Budget 2016.....

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 16 Mar 2016, 12:43 pm

First topic message reminder :

OBR has revised down potential UK productivity growth.....

Nothing like a good start !!

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 11:02 am

Again, nothing added at all. You're as bad as Truss! Laugh

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 11:13 am

But why were you talking to yourself? Or just upset that you were being ignored?

I can't understand why you felt the need to repost/reply to your own post??

I disagree with a lot of what Osbourne is doing (though without your Corbyn mouthpiece rhetoric) and fully understand your analysis, I just consider it strained and tenuous - little more than a desperate critique.

How many people remortgage their properties just so they can spend more on goods & services that do actually contribute to GDP? Or, if you're just talking about people having more disposable income to spend on GDP contributing G&S due to lower borrowing costs, how is this a deliberate action by George Osbourne when base rates are set by the independent BofE and mortgage rates are a factor of a competitive and relatively efficient market?

Also, how does this supposition align with what is Osbourne's clear mantra of increasing saving, i.e. taking money away for G&S spending?? His other key mantra has been reducing government spending, which IS a contributer to GDP. So again, how does this policy align with your view that he is just doing anything to inflate 'hollow' GDP figures??

by Hoonercat Thu 17 Mar 2016, 11:39 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
Hoonercat wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:Reducing sugar intake is the most significant and important dietary & lifestyle change pretty much anyone can make.

Wasn't this known as far back as the 70's but covered up by the food companies putting pressure on the White House who then did the same to the WHO?
Doubt it. Sugar is calories, same as protein and fat. In actual fact, per gram, it's less calorie-dense than either lean protein or fat.
One thing with carbohydrate, low fat things (for example, yoghurts) are often bulked with carbohydrates instead of the fat. So they're not as low calorie as you might expect.

But AFAIK not all calories are equal, nor are all carbs. Carbs that are high in sugar cause spikes in blood sugar levels and contribute to weight gain, while complex carbs release slower so the body uses them at a more suitable rate. Athletes can manage a high carb diet with ease but your average Jo cannot, though carbs still should form part of the daily intake. Pro bodybuilders on their 'cutting' cut out as much carbs as possible for maximum fat loss.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 11:39 am

Regarding your first point, the right-to-buy means that more people are borrowing and debt is increasing, particularly as a percentage of average earnings as the price of property has increased by so much in the UK. So some lucky people (not many, by the way, about half of these right-to-buy homes have ended up in the hands of private BTL landlords) end up on the property ladder but with a high value mortgage.

For those that already own a home, many have borrowed on the back of the increase in value of their asset (sorry, I don't have exact figures to hand). It is, quite understandably, an enticing thing to do because these homeowners have increased the value of their asset while effectively doing bugger all and have a nice easy route to a secured loan to spend on whatever they want. This spending will obviously stimulate the economy but it's certainly not the right way to go about things simply because more and more debt is being created as house prices carry on rising. Sure, Osborne's mates in the City will make more money, good for them, but when the bubble bursts - and it will burst - plenty of homeowners will be in negative equity and this will further exacerbate the crisis.

The fact that the BoE has set interests rates very low is incidental but it makes this particular problem worse. It makes it easier to borrow your way into negative equity on the back of an unsustainable asset value rise.

Regarding his saving money rubbish, this only applies to those that can afford to save money! The average person that rents or has a mortgage in the UK will not be able to take advantage of this, simply because their largest overhead (housing) has become so much more expensive since Osborne moved into No11. You know who will be able to take full advantage of this opportunity? The wealthy. The only people that Osborne gives a hoot about.

by Hoonercat Thu 17 Mar 2016, 11:52 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Hoonercat wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:Reducing sugar intake is the most significant and important dietary & lifestyle change pretty much anyone can make.

Wasn't this known as far back as the 70's but covered up by the food companies putting pressure on the White House who then did the same to the WHO?

Not one for conspiracy theories, and doubt that one, but I think it's been exposed recently how bad the advice was and that it was based on pretty pony research (in the UK at least). Bit like the anti-MMR bullsh!t.

It might all have been different if, 40 years ago, we had listened to John Yudkin, a British physiologist and nutritionist. His 1972 book Pure, White and Deadly argued that we were massively overeating sugar, which was not only making us fat, but also causing liver damage, heart disease and cancer. However, these beliefs earned him some powerful enemies in the sugar industry. In 1979 the World Sugar Research Organisation rubbished his work as ‘science fiction’, while the food industry got squarely behind the theory that saturated fat was the dietary devil.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 11:56 am

Pr4wn wrote:Regarding your first point, the right-to-buy means that more people are borrowing and debt is increasing, particularly as a percentage of average earnings as the price of property has increased by so much in the UK. So some lucky people (not many, by the way, about half of these right-to-buy homes have ended up in the hands of private BTL landlords) end up on the property ladder but with a high value mortgage.

For those that already own a home, many have borrowed on the back of the increase in value of their asset (sorry, I don't have exact figures to hand). It is, quite understandably, an enticing thing to do because these homeowners have increased the value of their asset while effectively doing bugger all and have a nice easy route to a secured loan to spend on whatever they want. This spending will obviously stimulate the economy but it's certainly not the right way to go about things simply because more and more debt is being created as house prices carry on rising. Sure, Osborne's mates in the City will make more money, good for them, but when the bubble bursts - and it will burst - plenty of homeowners will be in negative equity and this will further exacerbate the crisis.

The fact that the BoE has set interests rates very low is incidental but it makes this particular problem worse. It makes it easier to borrow your way into negative equity on the back of an unsustainable asset value rise.

Regarding his saving money rubbish, this only applies to those that can afford to save money! The average person that rents or has a mortgage in the UK will not be able to take advantage of this, simply because their largest overhead (housing) has become so much more expensive since Osborne moved into No11. You know who will be able to take full advantage of this opportunity? The wealthy. The only people that Osborne gives a hoot about.

Para by para:

1) How does this support your supposition re inflated/hollow GDP though? By your own reasoning, if people are borrowing as a great % of earnings, this would surely reduce disposable incomes therefore where's the flow through to GDP?

2) Again, where's the GDP flow through? You've just very broadly and vaguely said "obviously stimulate the economy". But other than the cost of refurnishing and/or redecorating (again, we're getting pretty tenuous here and far away from your actual original argument) the major expenditure is tax revenue to the goverment however if this isn't reflected in increased goverment spending (i.e. actually just netted off against cuts) again where's the GDP flow through?

3) Incidental? In other words something you can't argue against because it's a decision made independent of the goverment and has a massive impact but you need to treat with inertia in order to sustain your anti-Tory stance. Back to GDP, how has BofE's independent rate setting (to reflect state & short term prospects of the economy) meant Osbourne has inflated GDP figures?

4) Codswallop. Am not saying everyone can save £4k pa. But it's crassly ignorant to suggest nobody can save, say, £10 a week at least. That's what? 1 pack of cigs, 3 pints, 2 glasses of wine, 1 cinema ticket, 5 lotto tickets, a fraction of the cost of adding sports or movies to a tv package on a weekly basis, a small portion of monthly gym membership etc etc etc.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 12:00 pm

NB: GDP = C + I + G + X - M

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 12:09 pm

1) If financial institutions lend more, they make more money, increasing GDP. More property transactions go through, banks make money, estate agents make money, lawyers make money.

2) The GDP flow-through is blindingly obvious. When people remortgage they borrow money. The borrowed money isn't stored in a hole in the ground, it's spent on good and services. The companies that supply these goods and services make money and that increases GDP. Also, the banks or building societies that remortgage the property make more money on the increased debt. This is extremely basic stuff.

3) I never inferred that the UKG had anything to do with setting interest rates, not sure where you got that from. The low interest rates have made borrowing easier and more affordable for everybody in the UK. Please see number two for how increased household borrowing stimulates GDP. But it's only easy and more affordable at the moment. This is the crucial part. All of this borrowing is due to the increases in asset value and low interest rates. Once the value of the asset decreases (everybody knows that UK house prices are overinflated) and interest rates rise then the debt becomes unaffordable. That's when you get a crash.

4) Granted, anyone can save £10. So why set it at £20k p/a? To benefit the rich, of course. The working class will be able to take limited advantage of this but the rich will make a fortune. If you want to help the working class save then why not give them some of their disability benefit back? Or fund their public library so they don't have to buy books or their own computer to use the internet? The money would benefit the population as a hole far better if it were spent on schools, the NHS or other public services. But that wouldn't give rich savers they tax break they so desperately need.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 12:29 pm

So you're still saying people go through the cost and expense of remortgaging just to fund their spending?? I think you're peeing in the wind with that one (saying as someone who's done it twice).

I see you points (read them the other day too, manuscript of a Corbyn speech) I just disagree with them and think they're tenuous and desperate. You're original point was the Osbourne was 'pumping up the cost of housing' in order to inflate GDP. I don't think HE is pumping up the cost of housing, nor are his policies, and the link between them and GDP is very stretched.

by McLaren Thu 17 Mar 2016, 12:35 pm

TopHat

Why have you remortgaged your home twice by the age of 32?

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 12:41 pm

Buy to Let.

Don't have a public sector pension to fall back on so trying to diversify as much as possible in planning for future/retirement. Rather than move into a nicer home/nicer area (having bought in the absolute bottom of the market mid-2009) I took money out and invested, so have flats in Finsbury Park and Stoke Newington. My work pension is good but not without risk so I'm also trying to use what spare income I'm able to save to build up my stocks & shares ISA.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 12:42 pm

Actually, just thought, there's a little white lie there. I remortgaged by home for the first BTL and remortgaged that for the second.

So in answer to your question, I've remortaged twice, but only my home once.

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:25 pm

He's picking a more worthy opponent toppy Laugh

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:30 pm

Hmm. This is best argument against legalising weed I appear to be an hour behind everyone else

by Adam D Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:37 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
Regarding his saving money rubbish, this only applies to those that can afford to save money! The average person that rents or has a mortgage in the UK will not be able to take advantage of this, simply because their largest overhead (housing) has become so much more expensive since Osborne moved into No11. You know who will be able to take full advantage of this opportunity? The wealthy. The only people that Osborne gives a hoot about.

Historical house prices:

http://monevator.com/historical-uk-house-prices/

The huge growth in house prices started in 1997, chin

What else happened in 1997?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_governments

That's right, Labour came into power.

When did house prices crash? Oh that's right, under Gordon Browns watch.

Interesting that you say that its apparently the Tories who have instigated the whole mortgage yourself to the hilt policy, when in actual fact it was the Labour Party (you know the party of the people) who made housing unfordable due their actions.

here endeth the lesson.

by **superflyweight** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:42 pm

Adam D wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
Regarding his saving money rubbish, this only applies to those that can afford to save money! The average person that rents or has a mortgage in the UK will not be able to take advantage of this, simply because their largest overhead (housing) has become so much more expensive since Osborne moved into No11. You know who will be able to take full advantage of this opportunity? The wealthy. The only people that Osborne gives a hoot about.

Historical house prices:

http://monevator.com/historical-uk-house-prices/

The huge growth in house prices started in 1997, What else happened in 1997?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_governments

That's right, Labour came into power.

When did house prices crash? Oh that's right, under Gordon Browns watch.

Interesting that you say that its apparently the Tories who have instigated the whole mortgage yourself to the hilt policy, when in actual fact it was the Labour Party (you know the party of the people) who made housing unfordable due their actions.

here endeth the lesson.

Shame.

by Adam D Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:44 pm

Damn your legal hardwiring and attention to detail.

by **superflyweight** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:45 pm

Can I quote you in my performance review?

by Mind the windows Tino. Thu 17 Mar 2016, 1:48 pm

superflyweight wrote:Can I quote you in my performance review?

Under weaknesses, you've put eczema?

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:05 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:...With respect, I've lost 9st/55kg in weight based on this. Weight loss is 80-90% diet and you'll never lose a stack of weight 'just' be increasing your activity levels if you're still packing in the sugar (any carb). Atkins is not sustainable and I'd never recommend it, but look at the impact it had on weight for people that followed it. To do the same with a steady diet you'd have to be doing 2-3 hours of heavy exercise 5+ times a week, which again isn't actually that 'healthy' or sustainable due to the strain it puts on the body.

Well done you; that's pretty impressive. You're right, weight loss is mainly diet but it's still: more in than out = weight gain. You've lost weight because you put less in than you used up. Simple as that. Sugar is part of that. If you're someone who drinks/drank a lot of pop (a litre plus a day), cutting out the pop (sugar) is obviously going to lead to weight loss. To be clear, eating less refined sugar is a fine objective. This tax is scheiss though. It's neither steep enough, nor targets enough of the relevant foodstuffs. It doesn't target fructose (high fructose corn syrup) at all. When we have the sugar tax and obesity levels are still soaring, what will they wheel out next?
Your figures re. exercise and times per week are way out, assuming a sensible, balanced diet and exercise is simply not unhealthy, as you appear to be suggesting. You could sit on your arse, eat very little and maintain a good weight. You wouldn't be very healthy though.
Anyway, moving on, time will tell re. the sugar tax...

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:08 pm

ShahenshahG wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
ShahenshahG wrote:Yup. They're even saying you should have a big fry up in the morning and go back to the King to Pauper diet. Every time I go to kashmir i lose about 25 kg's simply because all the food is organic/natural. About 5 or 6 of that is water weight but just by getting sugar out of your diet you start dropping weight by the kilo.
Shah. With respect that's cobblers. You lose weight because you put less calories in and/or you're burning more off. Organic/natural has chuff all to do with it.

And in return I'd reiterate the point. I eat more there as the food is far better and pushy relatives insist on feeding you at thier houses/restaurants I travel more by vehicle because y and large most of the places are unsuited to walking for someone who is used to flat surfaces and the rickshaw scooters are fun to travel in. The part of kashmir I live in when I'm over there is still broadly rural. All the beef/sheep/goat and poultry is butchered there and then and sold within hours (or traded with other shopkeepers for equivalent priced goods). The only difference between here and there in my diet is the lack of bread as it's quite sweet and I can't stomach it . Other than that my diet is heavily meat dairy and fruit.

That's fine. I believe what you're saying. Trouble is, it makes no metabolic sense at all.
On another though, would love to visit Kashmir some day. Maybe not just now though...

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:13 pm

rick_dagless wrote:
NBS wrote:Shah. With respect that's cobblers. You lose weight because you put less calories in and/or you're burning more off. Organic/natural has chuff all to do with it.

Surely if additional calorific content is added into non organic foods, then this will affect weight gain, so the amount or exercise needed to burn off the extra will increase, and the time available to do said exercise will not necessarily, therefore, organic food may well contribute to weight loss.

Well, maybe but what if I add organic sucrose to my organic pasta dish? It's still organic.
I guess that if food in Kashmir has less additives and those additives would have been sugars in the U.K., then it's not quite so simple.
Basically, we all need to eat (less of) a balanced, home-cooked, diet and do some exercise. Who would have believed it was so simple with all the diet companies and the fad food industry. Quite comical really.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:18 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:...With respect, I've lost 9st/55kg in weight based on this. Weight loss is 80-90% diet and you'll never lose a stack of weight 'just' be increasing your activity levels if you're still packing in the sugar (any carb). Atkins is not sustainable and I'd never recommend it, but look at the impact it had on weight for people that followed it. To do the same with a steady diet you'd have to be doing 2-3 hours of heavy exercise 5+ times a week, which again isn't actually that 'healthy' or sustainable due to the strain it puts on the body.
Well done you; that's pretty impressive. You're right, weight loss is mainly diet but it's still: more in than out = weight gain. You've lost weight because you put less in than you used up. Simple as that. Sugar is part of that. If you're someone who drinks/drank a lot of pop (a litre plus a day), cutting out the pop (sugar) is obviously going to lead to weight loss. To be clear, eating less refined sugar is a fine objective. This tax is scheiss though. It's neither steep enough, nor targets enough of the relevant foodstuffs. It doesn't target fructose (high fructose corn syrup) at all. When we have the sugar tax and obesity levels are still soaring, what will they wheel out next?
Your figures re. exercise and times per week are way out, assuming a sensible, balanced diet and exercise is simply not unhealthy, as you appear to be suggesting. You could sit on your arse, eat very little and maintain a good weight. You wouldn't be very healthy though.
Anyway, moving on, time will tell re. the sugar tax...

It isn't as simple as that though. It's about knowing how your body reacts to the different foods you put in it. As someone has already mentioned, sugar (particularly overly refined/processed) causes your insulin to spike and your body reacts negatively as a result, both in how in treats your current energy reserves and level but also how it 'tricks' your mind into decided what to put in next.

Fat doesn't cause your insulin to spike. Same as it doesn't cause diabetes. Whilst it is double the calories per gramme it is a lot easier to control and manage than sugars. Therefore saying you just need to burn more calories than you take on, regardless of the make up of that intake, is overly simplistic, unrealistic and unhelpful. Especially as it is near impossible to know how many calories you actually burn in a day.

My comments re exercise are not out at all, when in the context of losing weight. I wasn't talking about being in a healthy starting position and just maintaining it (which is what the '20-30 mins a day' is relevant to). Trust me, I've been there and I've done that. Reasonable exercise + poor diet = weight gain (or, at best, static weight). To drop weight WITH poor diet you have to be doing an absolute tonne of exercise. For example, 4 pints of lager equates to almost 1,000 kcals - this would take the average person over an hour of vigorous exercise to burn off. I weight a heafty 110kg still and it still took me 45 mins to burn off 800 kcals this morning before work, which meant an hour of actual gym floor time.

The sugar tax is balls but your understanding of diet, nutrition and exercise isn't that great either.

by Adam D Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:18 pm

Here is a more interactive and up to date graph of house prices:

https://www.allagents.co.uk/house-prices-from-1952/

In 1997, average house prices were circa £59k
By 2007 they had risen to circa £181k (roughly 300% and £120k)
By the time Labour lost power, they had fallen to £165k (negative equity for a huge number of people - lowest point was £156k roughly a 15% drop from the high). And lets not forget that this was all driven by the irresponsible lending allowed by Gordon Browns as Chancellor and PM.

When Osbourne took over in 2010 (at £165k) the house price in 6 years the house price now sits at £185k, roughly about a 12% increase and £20k increase.

So to come out and say that George has made it unaffordable is crazy. The damage hasn't been done in the last 6 years.

It was done from 1997 when GB allowed borrowing to facilitate the 300% house price increase.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:20 pm

Adam D wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
Regarding his saving money rubbish, this only applies to those that can afford to save money! The average person that rents or has a mortgage in the UK will not be able to take advantage of this, simply because their largest overhead (housing) has become so much more expensive since Osborne moved into No11. You know who will be able to take full advantage of this opportunity? The wealthy. The only people that Osborne gives a hoot about.

Historical house prices:

http://monevator.com/historical-uk-house-prices/

The huge growth in house prices started in 1997, What else happened in 1997?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_governments

That's right, Labour came into power.

When did house prices crash? Oh that's right, under Gordon Browns watch.

Interesting that you say that its apparently the Tories who have instigated the whole mortgage yourself to the hilt policy, when in actual fact it was the Labour Party (you know the party of the people) who made housing unfordable due their actions.

here endeth the lesson.

I never meant to say that this was solely the Tories' fault. This isn't about Labour vs. Conservative at all. Blair and Brown were irresponsible during their tenure in this regard and painful lessons were learned by many. The house price crash was only partially attributable to Brown though, and I think you're being unfair. The global crash was not Brown's or Labour's fault. However, they did nowhere near enough to increase the stock of affordable and council housing, hence the increases in price. The fact that Blair now has a £27m real estate portfolio after facilitating all of this says everything you need to know about that cockroach.

You failed to address my point that the lifetime ISA is just a tax break for the rich.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:22 pm

Would also note that, via his attack on the BTL market, Osbourne may well be decreasing house prices through BTLers dumping stock on the market in wake of the tax changes. Would really have bit if he hadn't balanced the 8% surcharge on residential gains to balance the reduction to 20% CGT....

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:23 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:So you're still saying people go through the cost and expense of remortgaging just to fund their spending?? I think you're peeing in the wind with that one (saying as someone who's done it twice).

I see you points (read them the other day too, manuscript of a Corbyn speech) I just disagree with them and think they're tenuous and desperate. You're original point was the Osbourne was 'pumping up the cost of housing' in order to inflate GDP. I don't think HE is pumping up the cost of housing, nor are his policies, and the link between them and GDP is very stretched.

Why else would somebody remortgage unless they were planning to spend the money? To save it? Put it into a bank account earning practically nothing and making a loss? Of course not. They'd spend the money, just like you did, on addition properties, renovations to their current property or anything they please.

The whole idea of remortgaging is to borrow money and gain spendable liquidity against the value of your property.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:24 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:Would also note that, via his attack on the BTL market, Osbourne may well be decreasing house prices through BTLers dumping stock on the market in wake of the tax changes. Would really have bit if he hadn't balanced the 8% surcharge on residential gains to balance the reduction to 20% CGT....

If he's serious about increasing home ownership and he doesn't plan to build new homes then BTL needs to be clamped down on.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:26 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
Adam D wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
Regarding his saving money rubbish, this only applies to those that can afford to save money! The average person that rents or has a mortgage in the UK will not be able to take advantage of this, simply because their largest overhead (housing) has become so much more expensive since Osborne moved into No11. You know who will be able to take full advantage of this opportunity? The wealthy. The only people that Osborne gives a hoot about.

Historical house prices:

http://monevator.com/historical-uk-house-prices/

The huge growth in house prices started in 1997, What else happened in 1997?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_governments

That's right, Labour came into power.

When did house prices crash? Oh that's right, under Gordon Browns watch.

Interesting that you say that its apparently the Tories who have instigated the whole mortgage yourself to the hilt policy, when in actual fact it was the Labour Party (you know the party of the people) who made housing unfordable due their actions.

here endeth the lesson.

I never meant to say that this was solely the Tories' fault. This isn't about Labour vs. Conservative at all. Blair and Brown were irresponsible during their tenure in this regard and painful lessons were learned by many. The house price crash was only partially attributable to Brown though, and I think you're being unfair. The global crash was not Brown's or Labour's fault. However, they did nowhere near enough to increase the stock of affordable and council housing, hence the increases in price. The fact that Blair now has a £27m real estate portfolio after facilitating all of this says everything you need to know about that cockroach.

You failed to address my point that the lifetime ISA is just a tax break for the rich.

Global crash can't be blame on Blair/Brown but when global slowdown hits the UK economy during Tory tenure it's ok to lash out at DC/Osbourne??

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:28 pm

Hoonercat wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Hoonercat wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:Reducing sugar intake is the most significant and important dietary & lifestyle change pretty much anyone can make.

Wasn't this known as far back as the 70's but covered up by the food companies putting pressure on the White House who then did the same to the WHO?
Doubt it. Sugar is calories, same as protein and fat. In actual fact, per gram, it's less calorie-dense than either lean protein or fat.
One thing with carbohydrate, low fat things (for example, yoghurts) are often bulked with carbohydrates instead of the fat. So they're not as low calorie as you might expect.

But AFAIK not all calories are equal, nor are all carbs. Carbs that are high in sugar cause spikes in blood sugar levels and contribute to weight gain, while complex carbs release slower so the body uses them at a more suitable rate. Athletes can manage a high carb diet with ease but your average Jo cannot, though carbs still should form part of the daily intake. Pro bodybuilders on their 'cutting' cut out as much carbs as possible for maximum fat loss.

All calories are equal, by definition. No-one (except diabetics) get spikes in blood sugar that aren't natural and they never go above a certain blood glucose level. The spikes, per se, contribute nothing to weight gain. If you eat a shedload of pasta or a shedload of table sugar, the effects re. weight gain are more or less identical. If you aren't burning the calories, no matter the source, you'll put on weight. Pasta calories don't magically become muscle while those from sucrose become lard. Athletes can manage a high sugar diet because they're simply burning it off. No more, no less. Bodybuilders are just reducing calories while pushing weight, therefore maintaining muscle at the expense of depleting adipose stores. The reduction of sugar isn't in any other way really significant.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:31 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:Would also note that, via his attack on the BTL market, Osbourne may well be decreasing house prices through BTLers dumping stock on the market in wake of the tax changes. Would really have bit if he hadn't balanced the 8% surcharge on residential gains to balance the reduction to 20% CGT....

If he's serious about increasing home ownership and he doesn't plan to build new homes then BTL needs to be clamped down on.

'clamped down on' Rolling Eyes

you make it sound like illegal drug trade or FGM, not people saving for their future FFS.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:34 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:So you're still saying people go through the cost and expense of remortgaging just to fund their spending?? I think you're peeing in the wind with that one (saying as someone who's done it twice).

I see you points (read them the other day too, manuscript of a Corbyn speech) I just disagree with them and think they're tenuous and desperate. You're original point was the Osbourne was 'pumping up the cost of housing' in order to inflate GDP. I don't think HE is pumping up the cost of housing, nor are his policies, and the link between them and GDP is very stretched.

Why else would somebody remortgage unless they were planning to spend the money? To save it? Put it into a bank account earning practically nothing and making a loss? Of course not. They'd spend the money, just like you did, on addition properties, renovations to their current property or anything they please.

The whole idea of remortgaging is to borrow money and gain spendable liquidity against the value of your property.

Ermmmmm......to invest it??

But no. Let's agree that mum's don't go to Iceland without popping into Barclays first for a cheeky remortgage... Rolling Eyes

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:34 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
Adam D wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
Regarding his saving money rubbish, this only applies to those that can afford to save money! The average person that rents or has a mortgage in the UK will not be able to take advantage of this, simply because their largest overhead (housing) has become so much more expensive since Osborne moved into No11. You know who will be able to take full advantage of this opportunity? The wealthy. The only people that Osborne gives a hoot about.

Historical house prices:

http://monevator.com/historical-uk-house-prices/

The huge growth in house prices started in 1997, What else happened in 1997?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_governments

That's right, Labour came into power.

When did house prices crash? Oh that's right, under Gordon Browns watch.

Interesting that you say that its apparently the Tories who have instigated the whole mortgage yourself to the hilt policy, when in actual fact it was the Labour Party (you know the party of the people) who made housing unfordable due their actions.

here endeth the lesson.

I never meant to say that this was solely the Tories' fault. This isn't about Labour vs. Conservative at all. Blair and Brown were irresponsible during their tenure in this regard and painful lessons were learned by many. The house price crash was only partially attributable to Brown though, and I think you're being unfair. The global crash was not Brown's or Labour's fault. However, they did nowhere near enough to increase the stock of affordable and council housing, hence the increases in price. The fact that Blair now has a £27m real estate portfolio after facilitating all of this says everything you need to know about that cockroach.

You failed to address my point that the lifetime ISA is just a tax break for the rich.

Global crash can't be blame on Blair/Brown but when global slowdown hits the UK economy during Tory tenure it's ok to lash out at DC/Osbourne??

If you take the time to read what I wrote, that's not what I said. Try again.

I said, Blair and Brown were irresponsible during their tenure but they're not solely to blame. They certainly made the problem worse than it would have been had they not gone so balls-out on property. Gideon is not solely to blame for the global slowdown but if, as expected, the UK goes into recession when the likes of the USA and many of our EU partners are still growing, then yes, that will mostly be down to Osborne's cuts.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:35 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:So you're still saying people go through the cost and expense of remortgaging just to fund their spending?? I think you're peeing in the wind with that one (saying as someone who's done it twice).

I see you points (read them the other day too, manuscript of a Corbyn speech) I just disagree with them and think they're tenuous and desperate. You're original point was the Osbourne was 'pumping up the cost of housing' in order to inflate GDP. I don't think HE is pumping up the cost of housing, nor are his policies, and the link between them and GDP is very stretched.

Why else would somebody remortgage unless they were planning to spend the money? To save it? Put it into a bank account earning practically nothing and making a loss? Of course not. They'd spend the money, just like you did, on addition properties, renovations to their current property or anything they please.

The whole idea of remortgaging is to borrow money and gain spendable liquidity against the value of your property.

Ermmmmm......to invest it??

But no. Let's agree that mum's don't go to Iceland without popping into Barclays first for a cheeky remortgage...

You don't know much about this, do you? Investing is spending. To invest in a new property, you need to pay the seller, pay the lawyers, pay the stamp duty, pay the agent. That is spending. Paying money for stuff, including property, is spending.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:40 pm

OMG, you really are making yourself look stupid and ignorant now. "When many of our EU partners are still growing" - who is that again??!!

We've outstripped every EU country by miles for the last few years and none look close to catching up, not even Germany. We've the strongest growth figures in the developed world, now that the Chinese wheels have fallen off the Oz economy.

But yes, your Tory-hate filled rhetoric means those lovely European socialists must definitely all be doing a better job. Let's ignore the flatlined GDP and massive unemployment stats......

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:42 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:So you're still saying people go through the cost and expense of remortgaging just to fund their spending?? I think you're peeing in the wind with that one (saying as someone who's done it twice).

I see you points (read them the other day too, manuscript of a Corbyn speech) I just disagree with them and think they're tenuous and desperate. You're original point was the Osbourne was 'pumping up the cost of housing' in order to inflate GDP. I don't think HE is pumping up the cost of housing, nor are his policies, and the link between them and GDP is very stretched.

Why else would somebody remortgage unless they were planning to spend the money? To save it? Put it into a bank account earning practically nothing and making a loss? Of course not. They'd spend the money, just like you did, on addition properties, renovations to their current property or anything they please.

The whole idea of remortgaging is to borrow money and gain spendable liquidity against the value of your property.

Ermmmmm......to invest it??

But no. Let's agree that mum's don't go to Iceland without popping into Barclays first for a cheeky remortgage...

You don't know much about this, do you? Investing is spending. To invest in a new property, you need to pay the seller, pay the lawyers, pay the stamp duty, pay the agent. That is spending. Paying money for stuff, including property, is spending.

I do know, because I've done it. Twice. And the biggest cost each time (save for the purchase price) was the SDLT. You're picking and choosing how to look at things to sustain your comment that Osbourne has deliberately inflated house prices to boost GDP.

by **superflyweight** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:42 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:...With respect, I've lost 9st/55kg in weight based on this. Weight loss is 80-90% diet and you'll never lose a stack of weight 'just' be increasing your activity levels if you're still packing in the sugar (any carb). Atkins is not sustainable and I'd never recommend it, but look at the impact it had on weight for people that followed it. To do the same with a steady diet you'd have to be doing 2-3 hours of heavy exercise 5+ times a week, which again isn't actually that 'healthy' or sustainable due to the strain it puts on the body.
Well done you; that's pretty impressive. You're right, weight loss is mainly diet but it's still: more in than out = weight gain. You've lost weight because you put less in than you used up. Simple as that. Sugar is part of that. If you're someone who drinks/drank a lot of pop (a litre plus a day), cutting out the pop (sugar) is obviously going to lead to weight loss. To be clear, eating less refined sugar is a fine objective. This tax is scheiss though. It's neither steep enough, nor targets enough of the relevant foodstuffs. It doesn't target fructose (high fructose corn syrup) at all. When we have the sugar tax and obesity levels are still soaring, what will they wheel out next?
Your figures re. exercise and times per week are way out, assuming a sensible, balanced diet and exercise is simply not unhealthy, as you appear to be suggesting. You could sit on your arse, eat very little and maintain a good weight. You wouldn't be very healthy though.
Anyway, moving on, time will tell re. the sugar tax...

It isn't as simple as that though. It's about knowing how your body reacts to the different foods you put in it. As someone has already mentioned, sugar (particularly overly refined/processed) causes your insulin to spike and your body reacts negatively as a result, both in how in treats your current energy reserves and level but also how it 'tricks' your mind into decided what to put in next.

Fat doesn't cause your insulin to spike. Same as it doesn't cause diabetes. Whilst it is double the calories per gramme it is a lot easier to control and manage than sugars. Therefore saying you just need to burn more calories than you take on, regardless of the make up of that intake, is overly simplistic, unrealistic and unhelpful. Especially as it is near impossible to know how many calories you actually burn in a day.

My comments re exercise are not out at all, when in the context of losing weight. I wasn't talking about being in a healthy starting position and just maintaining it (which is what the '20-30 mins a day' is relevant to). Trust me, I've been there and I've done that. Reasonable exercise + poor diet = weight gain (or, at best, static weight). To drop weight WITH poor diet you have to be doing an absolute tonne of exercise. For example, 4 pints of lager equates to almost 1,000 kcals - this would take the average person over an hour of vigorous exercise to burn off. I weight a heafty 110kg still and it still took me 45 mins to burn off 800 kcals this morning before work, which meant an hour of actual gym floor time.

The sugar tax is balls but your understanding of diet, nutrition and exercise isn't that great either.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:46 pm

No word about the USA then? The same USA who have, by far, the strongest growth figures in the developed world? No, thought not.

We've outgrown Germany by an average of 0.1% over the last 12 months, hardly something to boast about. The difference is that Germany hasn't been selling off the family silver and slashing and burning their public services like we have. I like their prospects more than the UK's. By selling the UK's assets and cutting so quickly, all Osborne has done is put a small plaster over a massive wound.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:48 pm

Jesus H Christ, you struggle with reading.

I never said that Osborne (note the spelling of your master's name) had deliberately inflated house prices. Have a read, please. He has failed to control them and has relied on them to sustain his "growth".

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:52 pm

Pr4wn wrote:No word about the USA then? The same USA who have, by far, the strongest growth figures in the developed world? No, thought not.

We've outgrown Germany by an average of 0.1% over the last 12 months, hardly something to boast about. The difference is that Germany hasn't been selling off the family silver and slashing and burning their public services like we have. I like their prospects more than the UK's. By selling the UK's assets and cutting so quickly, all Osborne has done is put a small plaster over a massive wound.

Sorry, thought that was obvious. We've performed roughly on a par, I believe, and currently are forecasted to outperform.

That mean you've given up on your stupid EU comment then??

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 2:57 pm

Pr4wn wrote:Jesus H Christ, you struggle with reading.

I never said that Osborne (note the spelling of your master's name) had deliberately inflated house prices. Have a read, please. He has failed to control them and has relied on them to sustain his "growth".

Pr4wn wrote:The irony or encouraging the young to save while pumping up the cost of housing in order to put out hollow GDP numbers.

Sorry, please explain how in a thread about the budget and following comments about Osbourne encouraging saving, the above WASN'T you saying Osbourne had deliberately inflated house prices?? Noting that your exact phrase was 'pumping up the cost of housing' which can only refer to prices given that no other costs have gone up (in fact, the other major cost of housing is SDLT, which Osbourne has REDUCED for everyone but the richest).

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 3:01 pm

Acknowledged, I misspoke! Very Happy

Rather, he has failed to control the price of housing, particularly in London. By not building more council housing and forcing housing associations to sell off their stock to landlords, you could argue that this is deliberately corrosive.

I like Germany's prospects far more than the UK's, especially if the UK votes to leave the EU.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 3:05 pm

Pr4wn wrote:No word about the USA then? The same USA who have, by far, the strongest growth figures in the developed world? No, thought not.

We've outgrown Germany by an average of 0.1% over the last 12 months, hardly something to boast about. The difference is that Germany hasn't been selling off the family silver and slashing and burning their public services like we have. I like their prospects more than the UK's. By selling the UK's assets and cutting so quickly, all Osborne has done is put a small plaster over a massive wound.

By far? The World Bank (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG) didn't seem to have 2015 figures, but for 2012-2014:

UK 2.10%
US 2.30%
France 0.37%
Germany 0.76%
Italy -1.64%
Spain -0.98%

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 3:11 pm

Pr4wn wrote:Acknowledged, I misspoke!

Rather, he has failed to control the price of housing, particularly in London. By not building more council housing and forcing housing associations to sell off their stock to landlords, you could argue that this is deliberately corrosive.

I like Germany's prospects far more than the UK's, especially if the UK votes to leave the EU.

Have they? How would that work??

I prefer the German economy to the UK's in many ways, but let's not outright lie about outperformance.

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 17 Mar 2016, 3:14 pm

It's a very Conservative budget isn't it?
More tax cuts for the rich, while the disabled get their benefits slashed.

Fuel duty frozen again, despite fuel prices already being ridiculously low, while green subsidies take a pounding, despite talk of "greenest government ever" and recent studies showing that investment in renewable energies had actually helped reduce carbon emissions... Oh, and of course Osborne's helping out the oil companies at the same time

Osborne has missed most of his targets, the only one he's still just about on course to meet is the surplus one, but even there he's struggling, will require bigger cuts and possibly tax raises in the run-up to the election, not sure Osborne will want to risk those...

Cutting Corporation tax is silly and unnecessary, and the slashing of capital gains tax a nice little gift to the rich, but there are some decent ideas in there.

Changing the thresholds for rate relief to help smaller businesses is a good thing, the sugar tax is a good idea albeit poorly and inconsistently implemented. I don't mind the idea of turning schools into academies (my brother teaches in one and is full of praise for the system) albeit it seems completely underfunded.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 3:26 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:No word about the USA then? The same USA who have, by far, the strongest growth figures in the developed world? No, thought not.

We've outgrown Germany by an average of 0.1% over the last 12 months, hardly something to boast about. The difference is that Germany hasn't been selling off the family silver and slashing and burning their public services like we have. I like their prospects more than the UK's. By selling the UK's assets and cutting so quickly, all Osborne has done is put a small plaster over a massive wound.

By far? The World Bank (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG) didn't seem to have 2015 figures, but for 2012-2014:

UK 2.10%
US 2.30%
France 0.37%
Germany 0.76%
Italy -1.64%
Spain -0.98%

UK GDP here: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

USA GDP here: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 3:27 pm

Some pretty broad definitions on 'rich' going on.....

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 3:29 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Acknowledged, I misspoke!

Rather, he has failed to control the price of housing, particularly in London. By not building more council housing and forcing housing associations to sell off their stock to landlords, you could argue that this is deliberately corrosive.

I like Germany's prospects far more than the UK's, especially if the UK votes to leave the EU.

Have they? How would that work??

I prefer the German economy to the UK's in many ways, but let's not outright lie about outperformance.

Some details of the housing association policy can be found here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/14/tory-housing-association-right-to-buy-policy-attacked-big-business

Germany has had it worse than the UK recently but for me at least, their prospects look better. Their state has more assets and their public services (including education) are far superior to those of the UK, which appear to be deteriorating.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 17 Mar 2016, 3:31 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:No word about the USA then? The same USA who have, by far, the strongest growth figures in the developed world? No, thought not.

We've outgrown Germany by an average of 0.1% over the last 12 months, hardly something to boast about. The difference is that Germany hasn't been selling off the family silver and slashing and burning their public services like we have. I like their prospects more than the UK's. By selling the UK's assets and cutting so quickly, all Osborne has done is put a small plaster over a massive wound.

By far? The World Bank (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG) didn't seem to have 2015 figures, but for 2012-2014:

UK 2.10%
US 2.30%
France 0.37%
Germany 0.76%
Italy -1.64%
Spain -0.98%

UK GDP here: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

USA GDP here: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Problem with those is the US reports Y-on-Y figures quarterly whereas the UK is q-on-q reportedly.

Ergo can't really compare like for like at a glance.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Mar 2016, 3:31 pm

Osborne getting slammed by the IFS already: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/17/budget-2016-ifs-savages-osborne-tax-claims-as-rhetorical-nonsense

by Sponsored content