Jack Monroe #585 Zak Dingle The Early Years
- Thread starter witchofwestbyfleet
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jack monroe
- Status
1
ThePickledCrab
Active member
Are those smaller charities called "Jack Monroe" eh Jack?
Onestorytoomany
VIP Member
I wonder if she has went down to the office all waif like and wailing like a haunted coat rack complaining about the ebil man who just wants to know why she dicked him around and that she has resorted to deleting her rubbish memes on facebook and everyone in the room thanked her for all she does and said they tell the world how much sounthend labour loves her! Honestly she is embarassing!
YerDa
VIP Member
I bet that’s exactly what happened, the transparent scamming narc.
ThePickledCrab
Active member
Have we established that she is still 'working' at the office? After she single-handedly won the election for Labour, I thought that was her job done?
YerDa
VIP Member
The Conservative Councillor has said on Twitter that she’s been in the publicly-accessible area of the Council Chambers, and been seen chatting to the Council members before meetings and during the breaks.
I reckon Carp Man’s being trashed all over Southend to save the Grifter’s reputation.
Valiofthedolls
VIP Member
1. Preferably send me your money,
2. If you can’t afford to do that, blow smoke up my arse and tell me how wonderful I am even though I probably won’t read it.
3. Preferably do 2. in public though so other people can read how wonderful I am.
Rinse, repeat.
HansThatDoDishes
Chatty Member
To add to the VBI timeline, there's also this talk from March 2023 on a UCL podcast where they ask her about the VBI, a year late, I'll spoiler the relevant extract because long but also SHE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT THE VBI ACTUALLY IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. And they just let her waffle and don't revisit their question (the wider interview is a classic, literally brings out all her greatest hits, bench pressing the queen poor kid at school etc, but I'll just insert the 'answer' to the vbi question here)
www.ucl.ac.uk
Transcript for Cost of Living Crisis podcast
In this episode, Prof Sir Michael Marmot and Jack Monroe explain why there are health inequalities in our society and how the cost-of-living crisis disproportionally affects people on lower incomes.
We recently read about your Vimes Boots Index, which is. really cool. And I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about that and what that is and, and how it works and where it's come from.
Jack: Yeah so it's called Vimes Boots Theory of, um, socioeconomics, and it's from a Terry Pratchett book. Um, and the, uh, there's a, there's a character in there, commander Sam Vimes. He's a bit of a, sort of a, a gnarly kind of anti-hero really. Um, but he's got, um, it says the reason that the rich was so rich Vimes reasoned was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned $38 a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots, cost $50, but an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of okay for a seasonal or two, and then leaks like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about $10. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought and wore until the souls were so thin that he could tell where he was on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
The thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford $50 had a pair of boots that would still be keeping his feet dry in 10 years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would've spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
And this was the Captain Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness. Now I remember first reading that, um, it's a early, early on in secondary school, so it must have been about 12 or 13. And I was the poor kid at the grammar school. Basically I'd got there by the skin of my teeth and um, and because I'd had two parents who were adamant that I would do something with myself and have opportunities that they themselves didn't have, and, and so I got into a school that was full of people who were not like me. And, um, and so I, I stood out a mile in and I, I was very much like, you know, I didn't have the things that my friends and my peers had, and the things that I had didn't last as well. And they didn't, they didn't work as well, my tights would rip, my shoes would wear through my, the strap on my bag would break.
Um, and. and it sort of, it was the first time that inequality had ever been sort of explained to me in such stark terms that actually those who have less are constantly having to replace it and replenish it. And, and, and the people who can afford to buy good quality things, the people who've got that tiny bit of extra money to invest need only need to buy things once and they've got them for their whole school, their whole school period.
I've referenced it a few times in, in, in sort of parliamentary, um, discussions and inquiries. I, I used it in the Feeding Britain inquiry of Frank Field in 2013. Um, I've used it, um, when speaking to Henry Dimbleby for the school food plan, um, a good few years ago cuz I've always brought come back to it as being a very simple and stark way to explain that people who have more will always have more and people who have less will always have less. And the disproportionate amount of income that people spend when they've got less on the things that other people can take for granted. Um, and that really, um came to the fore about a year ago when I was lying in bed. And I've got an alarm clock radio and I used to have it set to radio four in the mornings because nothing makes me barrel out of bed faster than a dirge of terrible news headlines at six o'clock in the morning to turn it off.
And then I'm up and I'm furious. I'm energized for the day. Um, , it was, the inflation statistics had come in and it was saying that like headline inflation was somewhere around 5, 6%, um, for an average basket of goods at the supermarket.
I was like, that does not chime with my experience at supermarket. And it's certainly not true of the experiences of the food banks that I work with who've seen the prices of basics shoot up. Um, and they know that more starkly than most because they buy those things in bulk for the, their food bank parcels. And, uh, and the more expensive a can of tomatoes or a can of basic beans is, or a can of sardines, the fewer food parcels they can put together. So the fewer people they can help. So I went through boxes of old supermarket receipts from a bit of a hoarder, and I knew they'd come in handy one day, and started to compare the prices of food products at the supermarket from one, two years ago to the prices of them now.
And there were some items that had gone up in price by 344%. And I thought, okay, so my data's a little bit skewed because I've only got my local supermarket to go on cuz these are my receipts. So I did a bit of a, um, I did a bit of a call for sort of crowdsourced information and I asked people to send me their receipts and say, oh, I think we need a new food pricing index that adequately reflects how the people at the sharper end of, um, the lower income deciles, not a term that I ever knew before I started working with the ONS by the way Now I find myself saying it. People who have sort of the lowest incomes suspend a disproportionate amount of, of those incomes on food and on fuel and on housing costs. So when one of those things goes up, and as we've actually seen now, all of those things have gone up, the margin for error is non-existent.
If, if there's no 29p pasta at the supermarket, if you are on the tightest and most stringent of budgets, you don't buy the 80 p pasta because you disproportionately chew a greater amount out of your budget. You just don't buy the pasta and you're constantly having to, you're standing in the supermarket and I've done it myself many, many, many times, having to suddenly juggle, dynamically juggle the contents of a shopping basket where everything looks the same because it's in the same homogenous library of the basics range trying to go, well, if I take that away, does this all still balance?
Will my kid eat it? Will I, can I make a meal out of this? Can I do this? Well that, oh, that's my carbohydrate element. Is there another one that's cheap more stuffing mix? I wonder what I could do with stuffing mix cuz it's only 15 p and it and you suddenly standing there trying to like redesign your entire weekly menu while having a panic, while feeling a little bit upset while sort of raging against the system that's sort of put you there in the first place. Um, with a kid in tow saying, mom can close a chocolate, close some Chris a magazine. No, no, no, we haven't got the money. It's exhausting. It's so stressful. And, um, and it's so at odds with the headlines of certain newspapers that paint people who are on benefits or low incomes as just sitting at home all day in tracksuits watching trash television, um, getting fat off the taxpayer.
Actually, I dunno, a single human being who lives like that and I'm very, very glad Sir Michael Marmot raised the spectrum of austerity because this cost-of-living crisis has been treated by the media as though it has fallen outta a clear blue sky. Like it's a complete shock. Like, oh, oh, no, look, everyone's, everyone's struggling now. We're suffering now. And I think the reason that it's made such, um, headline news is because it no longer affects a sort of an invisible class of people who don't have recourse to the media and whose voices tend not to be raised in old media platforms.
Now it's affecting the friends of the, of the media elites and people that they know, or people they might have gone to school with or people who live in their neighbourhoods. It's suddenly become a problem and a problem that is being widely discussed.
The services that were put in place in order to assist people who were, um, were struggling financially, um, are, have been decimated from benefits to the child benefit cap to which is so disproportionately applied as to be laughable, um, to, you know, the two-child limit on tax credits to the cuts to services. So cuts to social services, cuts to health and social care, the entire dismantling of the NHS in order to justify the private healthcare. We, um, so when people find themselves in difficulty now there's the places where they could have gone for a little bit of help no longer exist. And that's how we've ended up in, in the scale of the crisis that we have.
So what we have now is we have a sort of an underground subterranean ana welfare safety net that sits underneath what used to be the welfare safety net. So we've got this patchwork of community organizations and food banks and fuel banks and baby banks and bed banks and, and organizations that help people out with sort of short term loans or, or short term or just, you know, cash bonds when they need to fill a hole, um, that shouldn't exist in the first place. It's an absolute disgrace. that that need is there in the first place and that that need is reliant on people who don't, people who don't have very much themselves.
And it's a patchwork postcode lottery so there are millions of people who are not getting the help that they need, and um, and the long term impacts of that on health and social care and on the justice system and on education are going to be something that we will not really understand for decades to come.
Jack: Yeah so it's called Vimes Boots Theory of, um, socioeconomics, and it's from a Terry Pratchett book. Um, and the, uh, there's a, there's a character in there, commander Sam Vimes. He's a bit of a, sort of a, a gnarly kind of anti-hero really. Um, but he's got, um, it says the reason that the rich was so rich Vimes reasoned was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned $38 a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots, cost $50, but an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of okay for a seasonal or two, and then leaks like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about $10. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought and wore until the souls were so thin that he could tell where he was on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
The thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford $50 had a pair of boots that would still be keeping his feet dry in 10 years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would've spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
And this was the Captain Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness. Now I remember first reading that, um, it's a early, early on in secondary school, so it must have been about 12 or 13. And I was the poor kid at the grammar school. Basically I'd got there by the skin of my teeth and um, and because I'd had two parents who were adamant that I would do something with myself and have opportunities that they themselves didn't have, and, and so I got into a school that was full of people who were not like me. And, um, and so I, I stood out a mile in and I, I was very much like, you know, I didn't have the things that my friends and my peers had, and the things that I had didn't last as well. And they didn't, they didn't work as well, my tights would rip, my shoes would wear through my, the strap on my bag would break.
Um, and. and it sort of, it was the first time that inequality had ever been sort of explained to me in such stark terms that actually those who have less are constantly having to replace it and replenish it. And, and, and the people who can afford to buy good quality things, the people who've got that tiny bit of extra money to invest need only need to buy things once and they've got them for their whole school, their whole school period.
I've referenced it a few times in, in, in sort of parliamentary, um, discussions and inquiries. I, I used it in the Feeding Britain inquiry of Frank Field in 2013. Um, I've used it, um, when speaking to Henry Dimbleby for the school food plan, um, a good few years ago cuz I've always brought come back to it as being a very simple and stark way to explain that people who have more will always have more and people who have less will always have less. And the disproportionate amount of income that people spend when they've got less on the things that other people can take for granted. Um, and that really, um came to the fore about a year ago when I was lying in bed. And I've got an alarm clock radio and I used to have it set to radio four in the mornings because nothing makes me barrel out of bed faster than a dirge of terrible news headlines at six o'clock in the morning to turn it off.
And then I'm up and I'm furious. I'm energized for the day. Um, , it was, the inflation statistics had come in and it was saying that like headline inflation was somewhere around 5, 6%, um, for an average basket of goods at the supermarket.
I was like, that does not chime with my experience at supermarket. And it's certainly not true of the experiences of the food banks that I work with who've seen the prices of basics shoot up. Um, and they know that more starkly than most because they buy those things in bulk for the, their food bank parcels. And, uh, and the more expensive a can of tomatoes or a can of basic beans is, or a can of sardines, the fewer food parcels they can put together. So the fewer people they can help. So I went through boxes of old supermarket receipts from a bit of a hoarder, and I knew they'd come in handy one day, and started to compare the prices of food products at the supermarket from one, two years ago to the prices of them now.
And there were some items that had gone up in price by 344%. And I thought, okay, so my data's a little bit skewed because I've only got my local supermarket to go on cuz these are my receipts. So I did a bit of a, um, I did a bit of a call for sort of crowdsourced information and I asked people to send me their receipts and say, oh, I think we need a new food pricing index that adequately reflects how the people at the sharper end of, um, the lower income deciles, not a term that I ever knew before I started working with the ONS by the way Now I find myself saying it. People who have sort of the lowest incomes suspend a disproportionate amount of, of those incomes on food and on fuel and on housing costs. So when one of those things goes up, and as we've actually seen now, all of those things have gone up, the margin for error is non-existent.
If, if there's no 29p pasta at the supermarket, if you are on the tightest and most stringent of budgets, you don't buy the 80 p pasta because you disproportionately chew a greater amount out of your budget. You just don't buy the pasta and you're constantly having to, you're standing in the supermarket and I've done it myself many, many, many times, having to suddenly juggle, dynamically juggle the contents of a shopping basket where everything looks the same because it's in the same homogenous library of the basics range trying to go, well, if I take that away, does this all still balance?
Will my kid eat it? Will I, can I make a meal out of this? Can I do this? Well that, oh, that's my carbohydrate element. Is there another one that's cheap more stuffing mix? I wonder what I could do with stuffing mix cuz it's only 15 p and it and you suddenly standing there trying to like redesign your entire weekly menu while having a panic, while feeling a little bit upset while sort of raging against the system that's sort of put you there in the first place. Um, with a kid in tow saying, mom can close a chocolate, close some Chris a magazine. No, no, no, we haven't got the money. It's exhausting. It's so stressful. And, um, and it's so at odds with the headlines of certain newspapers that paint people who are on benefits or low incomes as just sitting at home all day in tracksuits watching trash television, um, getting fat off the taxpayer.
Actually, I dunno, a single human being who lives like that and I'm very, very glad Sir Michael Marmot raised the spectrum of austerity because this cost-of-living crisis has been treated by the media as though it has fallen outta a clear blue sky. Like it's a complete shock. Like, oh, oh, no, look, everyone's, everyone's struggling now. We're suffering now. And I think the reason that it's made such, um, headline news is because it no longer affects a sort of an invisible class of people who don't have recourse to the media and whose voices tend not to be raised in old media platforms.
Now it's affecting the friends of the, of the media elites and people that they know, or people they might have gone to school with or people who live in their neighbourhoods. It's suddenly become a problem and a problem that is being widely discussed.
The services that were put in place in order to assist people who were, um, were struggling financially, um, are, have been decimated from benefits to the child benefit cap to which is so disproportionately applied as to be laughable, um, to, you know, the two-child limit on tax credits to the cuts to services. So cuts to social services, cuts to health and social care, the entire dismantling of the NHS in order to justify the private healthcare. We, um, so when people find themselves in difficulty now there's the places where they could have gone for a little bit of help no longer exist. And that's how we've ended up in, in the scale of the crisis that we have.
So what we have now is we have a sort of an underground subterranean ana welfare safety net that sits underneath what used to be the welfare safety net. So we've got this patchwork of community organizations and food banks and fuel banks and baby banks and bed banks and, and organizations that help people out with sort of short term loans or, or short term or just, you know, cash bonds when they need to fill a hole, um, that shouldn't exist in the first place. It's an absolute disgrace. that that need is there in the first place and that that need is reliant on people who don't, people who don't have very much themselves.
And it's a patchwork postcode lottery so there are millions of people who are not getting the help that they need, and um, and the long term impacts of that on health and social care and on the justice system and on education are going to be something that we will not really understand for decades to come.
BeardyBap
VIP Member
That bleeping enabler Rhianna Pratchett!
Yes, that’s the Discworld heiress saying that Monroe gives “us” comfort that “we” are not alone
MurielSnark
VIP Member
Rhianna has gone very very quiet now though.That bleeping enabler Rhianna Pratchett!
View attachment 3080079 q
Yes, that’s the Discworld heiress saying that Monroe gives “us” comfort that “we” are not alone
YerDa
VIP Member
If only there was a renowned satirical novelist who could write a set of seminal works on the topic which would alert the public to the Grift. It could be called Dickworld.
Seaford Haggington
VIP Member
It depends on how much total income she has in each tax year. Some of it might be in an ISA so that part will not be subject to tax.
SouthendRealEstate
VIP Member
“Thief of (All) Time”
Valiofthedolls
VIP Member
bleeping hell what a massive compulsive liar she is.To add to the VBI timeline, there's also this talk from March 2023 on a UCL podcast where they ask her about the VBI, a year late, I'll spoiler the relevant extract because long but also SHE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT THE VBI ACTUALLY IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. And they just let her waffle and don't revisit their question (the wider interview is a classic, literally brings out all her greatest hits, bench pressing the queen poor kid at school etc, but I'll just insert the 'answer' to the vbi question here)
Transcript for Cost of Living Crisis podcast
In this episode, Prof Sir Michael Marmot and Jack Monroe explain why there are health inequalities in our society and how the cost-of-living crisis disproportionally affects people on lower incomes.
We recently read about your Vimes Boots Index, which is. really cool. And I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about that and what that is and, and how it works and where it's come from.
Jack: Yeah so it's called Vimes Boots Theory of, um, socioeconomics, and it's from a Terry Pratchett book. Um, and the, uh, there's a, there's a character in there, commander Sam Vimes. He's a bit of a, sort of a, a gnarly kind of anti-hero really. Um, but he's got, um, it says the reason that the rich was so rich Vimes reasoned was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned $38 a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots, cost $50, but an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of okay for a seasonal or two, and then leaks like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about $10. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought and wore until the souls were so thin that he could tell where he was on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
The thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford $50 had a pair of boots that would still be keeping his feet dry in 10 years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would've spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
And this was the Captain Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness. Now I remember first reading that, um, it's a early, early on in secondary school, so it must have been about 12 or 13. And I was the poor kid at the grammar school. Basically I'd got there by the skin of my teeth and um, and because I'd had two parents who were adamant that I would do something with myself and have opportunities that they themselves didn't have, and, and so I got into a school that was full of people who were not like me. And, um, and so I, I stood out a mile in and I, I was very much like, you know, I didn't have the things that my friends and my peers had, and the things that I had didn't last as well. And they didn't, they didn't work as well, my tights would rip, my shoes would wear through my, the strap on my bag would break.
Um, and. and it sort of, it was the first time that inequality had ever been sort of explained to me in such stark terms that actually those who have less are constantly having to replace it and replenish it. And, and, and the people who can afford to buy good quality things, the people who've got that tiny bit of extra money to invest need only need to buy things once and they've got them for their whole school, their whole school period.
I've referenced it a few times in, in, in sort of parliamentary, um, discussions and inquiries. I, I used it in the Feeding Britain inquiry of Frank Field in 2013. Um, I've used it, um, when speaking to Henry Dimbleby for the school food plan, um, a good few years ago cuz I've always brought come back to it as being a very simple and stark way to explain that people who have more will always have more and people who have less will always have less. And the disproportionate amount of income that people spend when they've got less on the things that other people can take for granted. Um, and that really, um came to the fore about a year ago when I was lying in bed. And I've got an alarm clock radio and I used to have it set to radio four in the mornings because nothing makes me barrel out of bed faster than a dirge of terrible news headlines at six o'clock in the morning to turn it off.
And then I'm up and I'm furious. I'm energized for the day. Um, , it was, the inflation statistics had come in and it was saying that like headline inflation was somewhere around 5, 6%, um, for an average basket of goods at the supermarket.
I was like, that does not chime with my experience at supermarket. And it's certainly not true of the experiences of the food banks that I work with who've seen the prices of basics shoot up. Um, and they know that more starkly than most because they buy those things in bulk for the, their food bank parcels. And, uh, and the more expensive a can of tomatoes or a can of basic beans is, or a can of sardines, the fewer food parcels they can put together. So the fewer people they can help. So I went through boxes of old supermarket receipts from a bit of a hoarder, and I knew they'd come in handy one day, and started to compare the prices of food products at the supermarket from one, two years ago to the prices of them now.
And there were some items that had gone up in price by 344%. And I thought, okay, so my data's a little bit skewed because I've only got my local supermarket to go on cuz these are my receipts. So I did a bit of a, um, I did a bit of a call for sort of crowdsourced information and I asked people to send me their receipts and say, oh, I think we need a new food pricing index that adequately reflects how the people at the sharper end of, um, the lower income deciles, not a term that I ever knew before I started working with the ONS by the way Now I find myself saying it. People who have sort of the lowest incomes suspend a disproportionate amount of, of those incomes on food and on fuel and on housing costs. So when one of those things goes up, and as we've actually seen now, all of those things have gone up, the margin for error is non-existent.
If, if there's no 29p pasta at the supermarket, if you are on the tightest and most stringent of budgets, you don't buy the 80 p pasta because you disproportionately chew a greater amount out of your budget. You just don't buy the pasta and you're constantly having to, you're standing in the supermarket and I've done it myself many, many, many times, having to suddenly juggle, dynamically juggle the contents of a shopping basket where everything looks the same because it's in the same homogenous library of the basics range trying to go, well, if I take that away, does this all still balance?
Will my kid eat it? Will I, can I make a meal out of this? Can I do this? Well that, oh, that's my carbohydrate element. Is there another one that's cheap more stuffing mix? I wonder what I could do with stuffing mix cuz it's only 15 p and it and you suddenly standing there trying to like redesign your entire weekly menu while having a panic, while feeling a little bit upset while sort of raging against the system that's sort of put you there in the first place. Um, with a kid in tow saying, mom can close a chocolate, close some Chris a magazine. No, no, no, we haven't got the money. It's exhausting. It's so stressful. And, um, and it's so at odds with the headlines of certain newspapers that paint people who are on benefits or low incomes as just sitting at home all day in tracksuits watching trash television, um, getting fat off the taxpayer.
Actually, I dunno, a single human being who lives like that and I'm very, very glad Sir Michael Marmot raised the spectrum of austerity because this cost-of-living crisis has been treated by the media as though it has fallen outta a clear blue sky. Like it's a complete shock. Like, oh, oh, no, look, everyone's, everyone's struggling now. We're suffering now. And I think the reason that it's made such, um, headline news is because it no longer affects a sort of an invisible class of people who don't have recourse to the media and whose voices tend not to be raised in old media platforms.
Now it's affecting the friends of the, of the media elites and people that they know, or people they might have gone to school with or people who live in their neighbourhoods. It's suddenly become a problem and a problem that is being widely discussed.
The services that were put in place in order to assist people who were, um, were struggling financially, um, are, have been decimated from benefits to the child benefit cap to which is so disproportionately applied as to be laughable, um, to, you know, the two-child limit on tax credits to the cuts to services. So cuts to social services, cuts to health and social care, the entire dismantling of the NHS in order to justify the private healthcare. We, um, so when people find themselves in difficulty now there's the places where they could have gone for a little bit of help no longer exist. And that's how we've ended up in, in the scale of the crisis that we have.
So what we have now is we have a sort of an underground subterranean ana welfare safety net that sits underneath what used to be the welfare safety net. So we've got this patchwork of community organizations and food banks and fuel banks and baby banks and bed banks and, and organizations that help people out with sort of short term loans or, or short term or just, you know, cash bonds when they need to fill a hole, um, that shouldn't exist in the first place. It's an absolute disgrace. that that need is there in the first place and that that need is reliant on people who don't, people who don't have very much themselves.
And it's a patchwork postcode lottery so there are millions of people who are not getting the help that they need, and um, and the long term impacts of that on health and social care and on the justice system and on education are going to be something that we will not really understand for decades to come.
The skin of your teeth, or you did sooooo marvelously well in the exam your Mummy still had the letter saying how clever you were 15 years later?
And your parents were adamant you’d have opportunities they didn’t have even though your Daddy also went to Westcliff High School, but for Boys (1974-1979) and says he has a BA?
Last edited:
YerDa
VIP Member
“Making Money (from the poors)”
Seaford Haggington
VIP Member
That's a lot of words for her to say she had a tutor for the 11+.
KebabGirl
VIP Member
The money for the flat. £170k at 4.5% yields £6.8k interest a year.
Now, I do wonder if Jack has been schooled by family & friends on finance things after the poverty era. If she had any sense, that money would be siphoned into ISA / LISA type accounts to be perfect for a deposit or whole purchase. In which case the tax is zero.
Interest rates have rocketed in the last 4 years for savers and borrowers. In 2019, you'd be struggling to get much over 1% for savings without there being risk attached. But! There are always "lock away" accounts, where you can't access the funds for x years and they pay more interest. If anyone in her life persuaded her to put 10-20% of income into one, then it would increase well, compound interest is your friend here.
Time lines. She moved into the bungalow in 2019, initially on a 2 year deal I believe. It was repeatedly described as her penultimate address before buying a forever home with LJC. Did she have this nest egg building for 3 years before going to the bank for the mortgage interview? Ties in quite nicely. When she was turned down, did she think hmm, knuckle down for 2 years and buy in cash?
I follow the 4% rule logic: to live with no job, you need to have 25 times your annual outgoings invested at 4-7% (to cater for inflation) so you live off 4% a year. That way you never run out of money. I would think her parents are probably following a similar strategy and Jack could be trying to emulate the concept. I would guess the delays have been because Grifty Kitchen tanked. Another guess the advance was lower so she thought royalties would arrive sooner.
All speculation though!
Now, I do wonder if Jack has been schooled by family & friends on finance things after the poverty era. If she had any sense, that money would be siphoned into ISA / LISA type accounts to be perfect for a deposit or whole purchase. In which case the tax is zero.
Interest rates have rocketed in the last 4 years for savers and borrowers. In 2019, you'd be struggling to get much over 1% for savings without there being risk attached. But! There are always "lock away" accounts, where you can't access the funds for x years and they pay more interest. If anyone in her life persuaded her to put 10-20% of income into one, then it would increase well, compound interest is your friend here.
Time lines. She moved into the bungalow in 2019, initially on a 2 year deal I believe. It was repeatedly described as her penultimate address before buying a forever home with LJC. Did she have this nest egg building for 3 years before going to the bank for the mortgage interview? Ties in quite nicely. When she was turned down, did she think hmm, knuckle down for 2 years and buy in cash?
I follow the 4% rule logic: to live with no job, you need to have 25 times your annual outgoings invested at 4-7% (to cater for inflation) so you live off 4% a year. That way you never run out of money. I would think her parents are probably following a similar strategy and Jack could be trying to emulate the concept. I would guess the delays have been because Grifty Kitchen tanked. Another guess the advance was lower so she thought royalties would arrive sooner.
All speculation though!
Valiofthedolls
VIP Member
Ooooh! Tomorrow is the 12th anniversary of original bread and jam bullshit Hunger Hurts
The 11th anniversary of Hunger (Still) Hurts 2
The 4 year anniversary of major histrionics and demonstrably bollocks-filled bullshit Potatoes
and on 31st (cos she forgot until she read it here) it’s the 2 year anniversary of Hunger Hurts when you tank your “career” with one Victorian melodrama of bullshit too far in a Crater of Charred Fragments. Funnily enough, the only one she’s obliterated from her blog.
Come on, guest. You know you want to…
The 11th anniversary of Hunger (Still) Hurts 2
The 4 year anniversary of major histrionics and demonstrably bollocks-filled bullshit Potatoes
Come on, guest. You know you want to…
- Status