Asset Protection for the Already Wealthy

[baggy1]

finally coming to the realisation of what austerity has done to younger people

I'm not "finally" coming to the realisation about anything. I've been banging on about this shit for 13 years.

I got the impression you were supporting the austerity measures to the hilt simply because it was your toryboy party managing it

I don't agree that we ever had any "austerity". If you look at the numbers spending increased in real terms every year.

If we'd actually have had some "austerity" I defintely would have supported it.

I swear to God you make this up as you go don't you. Every now and again you have some good points and then you come out with a statement like "Austerity never really happened did it' and you lose all credibility. 

Make believe

[Protheroe]

Make believe

Overall there was no reduction in spending. Austerity is a reduction in spending. Spending simply grew less quickly, that is not my understanding of austerity.

[baggy1]

Unfortunately there are far more factors that need to be built in here. One of the key components to the asset wealth issue we are facing is the ‘landlord’ growth over the past 20 years. In a time where there is a shortage of housing for the population allowing landlords to buy so many properties with freedom has meant that there are always more buyers therefore pushing prices up. This is where the focus should be, not on pensioners ruining the lives of the youth (creating another social distraction).

Nope, the growth of landlordism is not another factor - it's absolutely integral to the suppressed cost of money - I'm living breathing proof of that. Where else can you get a 5-6% return annually together with average long term capital growth of 3%+ ?

This was another corker from last week - you getting a 5% return on your investment is helping the youngsters of today to afford a house and nothing to doing with the rich investing in property because of the returns and therefore increasing demand for property and pushing the price of houses above where the youth can afford it. "Integral to the suppressed cost of money" 

[Protheroe]

Unfortunately there are far more factors that need to be built in here. One of the key components to the asset wealth issue we are facing is the ‘landlord’ growth over the past 20 years. In a time where there is a shortage of housing for the population allowing landlords to buy so many properties with freedom has meant that there are always more buyers therefore pushing prices up. This is where the focus should be, not on pensioners ruining the lives of the youth (creating another social distraction).

Nope, the growth of landlordism is not another factor - it's absolutely integral to the suppressed cost of money - I'm living breathing proof of that. Where else can you get a 5-6% return annually together with average long term capital growth of 3%+ ?

This was another corker from last week - you getting a 5% return on your investment is helping the youngsters of today to afford a house and nothing to doing with the rich investing in property because of the returns and therefore increasing demand for property and pushing the price of houses above where the youth can afford it. "Integral to the suppressed cost of money" 

Where exactly did I claim that landlordism is "helping the the youngsters of today"? Of course it's not. I'm helping myself by utilising cheap money, as I said in the post.

[baggy1]

Make believe

Overall there was no reduction in spending. Austerity is a reduction in spending. Spending simply grew less quickly, that is not my understanding of austerity.

Might be because of the ring fencing - take those items out and then look at the cuts to services. And then look at the actual real term statistics that show no growth between 10/11 and 17/18 including the ring fenced items.

Real term spending 2010/11 869.7 - 2017/18 869.4 https://www.statista.com/statistics/2984...ending-uk/

---

Unfortunately there are far more factors that need to be built in here. One of the key components to the asset wealth issue we are facing is the ‘landlord’ growth over the past 20 years. In a time where there is a shortage of housing for the population allowing landlords to buy so many properties with freedom has meant that there are always more buyers therefore pushing prices up. This is where the focus should be, not on pensioners ruining the lives of the youth (creating another social distraction).

Nope, the growth of landlordism is not another factor - it's absolutely integral to the suppressed cost of money - I'm living breathing proof of that. Where else can you get a 5-6% return annually together with average long term capital growth of 3%+ ?

This was another corker from last week - you getting a 5% return on your investment is helping the youngsters of today to afford a house and nothing to doing with the rich investing in property because of the returns and therefore increasing demand for property and pushing the price of houses above where the youth can afford it. "Integral to the suppressed cost of money" 

Where exactly did I claim that landlordism is "helping the the youngsters of today"? Of course it's not. I'm helping myself by utilising cheap money, as I said in the post.

Which is pushing up the price of housing and as you say, pulling up the ladder and burning it.

[Logic1]

finally coming to the realisation of what austerity has done to younger people

I'm not "finally" coming to the realisation about anything. I've been banging on about this shit for 13 years.

I got the impression you were supporting the austerity measures to the hilt simply because it was your toryboy party managing it

I don't agree that we ever had any "austerity". If you look at the numbers spending increased in real terms every year.

If we'd actually have had some "austerity" I defintely would have supported it.

How many times have I had to educate you on this point, just because Real Spending has gone up every year, does not mean real terms spending per person has gone up.

Here is the graph:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.u...nditure-uk

Note how this was increasing over time and then the Tories stopped it based purely on ideology. That has led to almost all of the problems you listed in your earlier post. Simple economics... if you do austerity when interest rates are zero and monetary policy doesn't work, then you kill the economy. The IMF, World Bank and pretty much every country accepts that fact now. If they didn't, they would have been pushing for austerity during covid, yet they didn't advocate that strategy because they now know it doesn't work. 

This current tax rise is possibly one of the stupidest policies I've ever seen, why would you want to raise taxes when the economy is yet to recover? Hopefully, given the recent polls, voters are starting to see through it. Although I expect the right wing media (who's financial backers are happy with the problems you outlined) to kick in to action pretty soon. Could you imagine what would have happened if the Labour Party introduced a tax rise like that!?

[Protheroe]

Might be because of the ring fencing - take those items out and then look at the cuts to services. And then look at the actual real term statistics that show no growth between 10/11 and 17/18 including the ring fenced items.

Real term spending 2010/11 869.7 - 2017/18 869.4 https://www.statista.com/statistics/2984...ending-uk/

---

Which is pushing up the price of housing and as you say, pulling up the ladder and burning it.

Yes, and yes.

1) We were wholly wrong in ringfencing health spending. It's one of the few policies Labour had right in 2010. Health spending never comes under the spotlight so the useless lumpen NHS (peace be upoon it) lumbers on in splendid isolation from the the pressures that encourage innovation, productivity and quality gains.

2) Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Right?

[Borin' Baggie]

Make believe

Overall there was no reduction in spending. Austerity is a reduction in spending. Spending simply grew less quickly, that is not my understanding of austerity.

There clearly was a reduction in spending in relative terms as the deficit went down, and austerity is a reduction in budget deficits.

[baggy1]

Might be because of the ring fencing - take those items out and then look at the cuts to services. And then look at the actual real term statistics that show no growth between 10/11 and 17/18 including the ring fenced items.

Real term spending 2010/11 869.7 - 2017/18 869.4 https://www.statista.com/statistics/2984...ending-uk/

---

Which is pushing up the price of housing and as you say, pulling up the ladder and burning it.

Yes, and yes.

1) We were wholly wrong in ringfencing health spending. It's one of the few policies Labour had right in 2010. Health spending never comes under the spotlight so the useless lumpen NHS (peace be upoon it) lumbers on in splendid isolation from the the pressures that encourage innovation, productivity and quality gains.

2) Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Right?

Right, but don’t complain when the horse kicks your kids in the head.

[Protheroe]

Right, but don’t complain when the horse kicks your kids in the head.

Erm, that's exactly why I'm taking advantage. For them.

---

Make believe

Overall there was no reduction in spending. Austerity is a reduction in spending. Spending simply grew less quickly, that is not my understanding of austerity.

There clearly was a reduction in spending in relative terms as the deficit went down, and austerity is a reduction in budget deficits.

I'm not sure I could be much clearer than in saying spending grew more slowly. So, yes but no I don't agree austerity is defined as a reduction in budget deficits. That could also happen through rising tax receipts.