And now we have a Country where millions of youngsters are in the same position where owning your own home is only a dream and unlikely to ever become a reality. People could of course gone out and bought their own home which wasn't Council house but chose not too. In most cases Right To Buy was viable because the houses were sold at way below the market value.
They don't. You just have to pay tax on it like most other forms of income. The best thing the Budget could do is ban the use of Offshore tax havens and it would solve all this Country's financial problems in a single stroke and probably make us one of the weathiest Nations on Earth..... but sadly that will not happen.
Couldn’t agree more. Selling council stock and replacing with commercial companies housing providers isn’t the solution, even if labour have been promising it since Blair. He did as much or more than most Tory govt to drive aspirations while removing the safety nets. Same should have council housing, where someone not able to buy a home can bring up their family safe knowing they have a home for life (providing they don’t get kicked out for some reason)
My son did his CBT and after a year on a twist and go I bought him an MT125, but he gave up riding in the end because he was finding it too stressful having to look out for all the traffic entrapment measures which infest London's roads.
So Thatcher was brilliant for selling off council houses and not replacing them but the lack of council owned social housing is Labour’s fault? That is perhaps the most twisted logic I have ever come across. And for the record I am far from a Labour supporter before you start throwing that one around. The only way this makes sense is if you subscribe to the Daily Mail.
£2m for an average 17 year old doesn't sound incorrect to me. In fact, it sounds a bit low as they have 50 years of working life ahead of them. When I did my Bar exams everyone had to learn how to value personal injury and wrongful death claims manually using various actuarial data, something called The Ogden Tables and a book entitled Facts and Figures (data on life expectancy, salaries, care, cleaning, gardening and transport costs, tax, interest, RPI and CPI etc), but I imagine there'll be an app these days. In cases of catastrophic injury, the valuation is based on "general damages" and "special damages". General damages are for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and loss of congenial employment, which aren't actually all that high. Special damages are actual out of pocket losses such as lost earnings, medical expenses, damaged vehicle etc. Then you need to work out how many years of life they are likely to have left, do some jiggery pokery that I can't remember with the numbers and multiply that figure by their annual earnings split into phases adjusted for projected promotions etc and then take pension provision into account. Then you also need to work out such things as cost of care, adaptations to home and vehicles, ongoing medical care etc. In the case of someone who is very severely injured in their teens or twenties, but whose life expectancy isn't severely curtailed, the special damages quantum can be enormous. A similar calculation is also undertaken for wrongful death/fatal accident cases, but often general damages are not awarded because the deceased died instantly or only suffered for a short period (although IIRC, general damages can be awarded for anguish in anticipation of death). A similar calculation re: funeral expenses, lifetime earnings, loss of care, comfort and support for surviving family members is carried out, but obviously there are no ongoing care or adaptation costs. The beneficiaries of the will or intestacy receive the payment. My first pupil master specialised in PI and clinical negligence, so I had to value quite a few such cases, but, happily, I haven't done any of that kind of work since then. He used to quip that it's cheaper to kill someone than to merely injure them very seriously as cost of care is often the biggest expense. It's very complicated and kind of grim. https://assets.publishing.service.g...n_Tables_8th_Edition_Updated_Final_8-8-22.pdf You used to have to value general damages using the Judicial College Guidelines and a loose leaf volume full of case summaries called Kemp and Kemp but there's a widget on this website which will tells you approx general damages for various types of injury. It isn't all that useful though as it doesn't take duration into account: https://www.accidentclaimsadvice.org.uk/catastrophic-injury-claims/
Who said that? I said thatcher had a thing about driving aspiration, her politics was one of personal responsibility. I didn’t say I agreed with it. As it happens, I didn’t. But those who purchased them, let’s face it lots and lots of Labour voters given the demographic. Made the best of it yet still slagged her for it. That’s twisted. The point about Blair and co is they had a chance to resolve it but instead created yet more industry for their mates with PIP, social housing, saddling NHS and local councils with billions of debt that taxpayers have to pay as well as paying for the actual servcie. Imo social housing like care housing should be a state provided option to all its citizens. Homes to those who can’t afford their own and have a family and care to all elderly who need it, regardless of their financial status.
Not a socialist society where owning stuff and aspiring to be better isn’t part of the collective view.
Nor a capitalist society where owning more than you could ever need and aspiring to screw as many people as you can see is the collective aim
