The Lemon Fool

vand wrote:Of course to the likes of Polly Toynbee

I gave up reading comics such as the Beano/Dandy/Guardian/Independent decades ago. Sadly amusing that some 'mature' individuals still read them

1nvest wrote:

vand wrote:Of course to the likes of Polly Toynbee

I gave up reading comics such as the Beano/Dandy/Guardian/Independent decades ago. Sadly amusing that some 'mature' individuals still read them

So which comics do you read instead ? Telegraph, Mail or maybe the Express ?

ursaminortaur wrote:

1nvest wrote:

vand wrote:Of course to the likes of Polly Toynbee

I gave up reading comics such as the Beano/Dandy/Guardian/Independent decades ago. Sadly amusing that some 'mature' individuals still read them

So which comics do you read instead ? Telegraph, Mail or maybe the Express ?

So which papers are not comics then?

And do you read a paper without a "view"?

ursaminortaur wrote:

1nvest wrote:

vand wrote:Of course to the likes of Polly Toynbee

I gave up reading comics such as the Beano/Dandy/Guardian/Independent decades ago. Sadly amusing that some 'mature' individuals still read them

So which comics do you read instead ? Telegraph, Mail or maybe the Express ?

None. Prefer TV comedy shows instead, such as the Parliament channel

I've never really got the protecting the house because it's the 'family home' or whatever. If I had a million pounds in cash I'd be expected to pay, yet if I have a million in house, that should be sacrosanct?

Lootman wrote:

ursaminortaur wrote:

1nvest wrote:

vand wrote:Of course to the likes of Polly Toynbee

I gave up reading comics such as the Beano/Dandy/Guardian/Independent decades ago. Sadly amusing that some 'mature' individuals still read them

So which comics do you read instead ? Telegraph, Mail or maybe the Express ?

So which papers are not comics then?

And do you read a paper without a "view"?

FT & The Economist are not what I would call comics.
Both have perspective and opinions, but these tend to be ones based on data and rational analysis.

Tedx wrote:I've never really got the protecting the house because it's the 'family home' or whatever. If I had a million pounds in cash I'd be expected to pay, yet if I have a million in house, that should be sacrosanct?

Just because the value is monatary the same there are big differences. You can't sell a bit if your house but you can spend a bit of your money.

Secondly you keep things in your house so having to sell it causes other difficult complications. It all has to go elsewhere.

Thirdly other people often live in the house. This is normally a partner but could be other family members. Currently a partner remaining excludes the property from being sold but we could make them homeless.

With multi generation living, it does result in say grandchildren or children being made homeless some who might have lived there for decades.

It might be "right" to do that, you might even argue its "fair" but it's definitely not a level playing field between those who have worked hard and saved over their lifetime and those that don't.

It's almost asking you to waste your assets if you are in the middle. Too poor to get it free but not rich enough to afford it.

Like most things it's not straight forward or a simple solution and there are winner's and loosers. Those that do loose, loose big time.

The thing is the worse it gets the more people will try and find a workaround. Might not be an issue in 20 years anyway as no one will want the job anyway.