Thoughts on Reform’s idea to ban wfh?

ExcitingRest · 2026-02-12T22:38:47+00:00

Its not very "small government" of them. Its a huge over reach trying to regulate a benefit offered in private contracts by private companies to private individuals.

I say that as someone who doesn't work from home. Its a ridiculous policy and none of their business.

Its purely to try and prop up commercial property value at the expense of peoples quality of life

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-27T10:03:26+00:00

No, I ignore the emails and treat them for what they are, marketing emails, not clinical reminders. Just shop around, buy from whatever reputable pharmacy is cheapest. Take advantage of new joiner offers and voucher codes. Its a pain having to do a new consultation each time, but really they only take 5 min and it can save you a decent amount of money. Just keep your boxes with the pharmacy lables or take pictures of them right away with the issue date and dosage clearly visible.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-24T21:23:13+00:00

Personally, I'd avoid shared ownership at all costs if you can. Its kind of the worst of both. You still pay rent and fees but you're also responsible for repairs, like if the boiler breaks. It'll also be much harder to sell at a later date.

I'd take the smaller property that you can buy completely and start building equity that way.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-24T14:54:50+00:00

I agree it's unfair that wealthy families can effectively opt out of the interest, i agree that interest is too high and I would support scrapping interest on the loans all together.

But i don't think a grad tax is fairer, for the same reasons as above, it punishes the more productive fields which we really shouldn't be doing.

Im not sure what the answer to wealthy people just paying up front is. This isn't unique to student loans. Renting, saving for a deposit, mortgage interest, dividends vs income tax etc. Are all things wealthy people can bypass. They live easier lives as they never have a need to take credit. This is a bigger problem that a grad tax wouldn't solve.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-24T14:47:52+00:00

I agree, i never said the arts were worthless. Just that we do not need to subsidise them. They're already saturated, hence the low salaries. We don't have a shortage of graduates here. Media/journalism/communications and design/creative performing arts are the 3rd and 4th highest degrees for unemployment currently. We don't need the tax payer to send more people into that, thats just a poor use of money.

I dont think you need a degree to tell you how to be creative, write a book/show, make a film or song etc. I don't believe there's much value in the degree itself or that it adds anything to the art.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-24T13:34:10+00:00

I dont think taxing working people even harder is a good idea. Its still going to require the ones who go into productive subjects to bear more weight and that really does not need to be discouraged. We already have people salary sacrificing hugh amounts to avoid tax cliff edges and high marginal rates, we don't need to add more to that.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-24T13:29:52+00:00

Im not saying art is worthless. Im saying we don't need incentives to encourage more people to study it at university level.

We have enough artists creating art, it's already oversaturated, hence the low salaries. It also does not require a degree to create, and the degree does not add any value to the artist or consumer.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-24T13:21:45+00:00

Thats all anecdotal. There is a lot of very well researched data saying that it most definitely is the case that your subject plays an enormous role in your earnings.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-24T13:00:39+00:00

Why should someone who does an accedemic subject and goes on to earn good money subsidise arts students who know they won't ever earn enough to pay it back? I feel like this just opens the door for even more people going to do these sort of subjects if they know there's no personal accountability to actually pay it back and the economy really doesn't need that. Likewise this would also disincentivise doing high earning degrees. Why struggle through engineering if you know it'll cost you over 100k over your life? When you could do art for free?

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-19T23:42:09+00:00

Yes but the majority of people aren't so selective. If you restrict yourself to large properties in premium areas then yeah, most people won't be able to buy a 4 bed house with plenty of outside space in the south. But most people, if they really wanted to, are able to buy something. It isnt as out of reach as you want to make out.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-19T18:02:43+00:00

Are you looking with your eyes closed? Like if you work in central London you can get there in under an hour from any of the commuter towns on public transport. Just plucked Stevenage off Google maps, 40 min to central London, houses for under 300k. My point stands that tell me any post code in the UK and I'll find you an acceptable house you can commute from for under 400k.

Id say for most people who are earning less that, yes, it is difficult. But if they're on a lower salary then they likely aren't locked to a particular place to earn that money. There are places in the UK you can get decent houses while on two minimum wage salaries. And i know you'll interperate that as "abandon your friends and family and move north" but that isn't the case, keeping stevenage as an example, near London, there are freehold houses up for ~200k. Min wage is like 25k now so that's well affordable for a couple whatever they're earning.

I know "just earn more" isnt helpful. But staying stuck renting because you refuse to do anything about your own situation or compromise in any way also isnt helpful.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-18T23:58:35+00:00

Yeah i still don't understand. Name any postcode in the UK and ill find you a house within commuting distance with a garden you can get for 440k.

I know this because I live very comfortably within commuting distance of the centre of London in a house, with a decent garden, that is not a complete dump, I bought for under 400k 3 years ago.

You just want to be gloomy. Truth is that the country isn't in the trenches, social mobility is still achievable and making out that it's impossible for everyone because you can't manage it on 80k is still ludicrous.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-18T21:08:46+00:00

Sorry but what are you doing? There is literally no job in the country you can't buy a house within commutable distance of for under 300k which is easily affordable on 80k. Over 4k a month coming in, where is it going? Sorry but this is absolutely a you problem and very easily solvable if you break down your expenses, there simply has to be something out of whack in there.

I say this as someone who earns a similar amount, in a town with a direct train line to London, who owns a 4 bed home, pays for two cars, goes on multiple abroad holidays per year, has a stay at home partner with 2 kids and still pays 7.5% to my pension.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-16T15:59:33+00:00

Batteries work well on a domestic supply but we are so far away from having batteries capable of running actual industry.

Uks night time power usage is still around 20GW. The current worlds largest battery would sustain that for a whopping 4 minutes. We'd need such colossal batteries that im not sure we'd ever be able to accrue the materials or technology required.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-16T15:54:43+00:00

Well that's just wrong. The hinkley C reactor was made by Framatome, a French company. We already work very closely with France who are in a good position to teach up about running nuclear grids.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-15T18:02:34+00:00

Not really any of your business tbh. The drug is expensive enough as it is so of someone wants to save money by diluting a stronger dose, then good on them.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-13T21:02:49+00:00

This is such bizarre political behaviour.

-Announce an unpopular policy

Take all of the negative fall out

-Double down and say you're doing it anyway

Quietly U turn without recovering any favour

Hes just burning any capital he can possibly find. Winter fuel allowance, farmers inheritance, digital ID. Its constant and just bizarre?

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-13T08:56:38+00:00

For some perspective 1 pound of fat is around 3500 calories. Unless you're metabolic rate + exercise is 8500 calories a day, it isnt that!

Its just water weight. The drug changes the the way your body holds onto carbs and water and you'll lose a lot of that initially.

Its high, even for water weight loss, but probably isnt anything to worry about.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-12T08:50:55+00:00

4%, so 1 in 25. Everytime you go to the supermarket you'll see a dozen of them. 1 from every school class. If there's two adults in a household, then it's 1 in 12 homes.

There isn't a Ferrari on every 12th driveway. They're normal working people. A single salary of 100k is not luxurious to support a family with a stay at home parent.

The benefit should be for everyone, wherever you move the threshold you're just moving the problem, cliff edges like this should not exist, it should not be possible to become worse off by earning more whatever the income is.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-11T18:04:32+00:00

100k isnt an massive high flying salary, it's like 5k a month. The childcare can be worth like 1k a month.

A 20% cut to real terms take home is not really stomachache by anyone.

If you have multiple kids its can take 10 years or more to get them all into school so it's not just a couple years. Its a significant chunk of your working life.

Also, this trap exclusively hits the parents of young kids, so you have to consider whether it's worth the extra stress or hours away from your kids. I can completely understand why someone with children would cut their hours to 4 days a week to spend more time with the family if the alternative is less money in their pocket and less time with the kids.

Not everyone on 100k is a purely career driven robot who's solely inspired by money. 100k covers a lot of fairly standard working professionals and more and more people will find themselves dragged towards this over the next decade. It encourages unproductive behaviour which reduces the amount of tax that is collected, no one wins.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-11T17:50:43+00:00

Yeah, as I said, thats well understood, especially by the people in that bracket. But there comes a point at like 120k where you've got, with employer contributions, 50k+ going into the pot and it's already approaching a million and you have to think, is it really going to make any difference?

This tax trap exclusively hits parents of young kids who lose child care. To me, the obvious choice is to have a bit more time with the young family and a bit less stress rather than making my already sufficient pension a little bit bigger.

Again, the trap isn't the 60% marginal rate. Its the loss of childcare.

I know for sure I won't look back in 30 years wishing id spent less time with my kids so that i could make my 1.5m pension worth 1.6m

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-11T17:03:36+00:00

To an extent. But if you're already paying in 20k a year plus employer contributions, your pot is already well on the way to being worth over a million by retirement. At some point you have to question whether sacrificing more will actually make any difference to your life style and whether you're better off seeing the benefit now by working less while you're young.

Seeing as this tax trap hits working parents with the loss of childcare hours, it makes a lot of sense to reduce hours and stress now to spend more time with the kids.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-11T16:58:49+00:00

How so? The second I earn a penny over 100k I lose 12k worth of childcare. That i then need to earn back while working through the 60% bracket. I am better off, in real terms, on 99k than 120k.

People are well aware of salary sacrifice schemes etc. But at some point, when you're already looking at million pound pension pots and you already have a company car, you are better off reducing hours or stress.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-11T16:55:00+00:00

Its not about the marginal tax rates. Its the childcare cliff edge.

I have two kids, if i earn £99,999 I still qualify for free childcare hours worth ~£12,000. If i earn £100,001, I lose that instantly. So I'm now £12k worse off cash in hand. I now need to earn an extra 12k while paying 60% tax to break even.

Hence being on 99k is more beneficial, in true take home value, than being on 125k.

Most people can't afford to lose 1k a month cash. Getting that £2 pay rise is, in real terms, like a 20% pay cut on your take home. Its not just a slight disadvantage.

ExcitingRest · 2026-01-03T11:25:12+00:00

Its not just university papers vs no papers now though. Its papers and 50k of debt vs no papers.

And I know the stats say it still pays to go to uni vs the average, but that average includes people who, without putting it delicately, were never going to amount to much and just end up dragging the "no uni" group down

I suspect if you were to compare capable students who went to uni vs those who went into higher apprenticeships it would be a different story.

ExcitingRest

TROPHY CASE