Margaret Thatcher has died

It's not the entirety of my argument but it's indicative of what was going on. Anyone in England will confirm this whatever side of the fence they are on.

I have lived here in London all my life and I know what happened in this country. Like I told you "dude", there was truth to it, if you still don't think so, I don't really care that much. Even the people who were struggling could see that others were doing well, and no it wasn't just top tax brackets. It was quite a swathe of middle England - and yes the further South you were, it seems the better off you were. That's just how it was I'm afraid.

If the equity of your house is growing year on year, you're basically getting richer. So many people experienced this, you can't just ignore it when assessing the economy and peoples experience of it.



It's not, and what does who you are have to do with what's an accurate reflection of life in GB thirty odd years ago?

I wasn't being personal, just making a point.



I gave you some numbers that prove what I'm saying is correct. Cost of living in the Seventies increased 250%, how is that being reduced by 150% not a good economic result ?

If you say something about performance then it needs to be compared to something. Good or bad compared to what. So compared to the previous decade the rise in cost of living was cut back dramatically from the previous decade.

I also gave you data regards house prices, how is that not relevant to the economy and peoples wealth ?





I already gave you data that supports my position, so what's your problem ?




I never said the poor did well, but the middle classes did do very well in large areas of the UK. I set out to show you that describing our economy as "crushed" in the Eighties was inaccurate. I never made out it was some panacea for everyone. I simply told you many people did really well, many average people from the middle class. This is the truth, again believe it or not, that is how it was.




It's not just "a few". Every one who had a house which at the beginning of the decade was 50% saw windfall gains year on year. The average house increase was £5,000 a year.

That's almost like getting 30% bonus every year on the average salary.

How is this data not relevant?




I've given you data that shows many people saw economic benefit to what came before (what else are you supposed to compare to ?), You have not mentioned any of it, why not. I researched it and I'm willing to provide sources if you feel the numbers are wrong. So either you're wilfully ignoring them or are not bothered in seeing a different picture of how things were.

The countries economy was far from crushed. In some areas a bit battered and bruised, in others it did well. Same goes for the population.
 
House prices arnt actually real income unless you sell up and move somewhere cheaper/ downsize.
 
I said no such thing. But what the unions were about at that time (and remember, I'm a former union rep) was very different, as was parts of the labour movement.

For Sothpaw, She was by no means forced to destroy manufacturing however. Furthermore, when Scargill said there was a list of pits the Govt wanted to close, strenuously denied at the time, he was completely right.

No doubt things needed to change in some ways, but those changes could have been accomplished without destroying whole industries and the communities that relied on them.

Imagine putting the entire London financial industry out of work at a stroke (I bet their waste and mis-management has cost us more than uneconomic nationalised pits would have done in decades), leaving The City a wasteland and London commuter towns with 25% unemployment. That's what she did to great swathes of the North of England.

Mitch
 
i was going to refute all your points cloudz, but honestly i don't care anymore. i might as well be talking to a christian or a muslim about their faith. no matter what evidence i give you, you're not going to change your "belief".

but this....

this statement pretty much tells me you have no idea what you're talking about, because you don't understand the basics of buying and selling--basic economics: realized versus unrealized profit and loss.

no, you're not getting richer. because if you realize the profit, you have three choices: sleep on the ground outside, but you'll have lots of money; rent, in an inflated market and burn your money away; buy another house in the same inflated market.

best of luck to you. have fun in your economic "afterlife".

edit...

oh wait, i just thought of the fourth option, the "american option" for what to do with inflated real-estate. take equity out on your inflated house and debt-spend to buy stuff, then when the market crashes, be underwater for the rest of your life and have nothing for your retirement. but you'll have a sweet 72" plasma.
 
Hey man, I don't even own a TV!

It was a horrible thing when the housing market crashed. I was hanging sheetrock at the time and a lot of home building companies were building homes in some of the housing complexes without having anybody who had bought them yet. They had no problem selling them while things were good, but when things went sour a lot of them got screwed big time. When I went back where I worked I believe only a few of the companies, the really big ones that could take a hit, were the ones left standing and you would think they were just local builders now vs. when they were operating throughout the state.

Owning homes/property is only beneficial if you have a lot of money to invest in buying/selling, which definitely came to a halt when people stopped buying and the whole inflation thing happened. You have to keep buying/selling to move the money and make money and you need to have multiple properties to do that. Buying a single home is not an investment in my opinion, it's just buying a home.
 
I'm sick of this thread. And I love you too, but I disagree.

The equity scenario cloudz describes works akin to pre IPO equity. Yes, most people will live cash flow negatively, but the boost here is substantial.

I haven't looked at the data, but recall a conversation in London with a girl whose family could buy their apartment in Kensignton for iirc circa 40k GBP. It was a multiple bedroom place.

They had a vesting period of several years, but when ended their 40k became fair market value, which was many times this.

They could then sell down to a different location and net profit, or afford rent for perhaps the next 30 years even at inflated prices.

Be nice to back this up with data, but sounded very good to me at the time.
 
You are buying an asset which has the most generous capital gain allowance in the tax code, 250/500 for single/married.

It's the best investment you'll ever make, just try to buy low and within your means
 
I'll buy when I have enough money to buy (i'll get a loan of course though). I don't take out loans unless I have the money aside to pay it off instantly if any problems arise. Has worked for me pretty good so far for me. Now . . . the wife's student loans on the other hand.

No sense in buying a home in a place you can afford if that's not where you want to live.
 
Do you think you take it with you ?

You don't. There certainly are way to realize this wealth. You now have equity you can borrow against. You could use this money to start a business - Iknow people who did this. Or you can use it to further invest in property - this happened a hell of a lot. You can utilize this equity in your retirement years and spend it (when you die your house goes to the lender) or if you prefer, use this as you families inheritance. Passing on money to children is what many people save for anyway. This wealth might not mean much to you, but it has made a massive difference in lots of lives. People had suddenly lots of options. People could retire abroad if they wanted too. As Matt pointed out people have been able to now downsize, or move areas, and be left with significant capital.

As for accusing me of not understanding basic economics, profit and loss, that's pretty funny, I part own and am a director of a company with gross profits running into seven figures.

People certainly profited from the housing boom over here and it enriched plentu of lives, to suggest otherwise is nonsense. Maybe it's you who doesn't really fully grasp what happened in the uk.

How you were saying before that because you thought what happened in the US that must be how things went down in the uk, so therefore our economy was crushed. Come on, one doesn't follow the other, it's a non sequitar. You have to look at what happened in the UK to say whether the economy was crushed by Thatcher in the Eighties. Was our economy "crushed" in comparison to what went before. No, hardly. If you had used some other term I probably wouldn't have even reacted to it. Maybe you could say the economy was divided somewhat. That carries some accuracy, but not crushed. When some areas are doing well, and others not, that economy as a whole is not justified to be described by you as crushed.

If you weren't trying to hang on to what you said so stubbornly you might just accept what I'm describing .
 
You do realise massive increases in house values are also both inflationary and unsustainable, boom and bust just like before.

So as company director who is making seven figure profits, what tax schemes do you take part in to minimize the amount the goverment can take from you??
 
In the UK Thatcher gave people the right to buy their council houses. This was followed by a housing boom that saw prices rapidly escalate to a level ordinary folk couldn't afford. Unless of course they owned a former council house they could sell. And sell they did. To buy-to-let landlords who instantly hiked up the rent.

Something else happened in the 80s. Millions were made unemployed as Thatcher sold off and privatised everything she thought she'd get away with. This created a class of people in society who would never be able to own their own home. By implementing the two policies so closely together Thatcher brutally divided society. But she wasn't done yet.

Thatcher also introduced what has come to be known as the Poll Tax. It was piloted in Scotland a year before the rest of the UK. So Thatcher had plenty of time to assess the "impact". The poll tax left families with some choices.
Pay up and keep the bailiff away from the door. But you won't be able to feed your family or pay any other bills.Miss a payment and get harassed by bailiffs. But your kids get a hot meal in their bellies and the electricity doesn't get cut off.Refuse to pay at all and risk everything.
Now many people have claimed Thatcher saved our country and her policies were essential. She didn't and they weren't. Much of Europe was in the same boat. They got themselves out of that economic mess without the hardship and cruelty Thatcher visited upon the poor and vulnerable of Britain.

Oil production was also coming on-line in the North Sea. It was 16% of UK GDP during Thatchers term in office. Rather than use the wealth for long term investments. Thatcher opted for the very typical capitalist approach of short term gains in the form of tax cuts.
 
I think that people are putting too much emphasis on right to buy causing the boom bust cycle. It certainly factored in, but the primary cause IMO was as it always is, increased liquidity in the market.

This period saw a shift from mortgages being operating almost exclusively by national building societies to banks who had global reach for credit thus allowing more people onto the ladder.

One could argue that this was Maggies responsibility too, which I would be happy to agree with to an extent, but I feel right to buy was a much more positive thing for the lower income bracket than people here are making out to be the case.

EDIT - furthermore, if there was not right to buy, the boom bust cycle would have still occurred... but the wealth would not have been shared by this segment of society.
 
If Thatcherite policies are the correct path then of course we'd all have benefited. Think of all those privet sector jobs that would be created? Oh wait ... didn't quite work out that way did it.

To hide unemployment levels people were parked on disability allowance or employed in government funded quangos. Begging the question why so much privatisation was needed in the first place?

Our economy would be in far better shape now if Thatcher had restrained herself to modernising our industries instead of selling them off. That would have given us a far more evenly balanced economy with better job opportunities for the non-academically inclined.

As it is at the moment you are a failure in life if you don't exit university with a first class degree and a job in "the city". Thatchers legacy is the continued belittlement of the majority of the country's population outside London.
 
I got a pass degree, worked 60hrs a week during my second year and squeeked through. The job I got in the city was in the service industry.

Happy to be a failure

What about all those lawyers becoming plumbers?
 
If house prices rise faster than the cost of living then people with property will certainly become wealthier on paper. Realising this wealth is challenging as you still need a roof over your head. However, owning multiple properties in such a period was a good earner. Further, the ration of equity to mortgage improves. This improves ones access to finance and cash can be used to generate more cash.
 
Kinda proves the point don't you think? We were all setup for a life in university to high paid jobs and find that we all competing for 10 plumbers jobs instead. And you get to be 10 to 20 grand in debt for the privilege.

Thatchers approach isn't working. The ConDemed need to change course.
 
So what your saying is, those with liquidity could make more money faster then those without liquidity.

So the rich get richer and the poor by default have less of the total share.
 
Well you have the uber-Thatcher-wet-dream system in America. America is what the Conservatives want the UK to become. Of course it won't be the UK for long. Soon it'll just be U.
 
Uni is charged at £9000 per year as the goverment makes a contribution, plus accommodation, living expenses etc.

But loans are only availible for 3 years, and banks wont lend to students, so post that you have to have a rich family, or a very good second job to pay for it.

which is why there are very few Drs etc now coming through from the working classes.
 
Back
Top