can't have nice (state-run) things, or we need to find the fairest way to raise more tax revenue.
Last edited:
I'm not sure why you'd capping it at 150k - people earning over 150k would be affected by this too
these people make up a significant (double digit %) of revenue yet only make up a very small % of the population - tax changes would very likely lead to changes of behaviour to the point where even a 5% change can become meaningless at that level
Soldato
Can anyone shed light on why there are tax bands and why the tax system doesn't work on a sliding scale? It seems daft that you pay 10% on a portion, 20% on the next, etc and not the percentages in between. Like in the housing market, it means prices bunch up before going over the threshold. Surely a formulaic approach is more sensible?
- Status